11

Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck recently talked about the "Agenda 21 Conspiracy", which is a UN initiative that he says targets individual property rights, individual freedoms, and even seems to support radical global population controls:

Reading through the pages [of Agenda 21], it becomes clear "sustainable development" is just a really nice way of saying "centralized control over all of human life on planet Earth."
[Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/15/11]

Here is the actual text of Agenda 21 from the UN Division for Sustainable Development, and some links of the conspiracy for your perusal:

Other than the standard objections we could make against any conspiracy theory, have there been any detailed review/debunking of these conspiracy claims? What does "Agenda 21" actually do or mean?

Borror0
  • 7,581
  • 6
  • 48
  • 67
BradC
  • 3,829
  • 24
  • 35
  • 1
    I keep expecting **Jon Stewart from The Daily Show** to weigh in here in the form of an on-screen pop-up (he's a big Glenn Beck debunker and satirical imitator). – Randolf Richardson Aug 22 '11 at 19:45
  • 1
    I can tell you that Scott county Iowa recently adopted a measure that will enact these provisions over the next 20 years. It will basically not allow new development or redevelopment of existing areas. It sets limits for certian "nongreen" activities such as reproduction, construction, mining, and manufacturing as set not by any US body but by the UN. And variances can only be granted by the UN or a body established by the UN. – Chad Aug 23 '11 at 15:51
  • 5
    You have a link to the full text of Agenda 21. Read it! Does it read to you like a programme for taking over the world? Beck is assuming that most people won't read the material he's talking about, and the rest will look at it with the same prejudices he has. – DJClayworth Aug 23 '11 at 17:48
  • 1
    @DJClayworth... yes it does. They are talking about regulating absolutely everything about our lives. They are talking about redistubting wealth and population control. What else can we assume? – Chad Aug 23 '11 at 19:37
  • @BradC While i do not hate the topic, you have not really pointed out anything that you are skeptical of other than is it the conspiracy that is claimed. You have included links that back up the position. You need to clarify what it is your are skeptical of. (If it is a consipiracy is probably far to broad for here seeing as there are 20 page documents backing up the theory) – Chad Aug 23 '11 at 19:57
  • @Chad - I'm typically pretty skeptical of most conspiracy theories myself (see http://www.michaelshermer.com/2010/12/the-conspiracy-theory-detector/ ), but this one has been floating around some of my friends. My idea here was to have a page that I could send to my conspiracy-minded friends that were worried about this one. Hasn't worked so far :) – BradC Aug 23 '11 at 20:11
  • 1
    @BradC the problem is not what they are doing right now. It is what they could possibly if the proposal was enacted as law. History is full of great leaders who with this kind of power over people reigned in their natural urges and resisted the temptation that power presents... ohh wait no its not. But still this topic is just to big to be tackled here unless you narrow the scope. – Chad Aug 23 '11 at 20:15
  • I have absolutely no trust in anything the UN does or wants to do, but I suppose you can spin that UN text or any other proposal into anything you want. – Moab Aug 24 '11 at 01:21
  • @Chad I'm sure you'll have no trouble linking to the public records of Scott County IA that set those limits with references to the UN documents. – dtanders Aug 24 '11 at 14:01
  • @Dtanders - http://www.scottcountygoesgreen.com/auditor/pub/board_minutes/2011/20110512_Regular_Meeting.pdf page 4. I do not have a link to the actual sustainablility plan. I was told that if i wanted to spend $178 for the FOIA processing they would send me one by mail. – Chad Aug 24 '11 at 14:09
  • @Chad So it's not this thing I found labeled [Scott County Sustainability Plan](http://www.scottcountyiowa.com/administration/sustainability.php)? – dtanders Aug 24 '11 at 14:28
  • @dtanders that would probably be it. Lovely help in the county clerks office... hmm guess it was just another case of the government wanting more of my money. – Chad Aug 24 '11 at 14:30
  • @Chad Yeah, go see if Kinkos will print and mail 176 pages in color for free. Anyway, since your comment badly misrepresents it, I guess you'll be removing the comment? – dtanders Aug 24 '11 at 15:57
  • @dtanders I did not want a printed copy i actually asked if there was a way i could read it online. And I am not sure what you think is misrepresented. I read the SCSP and see agenda 21. – Chad Aug 24 '11 at 16:16
  • @Chad The only mention of a UN document is one that talks about agricultural practices. After skimming the plan, it doesn't even resemble the description in your first comment. Frankly, it sounds like you think sustainability planning is a conspiracy in and of itself. – dtanders Aug 24 '11 at 18:25
  • @dtanders - The area that would be impacted by this is about 90% agricultural. – Chad Aug 24 '11 at 20:18
  • @Chad Just eyeballing the map, I'd say more like 60%, but, even if it were 95%+ farmland, your original comment is simply an unsourced, paranoid rant that doesn't belong here. – dtanders Aug 29 '11 at 17:02
  • @dtanders - If you are saying that what I said is inaccurate feel free to correct. The Urban areas are not actually governed by this body though some of the smaller villages are. So as I said the area impacted is about 90% farmland and Livestock production. – Chad Aug 29 '11 at 17:14
  • @Chad What I've been trying to get at the whole time was that the comment was outlandish and unsourced. That flies in the face of the spirit of skeptics exchange and you should do the responsible thing and take it down and that's all I have to say about it. – dtanders Aug 31 '11 at 15:19
  • @dtanders Which is why it is a comment and not an answer... Your chatting here... well that can be deleted. – Chad Aug 31 '11 at 15:21
  • http://www.naturalnews.com/035585_Michigan_farms_raids.html - Agenda 21 in action... but dont worry they did not come to your farm or kill your livestock. I am sure they will never get around to that – Chad Apr 17 '12 at 15:09
  • @Chad Great source. It neither refers to anything relevant to agenda 21 nor does it refer to any external, trustworthy source an independent person might believe. So I have no idea whether the story is even an accurate report of the events. – matt_black Dec 31 '12 at 14:40

