A friend asked me to review an article in “The American Thinker” that was critical of what is called the UN “Agenda 21”, a blueprint for “sustainable” communities.
Now, we live in a very rural community which has seen quite a battle with farmers and folks living in simple, rough conditions being squeezed out of areas that are now considered (through sometimes convaluted analysis) environmentally sensitive. This is considered a “Taking” of private property.
Large foundations in our area have donated huge financial grants to study and restrict such things as gardening or cutting firewood in areas that have traditionally been used for that purpose. This has concerned many in our community as well as thousands of similar rural lands across the U.S.
However, the “Black Helicopter Crowd” has latched on to this, with state officials, mostly in the south going for their muskets and powder to keep the UN out.
So after doing a couple of hours of research, I wrote my friend back with a mixed bag of assurances and concerns:
Well, I spent a lot of time this morning studying this.
First, I suspected that “The American Thinker” was the re-incarnation of the old John Birch Society’s “American Opinion.
I was wrong, and even found an editorial by editor Dunn of American Thinker that was critical of the Birchers.
They are however connected through their editorial staff to some pretty fringe right thought and publications.
As concerned about the CAO (critical areas ordinance) as I am, I do not see the fingerprints of the UN on our local issues. It is more like “Green gone Wild”, with most of the support for these restrictions on rural property coming from some very wealthy people in our community who do not want dirty hippies living next door to their estates.
We know who they are for the most part.
It is becoming more clear that the environmental movement in some localities is increasingly being overtaken by the rich to protect their enclaves. They don’t need the UN to do that, they can just buy legislation.
Agenda 21, while it appears to have huge support in the third world with desertification, pollution from resource extraction and similar issues of great concern – is being used as a boogey man by people mostly in the Southern Confederacy. Alabama for instance has banned it, even though it is a non-binding resolution in the US.
I have studied conspiracy theory long enough to know what is a real threat. Environmentalist movements must guard against a new brand of eco-fascism which is steadily attempting to infiltrate legetimate movements, and it’s not led by poor folks.
Here’s some of an article from “The Guardian” detailing the infiltration of the German Green Party by Nazi extremists:
German far-right extremists tap into green movement for support
Support for ecological movement and conservation used to try to recruit a new generation of supporters
German consumers are being warned that when they buy organic produce they may be supporting the far-right movement, following the revelation that rightwing extremists in Germany have embraced the ecological movement and are using it to tap into a new generation of supporters.
Debunking the popular view that equates eco-friendliness with cuddly, left-leaning greens, rightwing extremists have even begun to publish their own conservation magazine, which is believed to have the backing of the far-right National Democratic party (NPD). Alongside gardening tips and reports on the dangers of genetically modified milk are articles riddled with rightwing ideology and racial slurs. Bavaria’s domestic intelligence agency has described the magazine, Umwelt und Aktiv (Environment and Active), as a “camouflage publication” for the NPD.
“We have to get used to the fact that the term ‘bio’ [organic] does not automatically mean equality and human dignity,” said Gudrun Heinrich of the University of Rostock, who has just published a study on the topic called Brown Ecologists, a reference to the Nazi Brownshirts and their modern-day admirers.
Hotbeds of far-right eco-warriors are to be found throughout Germany. In the Mecklenburg region in the north, they have been quietly settling in communities since the 1990s in an effort to reinvigorate the traditions of the Artaman League – a farming movement whose roots lie in the 19th century romantic ideal of “blood and soil” ruralism, which was adopted by the Nazis. Heinrich Himmler, the SS leader, was a member. “They propagate a way of living which involves humane raising of plants and animals, is both nationalistic and authoritarian, and in which there’s no place for pluralism and democracy,” said Heinrich, adding that the NPD is closely linked to the settlers, helping the party become “deeply rooted in these rural areas”.
The settlers produce “German honey”, bake bread from homegrown wheat, produce fruit and vegetables for sale, and knit their own woollen sweaters. Observers have noted that the far-right farmers have been able to profit from the cheap and spacious swaths of land left by a population exodus from impoverished states in the former East Germany, such as Mecklenburg.
Political scientists argue that the NPD is trying to wrest the ecological movement back from the left, particularly the German Greens, who rose to prominence in the 1980s to become Europe’s most successful ecological party.
Hans-Günter Laimer, a farmer in Lower Bavaria who once ran for election for the NPD and is linked to Umwelt und Aktiv, questions why the left has been allowed to dominate the organic scene for so long. “What is the difference between my cucumbers and those of someone from the Green party?” he said.
A representative of the Centre for Democratic Culture, in Roggentin in Mecklenburg, who did not wish to be identified for security reasons, recently told the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper: “They want that people don’t think about politics when they hear the word NPD. They want as far as possible to build subtle bridges into the lives of other citizens … ecological topics are becoming increasingly important for rightwing extremists.”
