Photo: Wikipedia, Danish female bike |
Americans hold constitutional
elections in order to choose, among many positions in government, the local
mayor. But a non-governmental organization (NGO), Bycs, which created the bicycle mayors’ program, wants to change
that. How can an unelected ‘mayor’ be constitutional? “It is nice to have one,
centralized voice,” … “And, honestly especially in the U.S., it’s so much
easier to do as a party of one, than a committee, meeting, month to month. It’s
a great way to speed things up. We have to catch up, to provide alternative
transportation.” I’ve heard that ‘party of one’ tune before under
totalitarian communism. https://bycs.org/
The
nonprofit Bycs “wants to use the
network to aim for an ambitious goal of moving half of all local trips to bikes
by 2030 as a way to address climate change, air pollution, health, and other
urban challenges.” https://www.technocracy.news/sustainable-mobility-half-of-all-city-trips-by-bicycle-by-2030/
Adam
Stones, strategy and communications director for Bycs, advocates to use the Dutch bike control experiment around the
world by 2030 in line with the 17 Sustainable Development (SD) goals of U.N.’s
Agenda 2030.
The
Dutch who already have a bike-obsessed culture, have chosen in 2016 a “bicycle
mayor – a person who serves as a connecting point between city departments,
nonprofits, and other bike advocates in order to make Amsterdam even more bikeable.”
The
NGO Bycs wants to bring “bike mayors
to 200 cities by the end of 2019. And they are already in nearly 30 cities,
from São Paulo to Istanbul.”
Can you not envision thousands
of people biking to work on the busy interstates that crisscross our nation’s
capital and its surrounding suburbs? And these bikers would try to take their
children to school, “bike-pooling,” lugging sacks of groceries on a bike, carrying
everything else home on a bike, including perhaps perishables such as ice
cream?
It would be so much fun
biking in snow and on ice, especially for people with prosthetics, artificial
knees, and other handicaps. It is indeed fun to have the option to bike in some
picturesque areas, but the bike lanes are springing up all over the nation to
the tune of billions of dollars, yet I see scarce few actually riding a bike on
them because Americans love their cars and the freedom of mobility it affords.
Bikers can only travel
so far, maybe 15 miles, if they are in good physical shape and young, before
collapsing from the effort. Perhaps the idea is to keep people close to home so
that the land can be re-wilded and protected from the encroaching humans.
The millennials who helped
push this bike craze are actually driving alone to work in their expensive electric
cars with a smug look on their faces and no idea where the electricity that
powers their vehicles is coming from other than recharging stations popping up
like mushrooms overnight, taking up parking spaces for the handicapped. They just
know that they are saving the planet from an impending manufactured climate doom
caused by the greedy humanity itself.
On the other hand, if
they are unable to bike, humanity should move into the U.N. planned high-rise,
walkability-designed urban areas, where everyone would be neatly stacked and
packed in high-rises within five minutes walking or public transportation distance
from home, work, shopping, and entertainment. Such a shrunken megalopolis would
be a dream for globalists to control the population. To me, it will be The
Great Leap Backward, the American version of China’s failed Great Leap Forward
to total global control of the population.
We had public transportation
under communism, only the elites had cars, and we never got to travel very far,
only as far as our biking, walking, buses, or the train took us, if we could
afford the tickets that were already subsidized by the government. The salaries
were so low and equal, that things had to be subsidized by the communist
government for people to afford basics such as transport, shelter, and food.
The bike “craze” began
with United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development (SD) goals, specifically number
11, Sustainable Cities and Communities. https://www.government.se/government-policy/the-global-goals-and-the-2030-Agenda-for-sustainable-development/goal-11-sustainable-cities-and-communities/
If your roads are
narrower, bike paths are springing up alongside roads, and parking lots have
been taken out of existence, it is owed to the work of the “civil society” of
the United Nations and its NGOs staffed by Americans who just know what is
better for the planning of your community, where you live, where you go to school,
what you study, where you go for recreation, and how you live your life in general
and do business.
United Nation’s NGOs comprise
a shadow government by proxy, unelected, but nevertheless quite powerful. Their
Visioning Committees are working around the country to change your local and
state governments and their zoning laws.
The 17 Sustainable Development
(SD) goals were adopted at the U.N. Summit on September 25, 2015, committing
the signatory countries to a world of “sustainable and equitable future” as
part of U.N. Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. It is a multi-faceted,
well-moneyed effort to globalize the world for better control and
redistribution of wealth under the aegis of the United Nations. https://www.government.se/government-policy/the-global-goals-and-the-2030-Agenda-for-sustainable-development/
The SD
brainwashing encompasses everything around you. In April 2019 National
Geographic dedicated an entire special edition to walkable Cities of the Future,
sustainable land, rethinking cities (whose vision?), and Urban Hubs. “In a
densely developed hub, sustainable land use within and outside its borders helps
people thrive by providing water, food, and recreation. High-capacity transit
reduces emissions and speeds commute times.”
The progressive
argument is that an urban area is a good and safe place to raise a family. Is a
large metropolis a nice place to raise children and a better place for them to
live? As a parent, my answer is NO. I prefer country living and suburbia, much
maligned by the progressive left as “suburban sprawl.”
Hong
Kong, pictured in the Nat Geo next to the verdant Victoria Park, with its other
vast and undeveloped land areas while people live-in high-rise spaces the size
of cages like animals, is certainly no urban model to emulate.
Susan
Goldberg questioned in National Geographic, “Should we live in dense urban
areas with public transit and walkable amenities? In sprawling suburbs created
by our infatuation with the car? In high rises like those envisioned by Le Corbusier,
now dotting urban districts across China?” Some of these buildings, malls, and
towns in China are still empty.
Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, known as Le
Corbusier, a Swiss-French architect and Bauhaus urban planner, considered the
pioneer of modernism, argued in 1925 that everything on the right bank of the
river Seine in Paris should be demolished – statues, homes, monuments, streets,
and identical glass towers, 650 feet tall, should be built instead. A quarter
of a mile apart, these towers would be surrounded by grass for pedestrians and
elevated highways for automobiles.
Referring
to his perceived war between “lovers of antiquities” and “progressive thinkers,”
he allegedly stated that “progress is achieved through experimentation; the
decision will be awarded on the field of battle of the ‘new.’” https://www.famous-architects.org/le-corbusier/
If we
look at the amount of money and effort, mass indoctrination, including the most
recent video, spent by the United Nations, academia, public schools, mass
media, Hollywood, environmentalists, and “civil society” (I am still not sure
to this day who the members of this ‘civil society’ are, although I have a
pretty good guess – the globalist elite who know better what is good for us,
like a kind and benevolent dictator.) to bring about world-wide compliance with
its 1992 Agenda 21 now morphed into Agenda 2030, it seems that we are at war
with the United Nation’s progressive plan called Agenda 2030. This new “social contract” with 17 SD goals
that no American citizen has voted on, “is good for us,” assures us Jeffrey
Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. https://youtu.be/ElJDadfkhEo
The
stakes are high – will we be able to keep our much envied “antiquated” American
way of life, our very freedom and mobility which defines who we are?
If the globalists want to give me a bike for free, I will graciously accept it, store it in the garage for thieves to steal, or use it as a clothes hanger.
ReplyDelete