I'm starting this thread for continuing discussion of current socialist agendas, propaganda, indoctrination, general corruption, and the means to fight back. Please enjoy responsibly.
(Moved to the Politics forum.)
"The affluence of America is a threat to the world. America must be brought in line with the rest of the nations in the world" - Maurice Strong
That is a quote from the originator of the UN Agenda 21, Maurice Strong. I have been tracking this beast for 15 years. I suggest people do their own research to understand how this is changing the world, the US, and your local governments. It is removing our nations sovereignty and is transforming your fundamental individual rights to collective rights or communitarian rights.
Agenda 21 for Dummies:
This is a global governance scheme implemented locally. Our congress rejected it, but they are implementing it in other ways like Executive Orders like the new Rural Council, EPA, FDA, carbon offset schemes, and local government passing ICLEI legislation to voluntarily submit themselves to compliance with its mandates.
To see if your city passed it, take a look: https://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/members/member-list
Sustainable Development = Global Governance (Central Planning) = Global Collectivism or Communism. Its green on the outside and red in the middle.
Executive Orders creating Councils or Politburos:
Presidents Council of Sustainable Development: https://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Overview/index.html
Obummers White House Rural Council: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2011ruralcouncil_e...
Agenda 21 has a scheme to fit both parties. For example, when the Left is in power, the Wildlands Project (the "protection" of wildlife by removing humans from 50% of America's landscape) is pursued. Land is nationalized for parks. Land is made worthless by preventing extraction of resources (like water, timber, oil, etc) through the Endangered Species Act. Eminent domain is inflicted upon landowners. The overall scheme is to take land from private landowners and to push people into cities.
When the Right holds power, Smart Growth (the concentration of people into cities, building up, not out, and mixed use buildings). A common vehicle to accomplish this is the PPP (Public-Private Partnership) in which corporations or other entities partner with the government for profit. This can happen when state and local governments go bankrupt and then sell off land, utilities, water, sewage systems, roads, etc. The corporation is interested in profit and uses the government to influence and enforce policies.
The overall net plan is to abolish private property by consolidating people into cities, and barring us from nature, preventing economic development and preventing extraction of resources (like water, oil, timber, etc).
backseatdriver, good take. Most people haven't caught on because it sounds great, protecting the environment. Who doesn't want to be a good steward? But under the surface is a beast that is devouring.
Your Public-Private Partnership (PPP) comment was spot on. The local govs are selling our assets off to to corporations to stay solvent. Assets that WE paid for, like tollroads, water treatment plants, and sewer systems. Now our tolls and taxes on those assets go to corporations (sometimes foreign) instead of our local government.
Mechanism for implementing Agenda 21. Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), NGO's, Foundations:
This lady in the video has attened over 100 of their planning meetings. She is spot on. This is a fight at the local level.
I've been thinking of alternatives to the OWS approach to re-establish freedom and private property. Taking into consideration the limited support for libertarianism, it becomes clear that a more micro-level approach would be more appropriate for the scale of available supporters.
A few different things come to mind which provide historical precedent for my ideas. I mention them first as in introduction.
1. Tribal Governments
The federal government's position on tribal/indian governments has changed considerably over time, but today is rather favorable for tribal states. Tribal states have a great deal of self-sovereignty, and as far as most issues are concerned, the feds lay off. The only major exception that I know of is for non-natives who commit crimes on tribal land. In that case they have to be tried by the US court system rather than the local tribal courts.
2. Local Currency
Federal law prohibits states from minting coins or issuing credit. Federal law prohibits anyone but the feds from printing the words "legal tender" or the "$" symbol on anything that might be considered money. Otherwise, federal law does not prohibit the private coinage or monetary usage of gold, silver, or anything else (including competing paper money). The berkshares project and copycats have already done this as one way to implement Agenda 21.
3. Land Trusts
Land trusts have been used in multiple instances strategically by the EE in order to gain control of land in various ways. In Israel, for example, an Israeli-US funded land trust owns 99% of all the land. The Berkshire project also uses a land trust, again as a way to limit private property and to exert central control under Agenda 21. There are several advantages to a land trust, including: the land is held under a unified charter and petition, the land is unambiguously bought and owned, and the trust can be self-perpetuated, firstly by reselling the land bought with its initial capital, and then charging, say, 1% simple interest on the land as a record keeping fee. That opens the possibility of actually expanding a territory once formed, and as a technical non-profit it can be tax exempt.
The Polis Project
It seems to me that the same strategies that are being used to conquer land for socialism could also be used to preserve it for freedom. In addition to that, if we have similar (although with opposite principles) charters, structures etc that they do, in addition to a popular petition, then they would have a very difficult time denouncing us or rejecting our requests without hurting their own interests.
My idea is to found a land trust with a libertarian charter and tort agreement, locate some desirable, yet fairly remote real estate, and build a city around it. The two main facilities needed to get it off the ground are the trust itself and a sound-currency bank. If those two can raise enough capital to instantiate, then raising signatures for the petition to claim self-sovereignty should not be a problem.
Once the project is legitimately sovereign, then it should be easy to attract people who matter, such as Donald Trump, who can help develop the land very quickly. Ultimately, the idea is to multiply the original trust and charter such that the whole project is both multiple-decentralized and supported by large interests and thus more difficult to subvert.
