Replies

Maybe because I hate urban sprawl and the fact that it threatens my family’s farm and many of my neighbors but I see the benefit of “stack and pack” policy.

Every year I see more and more good, productive farmland comsumed by urban sprawl as we are losing our farming heritage.
As well as food security.

But I also hate government telling people what to do with their lives.

Damned if you, damned if you don’t...

Just damned....

Maybe because I hate urban sprawl and the fact that it threatens my family’s farm and many of my neighbors but I see the benefit of “stack and pack” policy.

Every year I see more and more good, productive farmland comsumed by urban sprawl as we are losing our farming heritage.

But I also hate government telling people what to do with their lives.

We need to put our "thinking caps" on.

Our error in logic/planning was and still is... "giving up" the cities. Mathematically, if we "give up" cities and allow them to become rotten with corruption and immorality, due to the population density possibilities of cities versus suburban areas, and the fact that there's a fixed amount of land, as time goes on the "good folks" in the non-city areas will become a smaller and smaller minority, until they are irrelevant. This is almost true at this point.

Like any military campaign, the side that cedes territory loses, unless they are ceding territory as part of a plan to win the campaign, and the plan works.

"Conservatives" long ago ceded the cities as the territory of "liberals".

The fact continues to stare us in the face that we not only need to keep the suburbs as a bastion against immorality and corruption (which we've hardly done at all), but we actually must make inroads into the cities in this regard.

The army holed up in the castle has already lost.

Our biggest problem is that very few people understand "new world order", i.e., how the financial oligarchy operates, chiefly because it's pilloried as nonsense by most.

All we're seeing in the land planning category is the general strategy of constantly working towards consolidation. Once private sector consolidation makes enough "progress" (which happened in the 1800's in America), and enough minions are in place in government leadership circles, then the (age-old) tactic is to lock in control of sectors of the economy using legislation and regulation. Small competitors are effectively eliminated at that stage, not one at a time, but en masse, because everyone is subject to the law of the land.

The real danger regarding farmland is to the small family farm. This is not a danger for sentimental reasons, or heritage reasons. It's a danger because the fundamental ability of masses of free people to resist the financial oligarchy's commands is eliminated once the masses lose control of their own food supply. This process is well along it's way, though still theoretically reversible at this point.

Unfortunately, however, at this point the free people still have not formed the necessary relationships and become aware of the necessary strategies and tactics to even begin the battle to save themselves. They are still shadow boxing, tilting at windmills, ignorant of not only their enemies' strategies and tactics, but even who their enemy is. Their entire education has taught them a fantasy history, which makes them unable to grasp the conspiracy going on behind the veil of socially-acceptable interpretations of current events.

It's all well and good to "oppose Agenda 21", but not also opposing the enemy who created it means that the enemy will continue with their strategies until the free people capitulate and are assimilated into the fold or are so powerless that they can be ignored.