Concurrently with the development of a global consortium of corporations targeting population growth through food supplies, parallel UN and other conferences and organizations have advocated for increased public land ownership as a necessary precursor to preventing climate change, famine, biodiversity loss, etc. The reverberations of Kissinger’s creepy 1974 Population Report are visible in the UN’s justifications for globalist land control:
‘Habitat I’ was the first United Nations Conference on Human Settlements. It took place in Vancouver, Canada, from 31 May-11 June 1976. The United Nations General Assembly convened the Habitat I conference [from May 31-June 11, 1976 in Vancouver, Canada] as governments began to recognize the need for sustainable human settlements and the consequences of rapid urbanisation, especially in the developing world. At that time, urbanisation and its impacts were barely considered by the international community, but the world was starting to witness the greatest and fastest migration of people into cities and towns in history as well as rising urban population through natural growth resulting from advances in medicine.
Member States recognized that the circumstances of life for vast numbers of people were unacceptable, particularly in developing countries, and that, unless positive and concrete action was taken to find solutions, those conditions were likely to be further aggravated.
There were inequalities in living conditions, social segregation, racial discrimination, acute unemployment, illiteracy, disease and poverty, the breakdown of social relationships and traditional cultural values and the increasing degradation of life-supporting resources of air, water and land.
In fact, urban populations have been artificially amplified by government policies that crushed small farms and favored the large industrial agricultural interests that dominate the UN and WEF, and hide behind this and other smokescreens. (See, e.g., Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America.) Hedge funds and investors have converted large numbers of single-family residences into rental properties. Illegal immigration has compounded the housing problem exponentially.
The United Nations explains how this scheme to control housing inventories subsequently evolved:
In 1996, the United Nations held a second conference on cities – Habitat II – in Istanbul, Turkey to assess two decades of progress since Habitat I in Vancouver and to set fresh goals for the new millennium. Adopted by 171 countries, the political document – dubbed the Habitat Agenda – that came out of this “city summit” contained over 100 commitments and 600 recommendations.
In 2015, member states approved the Sustainable Development Goals including a dedicated goal for urban development, SDG11 which calls to “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.”
UN-Habitat, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, is mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities. It is the focal point for all urbanization and human settlement matters within the UN system.
These so-called “smart cities” include surveillance governance to ensure the climate is spared excess carbon dioxide (never mind the forever chemicals generated by the manufacture, installation, and disposal of all those “necessary” cameras and computers). US cities are imploding due to lax criminal law enforcement, fentanyl and sex trafficking, gang warfare and commerce, and excessive spending that destroys the tax base. All of those problems will be “solved” by technology and surveillance.
Such futuristic Nirvana cities are already underway in Europe:
“These so-called ‘smart cities’ and ‘15-minute cities’ of ours [in The Netherlands] are being sold to us as being ‘green’ and ‘healthy’. And at the same time, people should live in their own neighbourhoods and be happy being in them where everything is in their own surroundings and you don’t need to go out.
“On 1 January 2025, 14 municipalities will introduce the ‘zero carbon emissions’ zones and [people will] get fined if they enter [these zones] with a diesel truck.”
As [Maartje] van den Berg said, “the same thing is going in Germany with the cities. They [are] also introducing zero emission zones. And they [are] doing the same in Belgium and France, and in Portugal and Spain … The financing is coming from the European Union for all these programmes called Horizon 2020. … and the Green Deal. All the [EU] governments signed the Green Deal … so they’re all applying these policies.”
UN-designed (and mandated) cities eliminate parking spaces, restrict diesel trucks, compel ride-sharing or bicycling, require cameras for enforcement of License Plate Recognition (LPR), and in Holland are forcing residents to convert from gas heat to electricity – a profound risk, and cost. “Dutch consumers’ energy costs rose by 350% in 2021….”:
At the same time that municipalities or local governments are installing cameras in Holland, they are removing parking spaces, van den Berg said. It is already difficult to find parking spaces but “by the end of 2025, 10,000 [parking] places [will be] removed … and new parking permits are no longer being issued.” ….Smart meters, for example, are being installed in people’s homes, she said.