Aeonios, is your concept like a Libertarian land-based seastead? https://seasteading.org/
So your concept woud be Libertarian-steading? Wouldn't this still be subject to all of the federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and taxes? Do you envision a way to remove the shackles of corporate citizenship and get back to flesh and blood sovereign human?
At first, invariably you would have to buy land from a state. Not necessarily a US state (mexico's got some nice places too) but yes you would be subject to local laws, as far as they are enforced.
However, once you hold title (using the land trust as a political proxy) and have a petition for sovereignty which you can present as reached by a "democratic process", then assuming you handle all the technicalities of withdrawing citizenship it should be possible to acquire sovereignty under a tribal charter.
We wouldn't get full NATO recognition, but for all practical intents and purposes we would not be subject to US law. It's not like we want to join NATO or play communist games anyway, so our status would be similar to that of Hong Kong or Singapore, if perhaps with less media exposure.
The Transformation of government:
"Since the 1970s, the United States environmental policy has been guided by the United Nations. These policies are constructed on the Marxist idea that government exists for the purposes of ensuring that all people benefit equally from the earth's resources. Marx says that government should abolish private property and should take from those who have the ability to produce wealth and give it to those people who do not produce wealth.
This is the objective of Agenda 21. This is the ultimate goal of sustainable development. This is happening in your community."
"Technocracy is a collectivist, utopian political-economic system run by engineers, scientists and technicians. It has the potential to be far more oppressive and controlling than Communism, Socialism or Fascism... it is a scientific dictatorship of the elite"
Who is behind it?
US taxpayer dollars in the stimulus bill went to pay for the implementation of this Smart Grid system in the US. The Smart Grid was implemented via Executive Order, not through Congress, and it has no Congressional oversight.
If you have read the books, 1984 by George Orwell, and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, then you have seen examples of Technocracy in action. The authora based their books on the technocracy movement.
Why couldn't like-minded people do what the hippies did in Vermont? Simply say we are all going to move to state X and overwhelm its' current system with an additional million or two million new voters who will vote to do A,B and C. Under the 10th amendment you should be able to do quite a bit.
I love reading threads like this. They make excellent points and provide a plethora of materials to research. The only thing I think that is futile in threads like this are the myriad solutions proposed to fix the issues we have with "The System". They offer changes and solutions but often never speak of getting rid of the source of the "The System" they want to fix. The source is the people behind the system. If you want to perpetuate a change, you have to remove the initiators of the other system or they will inevitably conceive of plans to infiltrate and flip the system back.
It is my personal opinion that any true restoration to a Republic at this time; and a restoration of any extended length of time (200 years) would require the blood of tyrants.
"The endgame for Smart Grids is control through measuring and monitoring your every move (Smart Meters).
The federal government has enormous control over the States with the DOE’s Super Grid. The federal government spent billions in bribe money to States to accept Smart Grids and Smart Meters in opposition of public health and interest. Huge technology corporations stand to benefit by $170 billion a year. Utilities will make a killing."
Smart Meters violate your 4th Amendment rights!
UGREV: Kinda like how the Russians murdered their royal family before raising the communist party into power?
ACM: There are a few disadvantages of that method.
1: Not everyone likes the same sort of climate, and getting enough people into a small enough state is not feasible. Some of the most promising candidates are Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Idaho. Unfortunately most of these places are very cold.
2: The 10th amendment is as far as we can get. "Any power not granted to the federal government" isn't very promising, since that still leaves federal taxes, import/export tarriffs, and allows the FBI to continue enforcing arbitrary laws in your state regardless of state laws. And if that isn't good enough, then congress can just write a law that gives them the power they want (they do it all the time).
3: In order to get any separation from the federal machine, as a state you would be forced to secede. The federal government is happy to send the military to commit genocide against any state who dares to secede. Historical precedent shows this to be the case, and they'll be more than happy to assert who is boss and who is serf should any state be so disobedient.
In the tribal case, we would only have to answer to the bureau of indian affairs, would be exempt from federal taxes and laws, and would not incur the same popular attack that we would as a state choosing to secede. We would also have more choices in terms of location, and need not have only one. The main downside is that, as a landlocked territory, we would still be technically subject to US import tarriffs, in that we could not import things directly ourselves without crossing US borders.
In the case of Mexico we could get sea-acccess and would not have that problem, but then we would have to deal with the mexican drug lords, who like to use remote areas as pot farms. They're very aggressive and we would basically have to fight an ongoing territorial war to keep them out.
South America has some really nice options, although it's more remote. Uruguay is comparable to estonia in terms of freedom (and economic sense) and is #2 in lowest political corruption in the Americas only behind Chile (Uruguay and Bolivia were the only two South American countries which were not affected by 2008). Depending on what sort of climate you prefer, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Chile and Columbia are all much freer and more civil than any place in North and Latin America.
Actually SA sounds better than any of that other nonsense. There are virtually no downsides. Not to mention that their populations aren't too huge and so it would be quite easy to outvote them, although not terribly necessary to begin with.
Forget I mentioned Bolivia. Evo Morales is an idiot extraordinaire.
Four video interview on Agenda 21, global totalitarianism, green movement etc: