On this week's radio show, "We The People," activist Michael Shaw picked up where Michael Coffman left off with regard to Agenda 21, the United Nations' so-called sustainable development initiative that critics say would abolish private property as we know it.
Shaw said he believes efforts by the United Nations and others to remove human beings from rural areas is working; he notes that there are about half the number of ranchers in America today than there were 20 years ago. As people continue to be pushed into urban areas, it will be the animals who will roam free and the people will be in cages, in the form of "smart" communities, he said.
While areas like far Northern California have little voice in their state capital or even in Washington, the true battleground for implementation of Agenda 21 is with local government, including special districts and school boards, he said. The first community that rejects so-called "sustainable" planning principles could set a trend, he said.
You can listen online here. The Web site for Agenda 21 is here.
"Shaw said he believes efforts by the United Nations and others to remove human beings from rural areas is working ..."
ReplyDeleteWhat tripe. The number of farmers and ranchers has been declining in America for more than a century because of the brutal economics of agriculture.
http://beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_losing_proposition/
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteAsk just about anyone in production agriculture and he'll tell you that the economics of agriculture have been made all the more brutal by seemingly endless environmental policies and regulations that make it almost impossible to make a living at the craft.
We can debate the role that Agenda 21 may play in all of this, but the fact that environmental policies have affected everything from water availability to the price of corn simply cannot be debated.
And to the degree that young people are taking jobs in the city rather than follow in previous generations' rural footsteps (thinking there's no future in farming), it's having the effect of removing human beings from rural areas.
And if you want to know what's it's like to feel like a head of cattle, go drive on a Bay Area freeway at about 5:00.
Regulations are a pain for every business. That doesn't mean the people who write and enforce them are conspiring to do anything.
ReplyDeleteAgain, rural areas all 'round planet Earth have been emptying out as long as modern economies have been developing. Cities are places of opportunity. That's no knock on the country, where you and I both prefer to live. But it does no service to people trying to scratch out a living in rural America to spread poppycock conspiracies.
Well, it's easy to sit in an air-conditioned office in the center of town and talk about poppycock theories. Try to make that case to the hay farmer in the field who can't get a third cutting because the water is being used to feed an endangered snail.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I post these things to let people know the point of view is out there for them to investigate. The beauty of today's modern technology is that people don't have to take your word or mine. They can listen to Shaw's presentation, do their own research and form their own opinions. I'm sure that's all that Shaw would ask.
Indeed, the stakes are higher and the issue's more personal when it's a person's own livelihood on the line.
ReplyDeleteFor just that reason, it's all the more important to talk about facts and not circle the intellectual drain.
Speaking of which, I'm entertained to read that first on the list of consequences of the secret globalist agenda on Freedom Advocate's website is ... traffic jams!
Yes, traffic jams!
As if every substantial city in the history of humanity didn't suffer from traffic jams. They're an unfortunate consequence of the physics of moving people by the hundreds of thousands and even millions -- whether by high-speed train, SUV, bicycle or ox-cart.
Look, there are environmental extremists who don't give property rights the respect they deserve. Commonsense responses show those people to be misguided.
It is not a productive responses to lump the U.N. with Stalin, Hitler and Mao, to claim the globalists want to herd us all up like cattle, and to call for the elimination of pretty much the entire 20th-century apparatus of government. Even if you think the latter bit of utopianism -- Agenda19, I guess I should call it -- is a good idea, the fact is people like Medicare, and we have environmental laws because our grandparents got fed up with the intolerable pollution.
Enough.
I've written this on a previous post, and it bears repeating here:
ReplyDelete"As for me, whenever I hear folks talking about global governance or a new world order, I tend to start thinking, "Much easier said (or feared) than done." World government? Try telling that to the protesters in Egypt who've grown violent over the mere hint of foreign interference. North American Union? Heck, the most weak-kneed immigration bill in Congress sparks so much controversy that there's little hope one will get passed anytime soon, whatever its benefits for ag. Shoot, they're having trouble keeping the European Union together, and that's just one continent.
