How Smart Growth Stategies are Used to Control Human Behavior Within the Human Settlement.
One of the goals of Agenda 21 is to re-wild over 50% (plus an additional 10% for buffer zones around the re-wilded areas) of the United States. Out of necessity, this will force the human population off the rural lands and into, using Agenda 21 language, “human settlements”. Once there, the behavior of humans can be more easily monitored and controlled, thus creating, “sustainability”.
Video: Lesson 4
Sustainability, as defined by the 1987 United Nations report is: “development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Using the words of Maurice Strong, who was Secretary of the 1992 U.N. Summit that was held in Rio de Janeiro (See Lesson 1), quote, “the consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioners, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Unquote.
In other words, for Agenda 21/Sustainable Development to be fully implemented, Americans must give up the American dream and embrace the life style foisted upon them by the radical leftist Sustainablists.
To create sustainability in the human settlements, there will be rules and regulations to control use of all resources; air, land, water, energy, and all resources underground. These rules are included under the heading of “Smart Growth”.
Smart Growth regulations fall primarily into three categories that are all designed to modify human behavior.
1. Regulations to discourage travel and the ownership of automobiles.
2. Regulations that discourage you from having children.
3. Regulations that will discourage you from using water, land, energy, and the consumption of materials, whether it be toilet paper or materials to build a home.
Here are some of the ways Smart Growth would control life and development in the human settlements. Note that all of these fall into one or more of the three categories discussed above, and that ALL of the items listed below are impacted if energy resources are rationed.
Establishing boundaries around the city and preventing any development outside the perimeter is a Smart Growth tactic. This creates a situation where land inside the human settlement is at a premium, while land outside the boundary has little if any value. This in turn will cause land prices, land taxes, and congestion within the perimeter to increase, but a decrease in the size of homes and number of children. Smaller homes and fewer children will also decrease energy usage.
Another Smart Growth strategy is to not expand the width or length of highways in an attempt to create congestion and an unpleasant driving experience. Allowing bikes to travel on these inadequate highway systems will further force the issue.
Creating rules to prevent the building of garages on new homes will discourage automobile ownership and save on building materials.
The installation of Smart Meters is a particularly contentious Smart Growth issue. Smart Meters can monitor and/or remotely turn off home appliances when the utility company decides the consumer is using too much energy. Further, the radio frequencies given off by these Smart Meters are associated with a variety of health issues.
Restricting the mining, drilling, refining, and/or transporting of fossil fuels will increase the cost curve for electricity, gasoline, natural gas, etc., which will in turn force conservation by the users.
Smart Growth regulations may eliminate from the market place all appliances except those that radically control energy and resources like water and electricity. Everyone is familiar with low flow toilets which, while they may save on water, often function poorly.
Sometimes when regulations cannot create the desired change, grants and subsidies are used instead. When the government steps in to drive change in this way, the free market is eliminated.
An example of this is how the government has, through subsidies, encouraged the development of alternative energies while applying onerous regulations on the fossil fuel industry. At some point, when the cost of fossil fuels increase enough, and the cost of alternative energy decreases enough, alternative energy will be cost competitive. However, at that point in time, the cost of all energy sources will be artificially high forcing conservation by consumers.
Then again, expensive energy is seen by the proponents of Agenda 21 as a good thing, as shown by this quote from Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mt. Institute.
“It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Smart Growth policies are also being used to design new road projects. Many of the projects are driven by grants from the federal government sometimes funneled down through Regional Government. One of these projects is called Complete Streets. Below is a paragraph, which can easily be found on the Internet, from the Complete Streets Coalition. It reads…
Creating “Complete Streets” means those transportation agencies must change their approach to community roads. By adopting a “Complete Streets“ policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists – making your town a better place to live.
There are many things about this single paragraph that are concerning.
First, it says that “transportation planners MUST change their approach to community roads.” Whatever happened to local government control? What happened? Grants happened! The federal government is using your tax dollars to entice the local government to build the infrastructure for future human settlements where walking, bicycling, and mass transit will be the primary modes of transportation.Further, while sidewalks and bicycles may make sense in a populated area, “Complete Streets“ is pushing for sidewalks and bicycles paths in rural areas as well.
The local government may find that, by the time the cost of the bicycle paths and sidewalks are figured against the added grant money, the grant money went mostly to build road features that were unnecessary for rural use, while in exchange the government sold its autonomy for a too narrow road.
