It sounds logical and reasonable to most people when talk about the merits of "saving money" or "reducing spending"--it sounds good to save money by going to Walmart and paying a 'lower price'. But the long term results are obvious: lower quality products, skilled and priceless craftsman put out of business or put into bankruptcy.
For illustration, if you have a farm or a garden you'd want your plants to have adequate water and sunlight. If you start talking reducing sunlight and water, you are talking about constriction or reduction of your garden. When someone is talking like that about 'saving money' they are appealing to ignorance because that kind of saving money is about destroying a society or an economy. When you promoting 'saving money' and 'reducing costs' in business as much as possible, you might really be promoting reduction and constriction of the relevant economy, reducing equity, eliminating the chance that people will get fairly paid for the work they perform. If a few of your organs got together and started constricting blood return to the rest of the body, you'd probably see it to be an undesirable condition.
In a spiritual sense, penny pinching promotes economic withering and death--but its a way that sounds right to a man. Spending money is opens up channels of return. The more you spend the more comes back. Being miserly narrows the conduits between you and others down to a trickle.
The ideas behind Agenda 21 were actually carried about in part by the Nazis in Germany under the banner of 'being green' and 'environmentalism'.
Forcing people into cities some would say to be the same tactics as Cain--populating societies by kidnapping people.
It is ironic that the very people that are promoting 'saving the planet' are the people that have polluted our lakes, streams, etc. without our permission but yet they want us to feel guilty for what they have done.
From what I've seen, Agenda 21 is not lawfully enforceable except remotely in Federal Territories.
Attachment 2988
The reason areas like Idaho and Montana are targeted might have to do the % Federal ownership of land. The Federal government might still be tenants under state law with the land reverting to the state--thusly Federally owned land in those cases is not necessarily technically a Federal territory but land owned by the Federal government under state law within state jurisdiction. It also may be that wherever a related U.S. presidential Executive Order conflicts with statute, the statute takes precedence.
And they have the audacity to even think about lecturing us about population density and land use? Hmm maybe they want our land?
Related:
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism In the Third Reich
Reply With Quote