"On the other hand, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there are like-minded bureaucrats at all levels who dream of more power and more control, that a good number of them reside at the U.N., and that environmentalism is one of their favorite tools. The fruit of their labors is self-evident."
Putting aside the question of whether or not there's any sort of grand plan to take over the world, this blog -- and its host newspaper, for that matter -- recognizes there are many activists and people in authority who endeavor to control virtually every move their fellow human beings make, everything we put in our mouths, how we farm, what we drive and how we live. This is not a theory. These activists and people in authority have put their desires down on paper.
People like Michael Coffman and Michael Shaw have spent careers researching and documenting the aims of these activists and people in authority. Yes, they are political partisans, and I neither endorse nor necessarily agree with everything they say. But until I've taken the time that they have to research these issues and come up with different results, I don't feel qualified to sit on a high perch and dismiss them both as nuts.
It's no secret that your employer has placed a sizeable vested interest in environmental matters. The Record Searchlight is one of the few papers of its size in the country that still devotes a reporter specifically to the environment. It's sponsoring a museum exhibit titled "Sustainable Choices" which discusses "choices that individuals and families can make everyday in a sustainable manner" with regard to "electricity, water, transportation, shopping and the yard." That's all fine; it's part of community involvement, and it's the sort of thing that newspapers do.
But please don't stand on the rooftop and shout "enough" when other publications take note of people who oppose the "sustainability" mindset. I hope we never live in a day when journalists and others can't challenge the common orthodoxy, and this blog will never stop doing so.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteMy "Enough" was only to myself -- as in "I've gone on long enough" -- not to you.
The R-S has a reporter covering environmental and resource issues (among many other things, nobody gets the luxury of a single full-time beat these days) because the arguments about trees and water and owls and endangered snails profoundly affect the life and economy of the region, as you well know. Your implication that we're in bed with environmentalists because we cover the issues would come as a great surprise to the local enviros who send me hate mail.
I don't have anything to do with sponsorships, but I was walking past T-Bay the other day and saw a plaque defining sustainability (I'm quoting from memory) as "Using resources to meet today's needs without undermining the ability to meet tomorrow's needs." Which part of that do you find so objectionable?
Bruce,
ReplyDeletePoint taken on "enough." As for the R-S, my only point is that it has long placed a high level of importance and emphasis on environmental issues, to the point that is it now sponsoring exhibits to tell people how they can make "sustainable" choices if they want to.
Again, I'm not criticizing the paper for doing this. But I think it would be a mistake to then turn around and dismiss out of hand people who've spent considerable time and energy investigating and challenging the "sustainability" mindset, just as it would be a mistake for the Capital Press (which sponsors farm shows) to dismiss out of hand groups like the Humane Society of the United States even though we may have questions about some of their views. For one thing, I think media outlets that engage in that sort of thing do so at the risk of their own relevance, considering the ease with which people can find things out for themselves nowadays.
Yes, references to Mao and Hitler are extreme examples of where we as a society don't want to go. But do we have to wait until we have a Mao-type government before we realize some of our policies may have been misguided? Aren't we allowed to point out signposts along the way?
The fact is there are a number of Americans who would rather not be told how to set their thermostats, what kind of transportation to use, how to shop or what not to plant in their yard. Not by some super-secret United Nations panel, not by their Board of Supervisors and not even by their local newspaper.
Now I think I've said enough.
I don't blame those Americans. I'm one of them. When's the newspaper told them any of that?
ReplyDeleteYou want to tell people who to believe and who to think is full of it, which is sort of like telling them how to shop.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to simply say, here's the information, judge for yourself.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteIt's worth exploring all manner of ideas in an open-minded way. I'm not sure what the point of that exercise is, though, if not to attempt to come to some conclusion about which ideas are good and which are bad.
The point is that we are not necessarily the arbiters of what our readers think are good ideas or bad. To behave as though we are would smack of elitist arrogance.
ReplyDeleteTim,
ReplyDeleteObviously we don't all agree, or there'd be no point in having conversations about ideas.
But I edit an Opinion page. That involves making choices about what would be useful, interesting, productive and provocative ideas for our readers. And that means sending bunkum to the bunkum pile.
