There has been much talk on Menzies house recently about the UN driven Agenda 21 stemming from contributor Allan Essery. The fact that AG21 has been alive since 1992 leaves most politicians and government heads from three tiers ignorant of AG21's true nature. Few if any functionaries from that era are still in employment. And so, the precepts of the agenda are embedded in history, as it were.
The following article comes from Ibbit, one of our long-time commenters who has been doing some research. Ibbit's results and conclusions are best told by her. GC.Ed.
I have known about Agenda 21 as it affects environmental issues in Australia for a long time, but hesitated to talk about it because to do so was to be accused of buying into conspiracy theories, of being a “wing nut” and such like – in short, to be ostracised or dismissed as a loony.
Thinking back, policies of various governments have done much to harm rural Australia, in fact, in some instances, almost emptying towns and districts. I remember this starting as far back as the Hawke government, and being a rural person was greatly angered by the treatment of the “bush”. The answer as to why this started would seem to lie in the aims of Agenda 21.which aims are, in my opinion, contradictory in many ways.
One aim of A21, which seems absolutely benign, is to feed the worlds’ poor. How do you do this if you attack farmers and lessen primary produce? As has been occurring for a long while now. Think of the dire problems facing beef producers with the knee jerk reaction to a TV report about abattoirs and animal cruelty. I have always been against live shipments but what was done was not the way to go about addressing the issue, which was all too easily dismissed as politics. However, one wonders just how benign this whole affair really was in the context of A21 in Australia.
Allan says Agenda 21 - or something very similar, has been at work in Australia for around 30 years. I think of Bob Hawke (1983-1991) thundering in a speech during his tenure as PM that no child would live in poverty by the year 2000. If you look at the Agenda 21 Summary, chapter 3 headed “The overall goal is health for all by the year 2000…” there is a clear echo of Hawke’s words. So, the aims of Agenda 21 were well and truly discussed and settled by the time of its Adoption by the UN in 1992 and in Australia by the Keating Government.
For those who dismiss the insidiousness of Agenda 21 a look at some of the content of the Alabama Senate Bill 477 should be a warning that in fact our property rights are under assault as is our sovereignty and democracy. Why, each time some aspect of co-operation with the UN A21 is agreed to is a lessening of our control over our own affairs and destiny.
The Bill says in part - “The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendation that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights ….as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to “Agenda 21”…”
Also, for anyone interested a glance through the policies of your local council will generally find them (not all councils are vehicles for A21) riddled with sustainable this and that. Until you begin to see some of the ramifications of these policies, they all seem absolutely acceptable and maybe mundane.
Agenda 21 should no longer be dismissed. It is not a loony notion, something which should be pretty clear when States begin to legislate against it.It is past time that Australians started to clamour for transparency in all matters to do with the UN, be it overseas aid, environmental matters or basically anything that impinges on our sovereignty. It is clear that this will need to be the case with governments of any persuasion.
We see the current Government’s redistribution scheme (although they don’t spell this our) at work. Do we really want to be part of a giant UN redistribution scheme of our national wealth?