Add one final insult! By the time sidewalks and bike paths are added, even to a narrow road, the overall width of the roadbed will have increased, causing homeowners along the length of the project to lose parts of their front yards. This can have a negative impact on their property values.
Food and Fiber Sheds,Woodsheds, and False Choices
Since much of the land in the United States will be off-limits to humans, it will require that humans be limited to procuring that which they need to survive from the land near to the human settlements. But not to fear, the Sustainabilists have this all planned out.
Imagine a shooting target /bullseye with three consecutively smaller rings. The inner ring represents the area populated by humans. The ring that surrounds the inner ring is called the food shed. That is where all the food and fiber for the human settlement should be procured, of course, only through strictly approved and monitored methods of sustainable farming. The outside ring is the woodshed, where certain environmentally friendly human activities can occur. Beyond that lies the re-wilded land containing the buffer zones, cores, and corridors. These are off limit to humans. Travelling from one human settlement to another may incur fines, as the human will have, by passing through an environmentally delicate area, caused some degree of harm to the environment.
The loss of the rural lands for traditional farming, coupled with the design of future high density human settlements and the relatively small area of land around them for the raising of food, could create quite a dilemma for a human settlement that needs food to survive.
An idea being strongly forwarded by the proponents of Agenda 21 to replace traditional farming is vertical farming in multi-storied greenhouses. The claim is that food could be grown year round, isolated from disease and pests, and there would be a reduction in transportation costs.
If given a bit more critical scrutiny, one might ask how would a multi-storied green house be immune to pests and diseases when anyone who has ever raised a house plant knows that, at times, the plants get mites even under the strictest conditions.
One might also wonder, because this technology is a long way from production, if a lot of folks might die of starvation unless the switch-over from traditional farming to vertical farming is done in an extremely gradual and thoughtful way. However, as population reduction is a major goal of the proponents of Agenda 21, it makes one wonder if a situation resulting in mass starvation is not considered, by them, as a good outcome.
And then there is the never-ending litany over Greenhouse Gas emissions. Let’s take a look at the following quote.
“Buying local food within a foodshed can be seen as a means to combat the modern food system and the effects it has on the environment.
It has been described as “a banner under which people attempt to counteract trends of economic concentration, social disempowerment and environmental degradation in the food and agricultural landscape.”
Agriculture production alone contributes to 14% of anthropogenic (= “manmade”) greenhouse gas emissions. The food system’s contribution of greenhouse gases contributes to the global issue of climate change. More attention is being paid to possibilities for reducing emissions through more efficient transport and different patterns of consumption, specifically, an increased reliance on local foodsheds.” Unquote. (Peters, 2008)
First, it is easy to see that as usual, the environment, in this case Global Warming and Climate Change, is the supposed excuse for this radical reconfiguring of man’s life style. Yet it remains to be seen if the globe is actually warming, and if so, whether man’s activity is responsible for the warming. A lot of doubt is cast when you see quotes like this one from Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation)…
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
The second thing worth noting is it is easy to see that Agenda 21’s 3 E’s, social, economic, and environmental justice, are all behind this effort to force a food-fiber-woodshed-human settlement model on mankind.
This is Agenda 21 social engineering at its best-or worst depending on how you look at it. Simply put, the folks behind this (and you might want to Google “the Club of Rome”), are retraining humans like we are lab rats.
In summary, while protecting the environment is a good thing, and if you CHOOSE to get your food close to home, recycle, or use a fuel-efficient car, that is fine. However, it is a false choice being offered here. It is NOT necessary to give up our freedom or our life style and be forced into human settlements in order to protect the environment. It is NOT an either or. We can live or lives in freedom and still protect the planet.
ALWAYS remember the END GAME that is being sought by folks pushing Agenda 21. The endgame is CONTROL over humans and the Earth’s resources, with the environment being used as the excuse.
Lesson 5 will explain how the vast wealth of the free market will be replaced by something called Corporatism, also called Crony Capitalism, which will allow the federal government to harness the wealth of big business for the good, not of the people, but of the government.
However, it is strongly suggested that you read the Lesson #4 supplemental materials before proceeding to lesson #5. You may do this by clicking on the links to the Lesson #4 supplementals listed below.
Star Communities (a way to inventory and control our citizens)
Peters, C., Bills, N., Wilkins, J., & Fick, G. (2008). Foodshed analysis and its relevance to sustainability.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24, 1-7.
Pg. 5 of 5