A cursory reading Freedom Agenda's website turns up declarations that lump Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the United Nations. (Hmm ... 3 of history's most brutal dictators, who killed millions of people, and a toothless international discussion forum. Which one is different and does not belong?)
The "freedom agenda" consists of rolling back government to its size in the 19th century -- a provocative notion but one that I would charitably call utopian and less charitably say reveals an ignorance of the history that led us to *democratically* change the way run our country.
It calls traffic jams a consequence of the "sustainability agenda" when anyone who's traveled a bit would realize they are an unfortunately inevitable part of the human condition in an urbanizing world -- and the world is urbanizing for nearly two centuries thanks to economic growth and the efficient mechanization of agriculture, not a plot to herd us off the land.
Coffman attempts to attack ideas they disagree with as un-American (which would be news to Henry Thoreau, John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt) and un-Godly (my neighborhood Methodists who sponsor a sustainability fair would take umbrage at that). It's the same old Bircher tripe that William F. Buckley denounced 50 years ago as poison and poison that's especially toxic to conservatives.
The notion that it's "elitist arrogance" to disagree with someone is nothing but political correctness wearing a conservative coat. Last time I checked, conservatives were supposed to believe in facts, not some post-modern world where saying someone is mistaken is oppressing them.
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteMy "elitist arrogance" comment was aimed at myself, as in "I'm not going to appoint myself the arbiter of my readers' opinions, for to do so would be elitist arrogance."
You of course are entitled to your opinion. It seems you've formed it after spending five minutes on a Web site, but so be it. They're your views, and you're welcome to them.
But I would gently remind you that this blog is not your editorial page, nor is it your bunkum pile. You've gone to great lengths this week to make the case that a post that took me five minutes to write and included some links shouldn't have been posted at all. On that point, we just disagree.
Let me be clear, for one last time: I'm not calling anyone un-American or ungodly, nor am I necessarily endorsing Shaw or his views. I'm not even universally condemning the concept of sustainability, which many of our readers believe has some desirable applications in farming.
I simply recognize that 1) many of my readers are alarmed about the very real encroachment of government control over their lives and livelihoods; 2) the likes of Shaw and Coffman have studied this encroachment extensively and purport to offer solutions; and 3) some of their views may be of interest to some of my readers, who are smart enough to decide for themselves whether they're bunk (and may take more than five minutes to decide). That's just it. End of story.
(I still think you must be Procopius.)
Tim,
ReplyDeleteYour readers are correct to be so alarmed, but not because of some globalist agenda.
To take a case recently much in the news and that you've covered, the ranchers up in the Scott Valley are ticked about the new diversion permits DFG is imposing. I don't blame them for a second.
But I hear a strain of thought -- from the protesters who've been writing me and from our politicians -- that pushy Fish and Game bureaucrats are the problem. And maybe they do need better manners, but the underlying problem is that the coho salmon are veering toward extinction and our state and nation have laws to protect them.
Now, I think those laws could work better if they relied more on incentives to encourage good stewardship -- something government sometimes has found ways to do well, though it does usually cost tax money -- but the fact is those laws enjoy overwhelming public support and aren't going away. Is that because the American people are dupes of someone's globalist agenda? No, it's because we hate to be responsible for driving species off the face of the Earth. It's a modest sense of stewardship over God's green Earth.
Anyway, muttering for a month of Sundays about Agenda 21 won't do a thing to lessen the legal burden on those justifiably aggrieved farmers. And I really don't see the likes of Shaw and Coffman offering solutions, so much as the comfort of a neat story. Maybe I'm just a practical guy -- the Farm Bureau lawyering up, that I get.
Sorry to get overheated, Tim. Peace.
PS: Nope, not Procopius.
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteYou are clueless about the Coho salmon issue. How about calling Dr. John Menke for a comprehensive lesson on the subject rather than blogging about things you know nothing about?
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteCheck out ShastaCommons.org as an example of what is happening in our own back yard. Also,
www.transitionUS.org
www.transitionnetwork.org
www.totnes.transitionnetwork.org
Coming soon to a community near you!