At the same time as it was butchering millions of people, the Nazi party supported animal rights and nature conservation. But it is disturbing for many Germans to think that while they support local producers and reject genetically modified food, pesticides and intensive livestock farming, there is now little – superficially at least – to distinguish a supposedly well-meaning, leftist Green from a far-right eco enthusiast.
The department of rural enlightenment in the state of Rheinland Pfalz has even produced a brochure called Nature Conservation versus Rightwing Extremism, which aims to help organic farmers resist the infiltration of fascists into their ranks and to be able to respond to any far-righters they might encounter. Its author, historian Nils Franke, said: “Because of the success of the eco topic in the wider society, the NPD has a heightened interest in wanting to fly the flag with it.”
Biopark, an organic cultivation organisation that vets its members before certifying them as organic farmers, said there was little it could do to exclude the rightwing extremist members it knew were in its ranks.
“I don’t appreciate the ideology of these people and I can understand if people choose not to buy from us as a result, but I can’t vet them according to their political affiliations, only based on their cultivation methods,” said its manager, Delia Micklich.
Link to Guardian article above
With that said, here’s a FAQ sheet from a UN publication:
Agenda 21: Just the Facts
Have you heard about Agenda 21 in the News? Not sure what to think? Here are some Myths and Facts:
Myth: Agenda 21 seeks to promote “world government” through the creation of “a centralized planning agency [that] would be responsible for oversight into all areas of our lives.”
Fact: This is a completely spurious charge. Agenda 21 encourages, rather than compels, UN Member States to take into consideration the environmental impacts of their land, resources, and transportation development policies. Adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, the document reflects a broad international consensus that worsening poverty and growing stresses on the environment require greater integration between environmental and development concerns. Such a comprehensive approach to development is necessary in order for countries to be able to continue to meet the basic needs of their citizens, improve living standards, and manage the planet’s natural resources in an efficient manner.
Agenda 21 is not a treaty and is not legally binding. Rather, Agenda 21 sets out a general blueprint, or, in the words of Tariq Banuri, Director of the UN’s Division for Sustainable Development, “a common vision” for environmentally-sustainable growth. At the end of the day, implementation of any part of Agenda 21 is the prerogative of individual governments, not the UN itself. This is reflected in the document’s own preamble, which states that Agenda 21 “reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments.” The voluntary and non-binding nature of this agreement has also been confirmed by the Heritage Foundation, a staunch critic of Agenda 21. Indeed, a recent paper by three Heritage scholars argues that it is local, state, and federal initiatives to promote sustainable development, rather than Agenda 21 and other international efforts, that should be of greatest concern to opponents of sustainable development.
Myth: Agenda 21 would supercede the domestic laws of the United States and other sovereign nations.
Fact: As a non-binding agreement, Agenda 21 does not take supremacy over U.S. law. National governments are ultimately in charge of their own development, and neither the UN nor any other international organization has the right to encroach on the sovereignty of any country in the implementation of Agenda 21. This is once again confirmed by Tariq Banuri, who stated in an interview that “The basis of the international system is that all countries pursue whatever is in their national interest. A founding pillar of sustainable development is national sovereignty over natural resources.”
Myth: Agenda 21 is an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism with strong anti-American and anti-capitalist overtones.
Fact: Agenda 21 provides a blueprint for sustainable development—development that simultaneously promotes economic growth, improved quality of life, and environmental protection. Agenda 21 was adopted unanimously by all 178 countries that participated in the 1992 Rio Conference. U.S. President George H.W. Bush was among the 108 world leaders present at the conference when the document was adopted.
Myth: The UN is bypassing national governments, using the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) “to make agreements directly with local governments” on implementing Agenda 21.
Fact: It says nothing of the sort. Agenda 21 does not call for the confiscation or appropriation of land or property anywhere, in any country. It is fully consistent with personal freedoms and the right of citizens to own property, homes, cars and farms.
Myth: Agenda 21 calls for the elimination of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, as well as family farms.
Fact: Many municipalities and cities around the world have found that Agenda 21 is a very good guide for their own urban planning efforts and have joined an international group—ICLEI—to help implement some of its recommendations. ICLEI is not part of the UN. Many cities and towns throughout the U.S. belong to ICLEI, but their participation is not linked to any UN mandate.
————————————–
Summing up: The fear of the United Nations is a hangnail from the John Birch Society era, with a Bolshevik behind every rock.
Americans are perfectly capable of painting themselves into a corner without the help of the UN.
Careful thought should however, be given to any movement that seeks to restrict simple non-industrial use of a homeowners land.
Skimmed your article quickly… is Agenda 21 related to the North American Defense Authorization Act? Someone commented on one of my recent gun posts and said that the Act has language which would indicate the use of U.N. Forces on American Soil against American Citizens.
I know nothing about the Act, nor, for that matter, Agenda 21 until I read your latest post!
No, I am sure they are unrelated.
UN Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution.
But property rights issues are front-and-center in rural America, with good reason.
What I don’t understand is all the pressure on small landowners while huge manufacturing and mining operations continue unabated.