1 Answers1

15

The Media Matters link you provide actually speaks to the Agenda 21 document. The other links are notable in that they don't make any refutable claims about the Agenda 21 plan itself, they just take "Agenda 21" as a jumping-off point for their contentions that conspiracies exist.

The Agenda 21 document contains the word "population" 11 times, none of which relate to population control or reduction. Most uses of the word are in the context of, e.g., "rural populations." The only time that the word is used in reference to magnitude is:

7.8 The objective is to achieve adequate shelter for rapidly growing populations and for the currently deprived urban and rural poor through an enabling approach to shelter development and improvement that is environmentally sound.

Which does not support a reading of population control.

The Media Matters link quotes Beck as saying:

BECK: Reading through the pages [of Agenda 21], it becomes clear "sustainable development" is just a really nice way of saying "centralized control over all of human life on planet Earth." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/15/11]

This is not true. The Agenda 21 document is rife with the phrase "All countries should, as appropriate, ..." a phrase that explicitly recognizes sovereign control. The word "should" is also normative and supports the contention of Tariq Banuri, also quoted at the Media Matters site, that:

Agenda 21 is not a binding treaty. It sets out a sort of common vision.

(A better criticism of the Agenda 21 document would be to claim that it is a non-binding collection of platitudes that achieves nothing.)

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Larry OBrien
  • 15,105
  • 2
  • 70
  • 97
  • Removed unconstructive comments. Larry, please remember to include links to the documents you speak of (the question might be edited and your answer would thus lose context). – Sklivvz Dec 26 '14 at 14:02
  • Chapter 5 https://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_05.shtml says that "The growth of world population and production combined with unsustainable consumption patterns places increasingly severe stress on the life-supporting capacities of our planet". I can see how readers can deduce from this passage that population growth should be controlled. Though, the text itself does not explicitly mention population growth control. – Erel Segal-Halevi Dec 21 '20 at 07:09