Coincidentally, an article from the Record Searchlight in today's local section reads in part:
ReplyDeleteThe article reads:
"A United Nations expert on water rights is coming to the north state on Sunday to hear about McCloud residents' successful campaign against Nestle. Catarina de Albuquerque, a U.N. independent expert on water rights and sanitation, will listen as representatives from the Mc Cloud Watershed Council and Winnemem Wintu tribe explain how they defeated an attempt by Nestle to obtain local water for their bottled water products."
Hummm.....wonder why the U.N. wants to know about this?
Bruce.... humans are being removed from the local landscape. Go to the Agenda 21 " Wildlands Project" map that was presented by Dr. Coffman at the conference. Now compare that to what Sharon Heywood has proposed for 'her' forest (region 5 Shasta/Trinity NF).... massive roadless areas (defacto wilderness) campgrounds closing, all usage heavily restricted or eliminated.... your public land and mine, basically gone at the stroke of a pen. Agenda 21 is taking it's incremental shape. Bruce, this is in our own backyard and you can't connect the dots?
ReplyDeleteI encourage you to research (for starters) Maurice Strong, Lord Christopher Moncton, George Hunt, and Climategate. Follow the money, it will start to make sense.
Bruce.... You seem to be genuinely concerned over the plight of farmers/ranchers being maltreated, appreciated. You mentioned property owners'lawyering' up' with the Farm Bureau as one solution.
ReplyDeleteHow about when the our state water agency goes after ranchers who paid for the construction of stock ponds to support their livestock (which also gets taxed on) and furthermore supports wildlife of all types and provides emergency fire protection in semi-rural areas. The Farm Bureau recently won to have those outrageous fees ended only to have the agency open it up again on appeal. One rancher in particular I know well was told by said agency that he will "give up" his licensed water rights to bypass the fees on the stock ponds was told "it doesn't matter what you do, we still want those fees (taxes) and we will get them".
The attacks on private property are real. Agenda 21 and it's implementation is quite real.
Bruce... In an above post you seem to have been offended that Hitler was included in the conversation. perhaps you are not aware that the Nazi's were leaders in the "green" movement long before it was fashionable. Like today's 'green leaders' it revolved around domination, control, and ultimately, money. Additionally, the Eugenics program of population control and 'customizing' heavily utilized during Hitlers time is still a waiting dream of those who desire a much smaller and controlled world.
ReplyDeleteA total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
— Ted Turner - CNN founder and UN supporter - quoted in the The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96
"Since its inception, the U.N. has advanced a world-wide program of population control, scientific human breeding, and Darwinism."
-Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution.
The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary."
- INITIATIVE FOR ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER
"The United Nation's goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control of human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day."
- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
— Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider - founder and secretary, respectively, of the Club of Rome - The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105
Bruce.... respectfully, I encourage you to awaken not to my words, but to the words of the elitist whether they be U.N. officials, environmental extremist, NGO's, etc. They ARE setting policy. They HAVE successfully implemented portions of it and seeking more. You can choose not to see and look away, or you can research and find for yourself the truth all around you... I hope it is the latter.
Bruce why don't you do your home work before you formulate you conclusion. You are the typical media, you base opinions on feeling, instead of facts. Do yourself a favor and reaserch both sides your topics instead of shooting from the hip with a half cocked gun.
ReplyDeleteI believe the basic premise isn't who is right and who hasn't got their information straight. The real discussion that is germain to this subject is one simple but profound word and that is choice.Without the ability to decide your future and what you preceive as your worth comfort zone you basically take the very existance of life as we know it away.Remember that everything in life has been set up as a life course and there are many roads to take.Some would argue that one's choice tramples another's choice. Yes, in some respect life will crash through and somehow survive what ever barage of theories is thrown at it.Remember the line,"No man is an island." It does not refer to gender but to an ideal that we are all connected for the whole to work as a successful human collective.Opinions will differ and sometimes colide in their endeavor to succeed. The bottom line is choice is the one true ideal that makes us all human and therefore distinct in our worth as a living and breathing force.You deserve a choice whether you believe in God or not. To deny this most basic necessity is to deny your own worth.
ReplyDelete