72nd Session of the United Nations' Sustainable Development and Implementation of Agenda 21.

Perhaps some of you didn't know this, but the 72nd session of the "Provisional agenda of the seventy-second regular session of the General Assembly" started yesterday September 12th.

I wanted to point out some of the "agendas" that was supposedly covered by this session.

undocs.org...

For most people, these agendas might "sound good", but are they really "good"? Or are they simply excuses to implement a New World Order in which the UN, or a similar group would control every nation, and every individual?

For example, if you look at reference 16 you can read this.

...
16. The role of the United Nations in promoting a new global human order.2
...

undocs.org...

To prove that Anthropogenic Global Warming, now being called simply "Climate Change" is to be used as an excuse to redistribute the wealth of developed countries, here is what the UN sustainable development website since 1992 states.

Agenda 21
UNCED, 1992

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
...

sustainabledevelopment.un.org...

We are once again seeing how proponents of the AGW claim want to suppress the free speech rights of people who would dare question the AGW belief. What will be the next proposal from the UN and the AGW proponents?

The UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund has for a long time endorsed China's "One Child Policy", which now has changed to "allow couples to have 2 children." Part of Agenda21 will include "population control measures", and since the UN endorses government enforced abortions, it is logical that such "population control measures" will be included in Agenda 21.

In April 4th, 2017 President Trump ended the funding for the U.N. Population Control Agency.

Jonathan Abbamonte
April 4, 2017

The U.S. will cease funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)—the notorious U.N. agency that has been the chief international cheerleader for, and financial supporter of, China’s repressive “Planned Birth” policies from their beginning.

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker received a letter from the State Department on Monday stating that it had been determined that UNFPA was supporting the management of a family planning program involved with coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization and that, per a provision in U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, it was therefore ineligible for federal funding.

“The Chinese Government’s Population and Family Planning Law, even as amended in 2015…clearly constitutes a “program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization, and are an integral part of the comprehensive population-control program the Chinese Government advances” the letter stated, “[UNFPA] continues to partner with the [China National Health and Family Planning Commission] on family planning, and thus can be found to support, or participate in the management of China’s coercive policies.”
...

www.pop.org...

However, as the article later said.

...
Funding that would have otherwise been allocated to the UNFPA will be reallocated to the Global Health Programs account for family planning, and maternal and reproductive health programs.
...

www.pop.org...

However.

The World Health Organization Says Abortion is Family Planning

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | April 20, 2017

NEW YORK, April 21 (C-Fam) Governments have long agreed that abortion cannot be a part of family planning. The World Health Organization has gone along with that consensus until now. Recent journal articles by WHO researchers demonstrate the powerful global agency now rejects that consensus.

Women who want to “avoid pregnancy” following government guidelines in the wake of the Zika scare in Latin America “will need family planning services such as contraception and access to safe abortion,” according to one article that goes on to propose “evaluations of the barriers to access, availability, utilization and readiness of contraception, abortion and post-abortion services.”

The statement that abortion is a “family planning service” contradicts what the UN General Assembly has agreed for decades, namely, that “under no circumstance should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.”
...

c-fam.org...

In 2016 the "populationmatters.org" website published the following.

Family planning: the key to sustainable development

In that link, it is proposed that there are ways to slow population growth. Which include preventing child marriage, enhancing women’s empowerment and encouraging smaller families.

The last proposed method is the one that has me worried. Since the UN has endorsed "the coercive and forceful family planning in China", it is not too far-fetched to think that such a coercive program will be included in the goals for agenda 21.

Not to mention, that perhaps instead of the U.S. re-allocating the funds to "the Global Health Programs account for family planning, and maternal and reproductive health programs", we should just completely end funding to the UN, and once and for all get out of the UN.

Dang skippy
This is the thread type I enjoy
I go you one further . The UN started trying to elevate the 3rd world countries and the M.E. to the levels of 1st world countries. They realized that was an impossibility.
Now the plan is to reduce the 1st world countries down to the level of the 3rd world countries...
Thus the reasoning behind what you have posted.
It has begun....

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am with you 100%.