The WEF is firmly behind this plan, pointing out ways to overcome residents’ resistance in a paper revealingly titled “These outdated mindsets and regulations are holding back urban mobility: Experts”:
[O]utdated or regressive attitudes and approaches towards the urban mobility sector too often restrict its growth — and can even endanger the safety and hold back decarbonisation.
The fast emergence of new mobility options has not given many cities a chance to update their approaches to it. After all, mobility isn’t just a way to move residents from one place to another. Mobility operators can be a tool to help cities reach wider goals such as safety, inclusivity, emissions reduction and responsible business practice.
Back in the USA, investors have embarked on a mighty residential housing buying spree that began following the nation’s disastrous 2007-2008 financial crisis (a reminder not to let big banks run wild, let alone bail them out – or oversee the world’s food supplies):
According to a 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), based on a review of 74 studies regarding institutional investors in single-family rental housing, no single investor owned more than 1,000 single-family homes prior to 2011. (Side note: By 2013, Blackstone bought more than that in a single day for over $100 million.) That number skyrocketed to 170,000 – 300,000 homes owned by institutional investors by 2015, and by 2022, 32 institutional investors owned a combined 450,000 single-family homes, five of which accounted for 300,000 of those.
The largest holders of these homes include WEF “partners” Carlyle, BlackRock, State Street, and Blackstone. Corey’s Digs reports that the US government is increasingly coordinating with private equity firms to build rent-only “affordable” housing:
The Biden administration wants to build two million “affordable homes” costing $258 billion dollars to create more inventory, while 1.6 million (80%) of those homes are for rental purposes only….
This growing trend of “build-to-rent” single-family housing went from 81,000 units in 2022 to 90,000 units in 2023. In 2021, this sector of the housing market represented 5%, which doubled to 10% in 2023. By first quarter 2024, construction had already begun on 18,000 single-family build-to-rent homes, which was a 20% increase from the first quarter of 2023. Just in the past five years, roughly 41% of the country’s build-to-rent housing stock has been constructed.
They are typically cookie cutter style homes packed in tightly with small to average size yards, often outfitted with “smart home tech,” bike paths, a swimming pool, gym, dog park, and located near transportation and shopping.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has also joined the affordable housing fray, proposing that the US government build over 1,000,000 homes called social housing, “which means it exists outside the for-profit market, caps rent at a percentage of income and is owned by the government, a nonprofit, or some kind of cooperative.” All of this is consistent with 1) profit motive, and 2) the Vancouver Declaration’s command that nations devise policies that “facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources.”
Controlling land in the name of biodiversity, rewilding, and other faux environmental causes is similarly disingenuous. Industrial agriculture undermines all of these goals yet is touted as salvific. Meanwhile, private property rights (especially for farmers, as witnessed in the EU) are steadily eroded, like GMO soils:
[W]hile the tyranny of the environmental movement in rural America has not reached what its own policy documents say is its ultimate goal—radical population reduction—we cannot any longer ignore that goal and its implications. Nor can we ignore the exigencies of creating the grail of “a sustainable America,” for they are staring us in the face: coercion, regulation so punitive entire counties have been bankrupted, property confiscation, the loss of ancestral homes, the separation of people from loved lands and professions, and, above all, financial catastrophe that has been visited on rural family after rural family from sea to shining sea. And the full program of sustainability, its metrics designed in swarms of conferences in every profession and sector, is being advanced in the suburbs and cities by a large, enthusiastic, and reckless army.
Stay tuned — tuned in to what the globalists say must be done to “save the world.” The real goal is to crush individual liberties in favor of globalist domination by Star Chamber of corporate executives controlled by unseen, unelected oligarchs.
