The UN Can't Take My Land. Can They?

The UN and U.S. are leaping toward total control of private property. COP 16 may be the next step.

For all their talk of individual’s rights, governments do not like the masses owning private property.

On June 12, 1976 a top of the fold headline in the NYT read, “U.N. Meeting Urges Curb on Private Land Holding.” The article announced, “The United States delegation headed by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Carla Hills, concurred in virtually all of the recommendations.”

The meeting was in Vancouver, British Columbia and HUD had “concurred” with the Vancouver Declaration. Among the principles agreed to were action plans to address the following:

• Land is too valuable to be treated as an ordinary asset

• Private ownership of land is socially unjust, and

• If unchecked privately owned land could become, “a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.” (Part D, Land -p61)

Eleven years later, a 1987 UN Commissioned report expanded on the necessity of transferring US wealth to poorer nations as a means to reduce poverty and address global warming. The property ‘issue’ (our privately owned land) was to be managed through a term called “sustainable development.”

In 1992 private property continued under the microscope when Maurice Strong, a multimillionaire Canadian and considered the father of sustainable development, formed the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to operationalize the principles in the UN report.

Strong made it clear our habits of eating meat, large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, home air-conditioning, and suburban housing were not sustainable. At the Earth Summit, he called for a “shift in our lifestyles”.

In addition to founding the United Nation’s Environmental Program (UNEP), Strong was a Foundation Director and Co-Chairman of the World Economic Forum, mentor to Klaus Schwab, and a believer in a borderless global society. Strong’s influence is partially responsible for our own open border policies during the Obama and Biden administrations that are facilitated by the UN.

In 2015 the UN rolled out their Agenda 2030 which refines the control mechanisms of the Rio Earth Summit into the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. While claiming to be necessary to save the planet, every one of the goals requires central control of personal behaviors, private property, and social norms.

Schwab’s World Economic Forum partnered with the UN in 2019 for the sole purpose of advancing sustainable development. Below is a timeline of major events in the gradual removal of private property as an obstacle to global goals.

In a further grab for land control, in September 2023 the administration’s SEC proposed a rule creating a new investment vehicle, Natural Asset Companies (NAC) to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. NACs allow investors and governments to profit from the protection of natural resources, necessitated by the government’s push to end the “climate crisis.”

NACs will hold the rights to the ecological performance ( i.e., the value of natural assets and production of ecosystem services) produced by natural or working areas, such as national preserves or farmlands.

These rights can be licensed like other rights, including “run with the land” rights (such as mineral rights, water rights, or air rights). The NACs are expected to license these rights from sovereign nations or private landowners.” Lands will include large-scale farmland, public lands, parks, historic sites, national preserves, National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, and National Monuments.

Rather than investing in oil or minerals, a NAC portfolio is invested in “ecosystem services.” These are the results from protecting natural resources like forests, wetlands, and farmlands. Examples include cleaner air, drinkable water, flood protection, improved soil quality, and, according to the IEG, climate stability.

In other words, the air we breathe and water we drink will be monetized.

Here’s where the trouble for private landowners starts.

According to the ruling, NACs have the authority to actively “conserve, restore, or sustainably manage” the lands over which they hold rights. Non-regenerative use of resources such as mining for minerals, and oils is prohibited.

Without the rights to public and private lands, NACs could not exist. But why would anyone license away their rights? You may not have a choice. Private land that is part of a conservation easement can be transferred to a NAC without the landowner’s permission.

After increasing public pressure, in January 2024, the SEC withdrew their proposal for the new tradeable asset class. But they are not going away.

The idea of foreign investors or government controlling your land is central to globalist expansion. The Obama/Biden clique has made this a high priority and already created an accounting system called Natural Capital Accounts that financializes environmental improvements to your land creating a value that can ultimately be traded on the stock exchange. In further global alignment, Biden’s accounting system is based on the UN’s System of Environmental Economic Accounting.

Dr. Meryl Nass has written extensively about the new UN Pandemic Treaty and the upcoming Conference of the Parties, (COP16) from December 2 -13. which is a extension of the 199 2 Rio Earth Summit.

Here is what they want. I suspect another attempt at a big resource grab coming out of this meeting, which does not get the publicity of the other two meetings that just transpired. Look at the PR:

Sounds good. But what is “sustainable land stewardship”? They failed to mention the owners of land in the above summary of this meeting.

We all want land restoration and improvement. See how the globalists are expert at identifying a heartfelt need and then twisting it to justify their land grab.

Funny how they don’t mention improving the land so the food is better, to improve human health. Instead, we need to improve the land to reach the sustainable development goals. Hmmm…

Notice that these shysters never tell the public HOW they are going to support regenerative agriculture and land use.

The globalists invented a new term to disguise what it is they are trying to achieve. That term is “Nature-positive production” of food. How strange that they fail to define it. It must be their bug factories:

Now here is what appears to be a lovely set of goals… until you get to the word salad in Goal 3 and realize they are trying to obscure their plans rather than enlighten the reader:

“… restoration of ecosystem services, sustainable agricultural practices, and deployment of nature – based solutions or ecosystem – based approaches for biodiversity conservation, among others, in order to restore ecosystem functionality in a landscape context.”

The globalists hope to get some agreements at the end of this meeting, but I have not been able to find the draft documents to which they will seek a manufactured consensus. If any readers can find them, please identify where they are and I will review/decode them for you.

Here is the first document they will seek agreement on, buried deep: https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2024-10/2417283E.pdf

Found them buried in among the below collection. You have to click on “standard” and then search through many documents to find the actual draft agreements.

https://www.unccd.int/cop16/official-documents

Source for COP16