Wildlands Project, Agenda 21, and its Future Enforcers

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Bundy Ranch stand-off, April 12, Clark Coun­ty, Neva­da, out­side of Bunkerville

In order to under­stand the ratio­nal behind what has tak­en place at the Bundy Ranch in Clark Coun­ty, Neva­da, it is vital to under­stand some of the mind­set behind it. The Unit­ed Nations now has a great deal of con­trol over what hap­pens in Unit­ed States’ land, large­ly but not only fed­er­al own­er­ship and/or con­trol. What we are see­ing is an inter­na­tion­al body now gov­ern­ing over many parts of the U.S.


It then becomes a ques­tion of whether inter­na­tion­al treaties and oth­er agree­ments, espe­cial­ly UN Agen­da 21 in this case, trump the Unit­ed States Con­sti­tu­tion. Do the peo­ple enforc­ing these “laws” rec­og­nize or even know the codes they are enforc­ing? Is there a rea­son the con­sti­tu­tion is no longer tru­ly taught? These are just two of the ques­tions in a very com­plex set of issues, which have com­bined to become a slow, method­i­cal sub­ver­sion of the pri­ma­ry doc­u­ments that once seemed to gov­ern our coun­try. There are many lay­ers to this and when dig­ging into them, a clear­er pic­ture emerges.

By the recent­ly deceased researcher, author, and expert on UN Agen­da 21, Hen­ry Lamb, an arti­cle was writ­ten in 2003 deal­ing with the very issue peo­ple are tak­ing note of today. It is enti­tled “Why the Gov­ern­ment is Grab­bing our Land” (excerpt):

By 1976, the Unit­ed Nations was ready to artic­u­late a gen­er­al pol­i­cy on land use. This pol­i­cy is stat­ed in the final report of the first U.N. Con­fer­ence on Human Set­tle­ments (HABITAT I), held in Van­cou­ver, British Colum­bia in 1976.

The pre­am­ble to the sec­tion on Land, says:

Land…cannot be treat­ed as an ordi­nary asset, con­trolled by indi­vid­u­als and sub­ject to the pres­sures and inef­fi­cien­cies of the mar­ket. Pri­vate land own­er­ship is also a prin­ci­pal instru­ment of accu­mu­la­tion and con­cen­tra­tion of wealth and there­fore con­tributes to social injus­tice; if unchecked, it may become a major obsta­cle in the plan­ning and imple­men­ta­tion of devel­op­ment schemes. The pro­vi­sion of decent dwellings and healthy con­di­tions for the peo­ple can only be achieved if land is used in the inter­ests of soci­ety as a whole. Pub­lic con­trol of land use is there­fore indispensable….”

The land use phi­los­o­phy of the non-Amer­i­can world was ful­ly incor­po­rat­ed into inter­na­tion­al law and norms, with the sup­port of the Unit­ed States government.

For a detailed expla­na­tion on the Wild­lands Project here is a short video, again from Hen­ry Lamb. This project is jus­ti­fied by pro­claim­ing it is all about pro­tect­ing and restor­ing core wilder­ness areas. In real­i­ty this is a land grab designed to move peo­ple off the land and place them into “sus­tain­able com­mu­ni­ties,” in less than twen­ty-five per­cent of our own Amer­i­can land.

In 1994 the map below was pre­sent­ed by Michael Coff­man to the U.S. Sen­ate, which stopped the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the bio­di­ver­si­ty treaty. Despite such efforts we find that it is being imple­ment­ed through var­i­ous gov­ern­ment agen­cies, exec­u­tive orders, trade asso­ci­a­tions, etc. Gen­er­al­ly, it is fund­ed by our tax dol­lars, or cen­tral bank car­tel funds, or those of foun­da­tions formed by cor­po­ra­tions and tycoons which in our his­to­ry have become bor­row­ers of the worlds’ major bank­ing institutions.


A pro­gram for Nation­al Her­itage sites is just one exam­ple of how this plan has still con­tin­ued. Its efforts to con­trol land have increased at an alarm­ing speed. As more peo­ple wake up to the real­i­ty of what is tak­ing place, we are nat­u­ral­ly going to push back, as seen at the Bundy Ranch. Then again, the efforts to imple­ment this agen­da will only become bold­er. That will cre­ate a very tense sit­u­a­tion to say the least.

From anoth­er stal­wart activist for sov­er­eign Amer­i­cans’ foun­da­tion­al­ly agreed nat­ur­al rights of life, lib­er­ty, and prop­er­ty, Tom DeWeese, in a 2012 article:

I men­tioned H.R. 4099, a bill now before Con­gress to “Autho­rize a Nation­al Her­itage Area Pro­gram, and for oth­er pur­pos­es…” The bill describes the need for Her­itage Areas this way: “Cer­tain areas of the Unit­ed States tell nation­al­ly sig­nif­i­cant sto­ries; they illus­trate sig­nif­i­cant aspects of our her­itage; pos­sess excep­tion­al nat­ur­al, cul­tur­al, scenic, and his­toric resources; and rep­re­sent the diver­si­ty of our nation­al character.”