This is all about destroying cultural identity, sovereignty and individual liberty.

These Globalist scum are absolutely the enemy.

Very bizarre,i am sure they planned this out when forming the US,if taxpayers ever invaded Wash DC,then that would be an attack on the queen of England,which is what has been planned,then the UN attacks

As far as I am concerned if fat boy of N.K. sends a nuke let us hope he hits the UN and nothing else of importance.
youtu.be...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You know that all the conspiracy theories regarding Agenda 21 began with Glenn Beck's book, right?

I work on this topic all the time and I was literally shocked the first time I heard some of these theories.

Certainly welcome on ATS of course and I suppose there are two sides to every coin--one rather panicked and negative and perhaps misled, and the other with intent to help manage some of the world's greatest threats.

But most people are inherently selfish and short-sighted so I could see how these initiatives might be off-putting, for sure. I'd love to hear other ideas for how we might handle our global crises-- but IMO sustainable growth is literally the most "republican" plan coming out of the UN, as it's all about the power of the private sector and markets.

Would love to know how many folks have actually taken the time to become familiar with the SDGs and associated programs themselves. Honestly they're so basic, in-line with the practices of most of your favorite companies already, and like everything UN related they really don't have strong teeth at all.

Tldr if you don't like it, come up with a better plan to handle the extreme pressures humans are placing on our planet.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am with you 100%.

This is all about destroying cultural identity, sovereignty and individual liberty.

These Globalist scum are absolutely the enemy.

I realize there's confirmation bias involved here so I can't change your mind. But I can say that I've seen direct evidence of the opposite. In fact sustainable development is often most considerate of cultural identity and heritage than huge Chinese conglomerates going in and literally consuming through entire swaths of countries and communities. Again, happy to hear alternative suggestions at any time.

I've read all the literature on the the neoliberal agenda and the SDGs and that's all fine and dandy but truly, from where I'm standing, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in the majority of cases, and are still better than the alternative (status quo super consumptive practices, including culturally consumptive practices).

Also remember the UN likes to make big statements that lots of people will agree upon. Most nations don't do much. And it limits the extent that real change can actually be made.

Agree to disagree.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am with you 100%.

This is all about destroying cultural identity, sovereignty and individual liberty.

These Globalist scum are absolutely the enemy.

Then, the logical follow through is why this world-upsetting agenda by the real controllers of the world that go against "cultural identity, sovereignty and individual liberty?" Who wants that reshaping of the world that would result in changing much of how human nature has evolved into? It can't be a mere political quest of one ideology and surely not about the money interests that supposedly control the world. So what is the driving force?

The simple answer is that an outside intelligence has deduced that all of humanity is on the wrong track and virtually everything about it is wrong and must be changed in order to save humanity from itself if not to save the very living planet itself. Assume that source of direction, and everything that appears across the globe today that is contrary to the old ways can be understood. Human life is supposed to be more than TV, comfort food, money and wars.

The real horror of alien contact isn't about our dealing with them. It is about them dealing with us to remake ourselves. Nobody is saying you will like it, but it is the true destiny of the human race.

(To those that cannot see the way forward, I always point to Arthur C. Clarke's masterpiece novel, Childhood's End as indicative of how our evolution play out.)

72nd Session and still no world domination?

How embarrassing.

originally posted by: Kali74
72nd Session and still no world domination?

How embarrassing.

Yeah. Apparently "they" have had since 1776 to take over the USA. Who takes that long to take control over a nation?

Timely to mention "The Lima Declaration" of the 1970s, which basic means that the "Richer" countries have to give part of their wealth to "Developing" countries, generally via industrialisation = jobs......

So, if you have been in manufacturing and you wonder where your jobs gone.......its the Lima Declaration.

To benefit everyone of course....except you.

The funny thing is, weren't many of these peoples quite happy to live in their mud huts and carry water on their heads?

Now they MUST have a job.........whether they want it or not!!!

Isn't progress wonderful, I hope all the homeless people and ghetto dwellers and trailer trash in the US, are happy with it all.

originally posted by: 4003fireglo

originally posted by: Kali74
72nd Session and still no world domination?

