It is frequently marketed as 'sustainable growth' and various community beautification projects. It is insidious and more stealthy than black mold. More dangerous too.

I agree with what you are saying. Most people don't even know about Agenda 21. We must get the word out. I know I am trying.

Agreed. I especially like your last sentence. I wear the English translation on my t-shirt when I deal with tsa. It gets my right knee patted down every time. Of course my 2-handed 1-finger 'salute' as I get scanned might also be a contributing factor.

I had to look it up. For others: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" (Thomas Jefferson)

Jan

Agreed. TPP is evil and will end up being another headstone for American manufacturing.

Uhhh, I am not proficient in Latin. I can read 'bad' but there it ends. Help???

Please do _not_ jump on the Agenda 21 UN conspiracy bandwagon. You will only discredit yourself in defending private property rights against the very real anti-private property rights US environmentalist movement. You will divert attention away from the source of the threat and the means by which it is imposed.

A UN program is not the source of either the anti-private property rights ideology or the power to impose it. This movement was not "hatched" at a 2002 UN summit: the "Rio Summit", from which many of the quotations are usually taken, was organized and run by the viros in 1992 based on their anti-private property agenda already underway for decades, beginning with the rise of the Ecology movement (which Ayn Rand wrote about in 1971, now in Return of the Primitive) that arose out of the violent, nihilist New Left. That movement was a US metastasis of the mid 1900s German Ecologists (founded by German Hegelian biologist Ernst Haeckel) allying itself with the old line of wealthy progressive "conservationists" and John Muir type preservationists. The Ecology movement was within a few years renamed the "environmental movement" because no one knew what "ecology" meant. (Now you know why Ayn Rand had written about the "ecologists" and not "environmentalists").

The drive for government-owned land and planning in the US began with the early progressives influenced by German statism in the late 19th century when they reversed the policy of allowing settlers to use and privately claim unowned land controlled by the Federal government in the west, followed by creation of Federal agencies like the US Forest Service and the National Park Service and passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906 soon converted into a means to forcibly preserve large areas of land as National Monuments by presidential decree.

Large privately owned land areas in the east were turned into National Parks using eminent domain and other pressure tactics at Acadia (beginning as a National Monument in 1916), and in the 1920s and 30s at Shenandoah and the Smoky Mountains (where thousands of "mountain people" were rounded up and displaced under mass condemnation, some put it into mental institutions under the eugenics of the progressives).

In the 1960s there was a drive for "urban parks" and an explosion in academic land use planning methods, pushed along by the wealth and conniving of the Rockefellers and their foundations.

The Great Society imposed in 1965 a new Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) of up to $900 million a year for Federal and state land acquisition -- which is now up for reauthorization and which the viros have for years been trying to turn into their original goal of an entitlement for land acquisition, exempt from the control of Congressional appropriations, now seeking an entitlement of billions of dollars a year in perpetuity with no Congressional control. (They have in the past come very close to getting this, too).

The 1964 Wilderness Act authorized locking up large areas of Federal land: where "Wilderness ... is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

In the 1970s under Carter, Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus went on a rampage displacing tens of thousands of private owners across the country by eminent domain for new and expanded National Parks using LWCF funding. National land use planning for Greenlining by the National Park Service almost passed Congress, but was ultimately constrained to a brutal "sample" authorizing US Fish and Wildlife Service to steamroll the people at the Pine Barrens in NJ (though it's not the only Greenline park systematically taking land by regulation).

The Alaska National Interests Lands Act (ANILCA) permanently established enormous National Parks and Refuges in Alaska, leaving, after land controlled by the state and Native Corporations (Indian tribes), less than 1/2% of Alaskan land privately owned. Alaska is often treated more as a Federal colony than a state, especially by the viro preservationist agenda.

The Reagan administration stopped the land nationalization binge by attempting to control the almost autonomous agencies in the Interior Dept. and mostly by restricting funding. The agencies continued planning in collaboration with the viro pressure groups, and in 1988 near the end of Reagan's terms announced and promoted another massive land taking binge for scores of new large National Parks and greenlining land use prohibitions (including 26 million acres of mostly private property in northern New England from the coast of Maine to the Adirondacks in NY, a battle which has raged in various forms for years). They expected to pick up where they had left off 8 years earlier. But based on the experiences of the 1970s property owners had a source of knowledge from those still active: They revolted and most of the new park acquisition drive was thwarted.

Faced with the increasing revolt of property owners since the attacks of the 1970s the viros have become much more sophisticated, developing all kinds of regulatory schemes to incrementally take control of land they can no longer get away with taking by condemnation on a large scale. As a Wild Earth article once put it, never mind who holds the deed, get control of the land; we'll get the deed later.