So, name a sec­tion of our nation that doesn’t con­tain “sig­nif­i­cant sto­ries.” Or locate a place where peo­ple from the past didn’t walk, live or car­ry out their lives. That def­i­n­i­tion is sim­ply too broad to be prac­ti­cal – if the real pur­pose is to hon­or our heritage.

But the bill goes on to explain: “In these areas, the inter­ac­tion of nat­ur­al process­es, geog­ra­phy, his­to­ry, cul­tur­al tra­di­tions, and eco­nom­ic and social forces form dis­tinc­tive land­scapes that should be rec­og­nized, con­served, enhanced, and inter­pret­ed to improve the qual­i­ty of life in the regions and to pro­vide oppor­tu­ni­ties for pub­lic appre­ci­a­tion, edu­ca­tion, enjoy­ment, and eco­nom­ic sustainability.”

Where have we heard these very words before – eco­nom­ic and social forces; con­serve; improve the qual­i­ty of life?

Well, let’s try this quote from the President’s Coun­cil on Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment which said, “Sus­tain­able Com­mu­ni­ties encour­age peo­ple to work togeth­er to cre­ate healthy com­mu­ni­ties where nat­ur­al resources are pre­served, jobs are avail­able, sprawl is con­tained, neigh­bor­hoods are secure, edu­ca­tion is life­long, trans­porta­tion and health care are acces­si­ble, and all cit­i­zens have oppor­tu­ni­ties to improve the qual­i­ty of their lives.”

The President’s Coun­cil on Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, by the way, was orga­nized by Bill Clin­ton in the 1990’s to cre­ate pol­i­cy to reduce or elim­i­nate “unsus­tain­able” activ­i­ties by con­trol­ling such things as con­sumerism, high meat intake, use of fos­sil fuels, road­ways, auto­mo­biles, dams, pas­tures, golf cours­es, and much more.

In keep­ing with the theme of earth’s resources being con­fis­cat­ed for the sake of its most wealthy and pow­er­ful elit­ists, and informed by the Bio­di­ver­si­ty map, let us look at what the “Wilder­ness Act” pro­hibits. A com­mon and unset­tling theme here is its dis­dain for humans and the impact they have on the environment.

Sec­tion 4© of the Wilder­ness Act pro­hibits the use of motor vehi­cles, motor­ized equip­ment, motor­boats, land­ing of air­craft, and all oth­er forms of mechan­i­cal trans­port. Sec­tion 4© of the Wilder­ness Act pro­vides two nar­row excep­tions that allow motor­ized or mech­a­nized uses in wilder­ness for admin­is­tra­tive pur­pos­es: 1) in emer­gen­cies involv­ing the health and safe­ty of per­sons with­in the area; and 2) when a motor­ized or mech­a­nized action is nec­es­sary as the min­i­mum require­ment for prop­er pro­tec­tion and admin­is­tra­tion of the area as wilderness.

Sec­tion 2© of the Wilder­ness Act defines Wilder­ness, in part, “as an area where the earth and com­mu­ni­ty of life are untram­meled by man…” Remain­ing untram­meled is a key qual­i­ty that dif­fer­en­ti­ates des­ig­nat­ed Wilder­ness from oth­er unde­vel­oped lands. To be untram­meled means that nat­ur­al process­es in Wilder­ness are left free to func­tion with­out inten­tion­al human inter­fer­ence and manip­u­la­tion. Pro­tect­ing Wilder­ness as untram­meled land­scape is a key statu­to­ry intent of the Wilder­ness Act.

The Act fur­ther defines wilder­ness “as an area to be “pro­tect­ed and man­aged so as to pre­serve its nat­ur­al con­di­tions and which (1) gen­er­al­ly appears to have been affect­ed pri­mar­i­ly by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work sub­stan­tial­ly unno­tice­able…” The Act envi­sioned the Wilder­ness sys­tem to be gov­erned by nat­ur­al process­es, retain­ing its “primeval char­ac­ter and influ­ence…” The hands-off approach direct­ed by the Act pro­vides that man­age­ment deci­sions and activ­i­ties must strive to min­i­mize the lev­el of human inter­fer­ence in the Wilder­ness ecosystem.

Despite the statu­to­ry intent that Wilder­ness be self-willed or self-shap­ing land­scape, a vari­ety of inten­tion­al human manip­u­la­tions do take place in Wilder­ness, many of them unre­lat­ed to pro­tect­ing Wilder­ness char­ac­ter. Exam­ples of com­mon manip­u­la­tions include fish stock­ing, fire man­age­ment, wildlife trans­plants, endan­gered species man­age­ment, man­age­ment of game pop­u­la­tions, preda­tor con­trol, and inva­sive weeds and insect infestations.