How embarrassing.

Yeah. Apparently "they" have had since 1776 to take over the USA. Who takes that long to take control over a nation?

it's the funniest part of this non story.

judging by the lack of intelligence by proponents of these so called agendas it won't ever go away.

Lots of professional con artists getting rich from this.

a reply to: ravenshadow13

I think they should ban a lot of the unnatural chemicals they have created that are dampening the worlds ability to repair the ecosystem. This includes to some extent CO2 emissions to a certain extent, especially the stuff that comes from all those jets flying around. The Paris climate thing is a scam, they have not addressed the worst practices at all. They are making us focus on something that is only a small part of the equasion, they want economic growth along with taxing the fuel to heat our homes. Yet they say nothing of the whole lot of fuel used for air travel and everyone of those people running that probably flies a lot.

There are a lot of conscientious people out there, but they are conditioned to believe that focusing on only certain things that are told to them is relevant. Make products to last a long time and don't be going on trips you do not need to go on. Be satisfied with just what you need and treat yourself once in a while. Taking a cruise trip every year hurts the environment a lot, especially if you fly down there. One trip probably hurts the environment more than what a person does all year. If we were to build our own stuff here and build it well, we would need way less service oriented jobs and would have more manufacturing jobs. The fact that we have decent environmental laws means that our factories are already forced to have less effect on the environment than some other countries do manufacturing the goods. Their emission standards are less in China, and they are poisoning their land and hurting their people's health.

I don't like the climate change agenda, they are trying to put a patch on a tire that needs to be replaced bcause it is the wrong size.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So I assume you are in favor of unsustainable development? Starvation rather than birth control? Let the rich countries plunder the Earth and the devil take the hindmost? Use every last resource and let your children and grandchildren figure out how to rebuild?

a reply to: ravenshadow13

Yep, we'll disagree.

The problem with proactive 'sustainable goals' is that they force themselves on people. That force is government. That means giving government power (or the government claims it already has that power) to limit choices from the people.

Only a person who subscribes to malthusian hysteria thinks that humans are placing pressure on the planet. People who actually use their eyes can see that our resources are more plentiful now than they were 10, 20, 50 years ago.

Why? Technology and the marketplace. Not because of some 'sustainable' government policy.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The planet will be doing fine long after humanity goes extinct. As for resources, our technology has always found new resources to exploit, leaving a trail of creative destruction. This is why the coal industry died. Access to resources has always been the fundamental cause of war. In earliest times it was water and arable land, lately it has been petroleum, and soon it will be rare earths. Now that humanity is aware of its global scope, perhaps it is time to consider options that can avoid the possibility of a civilization destroying conflict?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The planet will be doing fine long after humanity goes extinct. As for resources, our technology has always found new resources to exploit, leaving a trail of creative destruction. This is why the coal industry died. Access to resources has always been the fundamental cause of war. In earliest times it was water and arable land, lately it has been petroleum, and soon it will be rare earths. Now that humanity is aware of its global scope, perhaps it is time to consider options that can avoid the possibility of a civilization destroying conflict?

HHmmm... nope.

Technology and the market have been working out well so far. It only gets screwed up when a handful of people in the government think they know better than the creative power of the human race.

a reply to: Aliensun

And in the end of that book, everyone dies and the earth is destroyed anyway. Not exactly a great choice to illustrate your point.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The planet will be doing fine long after humanity goes extinct. As for resources, our technology has always found new resources to exploit, leaving a trail of creative destruction. This is why the coal industry died. Access to resources has always been the fundamental cause of war. In earliest times it was water and arable land, lately it has been petroleum, and soon it will be rare earths. Now that humanity is aware of its global scope, perhaps it is time to consider options that can avoid the possibility of a civilization destroying conflict?

HHmmm... nope.

Technology and the market have been working out well so far. It only gets screwed up when a handful of people in the government think they know better than the creative power of the human race.

I assume you are very young, and don't remember acid rain and Lake Erie catching fire. You also don't seem to understand that the history of humanity has been one of constant slaughter over access to resources. Either that, or you consider a toxic environment and continual warfare to be "working out well."