This is the source of the "regulatory takings" phenomena circumventing having to pay for what they take under the 5th Amendment: the Greenline agenda, EPA land regulations in the name of "wetlands" (now reaching a new urgency under Obama), and all kinds of land use planning schemes and regulations. It is the source of the "sustainability" gambit, meaning to "sustain" wilderness with minimal human impact, a term that later showed up in the rhetoric of the Rio Summit.

The US Forest Service, under control of the viro pressure groups and their cohorts in the Civil Service and political appointees, Clinton-Gore Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt began decreeing "roadless areas" in National Forests, turning them into defacto wilderness circumventing Congressional approval. Gore and Babbitt were and still are radical viros.

Babbitt also began informally designating large areas as defacto wilderness under his Congressionally unauthorized National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). Congress retroactively approved it -- and left it wide open -- as one of its first acts of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government in January 2009 -- on a Sunday: they wasted no time.

The map you cited at http://thewannabehomesteader.com/wp-cont... was produced in the 1990s (and shown before Congress) by Michael Coffman, a defender of private property rights. It is an illustrative representation based on combining scores of descriptions of land areas targeted by various agencies and pressure group lobbyists, including the 1988 National Park System Plan, in accordance with the viros' "wildlands project" -- which ideologically rationalizes large masses of preservation areas with several degrees of wilderness classification and degrees of limits on human use, all connected in a massive network of "wildlife corridors".

That map is their philosophy and a conceptually accurate image of what they want. It is not possible to map exactly what they are after because the pressure group lobbyist and the agencies deliberately hide maps revealing to property owners that they are in the bulls eye -- with the concomitant controversy the viros don't want for obvious strategic reasons.

The Rio Summit was only one blip in this history as the viros tried to add treaties to their arsenal of tools to coercively impose their agenda.

Why the "Agenda 21" conspiracy belief that has spread in some quarters as the source of all this? As human beings we must find a way to integrate what we know. We can't deal with an overwhelming mass of details. We are not lower animals who operate by instinct and perception in the range of the moment. To think and act we require conceptual explanation tying what we encounter together in an understandable way.

When property owners in the late 1980s and early 90s were being hit with so much crap all at once in so many ways from so many directions they became overwhelmed, seeking some explanation and some place to turn for help. The extreme rhetoric from the UN activists in their reports and memos (which are real enough) not constrained by ordinary political subtlety of tactics, combined with an imagined sense of "The UN" (black helicopters and more) as an ultimate source of international global control (which it does not have), served as a substitute for understanding through a simplified (and very misleading) central principle for what is in fact a much more complex problem here in reality -- arising from over a century of combinations of alien ideology and European counter Enlightenment philosophy, government politics and corruption, radical social movement politics, undue influence of viro pressure groups on government policy, and very large sums of money and political expertise behind all of it.

If you want to deal with this you have to learn what it is, who is doing it, and where it is coming from in fact -- not an imagined simplification about radical rhetoric from a UN "Agenda 21" to comfort the confusion and complexity. You have to learn what the "environmental movement" really is. You have to learn that the wealthy Sierra Club and National Audubon lobbies are not hiking and bird watcher clubs, and likewise for many more just like them.

I agree with you

The only statement from Reich that was factually and morally correct is that the "TTP" is being done in secret. No one should trust another enormous bill filled with "details" we have never seen, no one should trust Obama to negotiate anything, and no one should believe or follow Reich's socialist demagoguery on anything. If he knows what is actually in the bill, he doesn't want us to know either.

I bailed at Warren, Reich and Krugman.

If they're opposed to it, sign me up for the next best thing since sliced bread...

It looked to me as if all of those links were to Agenda21-supporting outlets, or at least liberal or ultra-lib voices. Hell, if the NYT says it's dangerous, give me a double serving!

Did I miss something there?
Yeah, the secrecy stuff is a turnoff, but most crap that goes on between countries is not open to the public anyway. So this is different?

We were all supposed to be sucked into a black hole after NAFTA, but .... um... it didn't exactly happen, eh? US exports to Mexico increased.

As more and more countries' wages and wealth improve, fewer and fewer will be the 'offshoring jobs capitals' in the future. China offshores to Vietnam; your jockey shorts are just as likely to have been stitched in Malaysia, Vietnam, Bangladesh or one of the 'Stans.'

I've said over and over that, as those countries' wages go up, they'll all fall like dominoes until the Last Domino Standing is somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa.

And no, it won't happen this year or next, but I do predict the world WILL follow that path.

And I won't be around for the end-game, although, if you think about it, when all countries are reasonable First- or Second-Worlded, where will the manufacturing jobs go, Then? Um... home? To the market centers? Will transportation costs be the driver in the second half of the 21st Century?

Does any company in the world think about things like that, other than, maybe, Google?

Been around, just have been quiet.