The Nation­al Wilder­ness Preser­va­tion Sys­tem is made up of four fed­er­al agencies.

USDA For­est Service

USDI Nation­al Park Service

• Bureau of Land Management

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

In 1993 the Carhart Cen­ter was cre­at­ed, inter­est­ing­ly enough the same year Clin­ton signed an Exec­u­tive Order titled “The President’s Coun­cil on Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment“. The center’s mis­sion is as follows:

The mis­sion of the Carhart Cen­ter is “to fos­ter inter­a­gency excel­lence in wilder­ness stew­ard­ship by cul­ti­vat­ing knowl­edge­able, skilled and capa­ble wilder­ness man­agers and by improv­ing pub­lic under­stand­ing of wilder­ness phi­los­o­phy, val­ues and process­es.” The Carhart Center’s vision is to be a “nation­al and inter­na­tion­al leader in the devel­op­ment and imple­men­ta­tion of wilder­ness infor­ma­tion, train­ing and edu­ca­tion programs.

In order for some­thing to be imple­ment­ed by future gen­er­a­tions it has to be taught, which is anoth­er mis­sion of the Carhart Center.

Hand-in-hand with the Carhart Center’s mis­sion of train­ing wilder­ness man­agers is the goal of improv­ing pub­lic under­stand­ing of wilder­ness phi­los­o­phy, val­ues, and process­es. This has been approached through devel­op­ment of class­room cur­ric­u­la and oth­er out­reach prod­ucts. The Carhart Cen­ter has devel­oped and dis­trib­uted two dif­fer­ent, com­pre­hen­sive Wilder­ness and Land Eth­ic cur­ric­u­la— one tar­get­ing kinder­garten through eighth grade stu­dents, and one designed for ninth through twelfth grade stu­dents. The cur­ric­u­la inte­grate wilder­ness con­cepts and val­ues into an array of sub­ject-mat­ter top­ics, mak­ing it attrac­tive and con­ve­nient for teach­ers to include wilder­ness in their les­son plans. The Carhart Cen­ter also offers cours­es that pro­vide wilder­ness man­agers with the skills need­ed to present teach­ers’ work­shops local­ly to facil­i­tate use of the curricula.

For the final phase, enforc­ing all that one has been taught. A future career in “Wilder­ness Management“:

NRSM 405 and NRSM 561 study ecosys­tem char­ac­ter­is­tics and basic prin­ci­ples of wilder­ness man­age­ment. Sep­a­rate chap­ters dis­cuss man­age­ment of spe­cif­ic wilder­ness resources such as fire, wildlife, cul­tur­al and his­tor­i­cal sites, etc.; man­ag­ing non-con­form­ing uses such as graz­ing, min­ing, and motor­ized vehi­cles and equip­ment and mechan­i­cal trans­port. Dis­cuss­es the use of prim­i­tive means to achieve man­age­ment objec­tives, use of the min­i­mum tool, and no-trace camp­ing methods.

One may read­i­ly see how this ties into Agen­da 21, from the UN Agen­da 21 publication.


10.5. The broad objec­tive is to facil­i­tate allo­ca­tion of land to the uses that pro­vide the great­est sus­tain­able ben­e­fits and to pro­mote the tran­si­tion to a sus­tain­able and inte­grat­ed man­age­ment of land resources. In doing so, envi­ron­men­tal, social and eco­nom­ic issues should be tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion. Pro­tect­ed areas, pri­vate prop­er­ty rights, the rights of indige­nous peo­ple and their com­mu­ni­ties and oth­er local com­mu­ni­ties and the eco­nom­ic role of women in agri­cul­ture and rur­al devel­op­ment, among oth­er issues, should be tak­en into account. In more spe­cif­ic terms, the objec­tives are as follows:

(a) To review and devel­op poli­cies to sup­port the best pos­si­ble use of land and the sus­tain­able man­age­ment of land resources, by not lat­er than 1996;

(b) To improve and strength­en plan­ning, man­age­ment and eval­u­a­tion sys­tems for land and land resources, by not lat­er than 2000;

© To strength­en insti­tu­tions and coor­di­nat­ing mech­a­nisms for land and land resources, by not lat­er than 1998;

(d) To cre­ate mech­a­nisms to facil­i­tate the active involve­ment and par­tic­i­pa­tion of all con­cerned, par­tic­u­lar­ly com­mu­ni­ties and peo­ple at the local lev­el, in deci­sion-mak­ing on land use and man­age­ment, by not lat­er than 1996.

Today, we have at least two gen­er­a­tions that have been indoc­tri­nat­ed well beyond four years (that is key to Agen­da 21 imple­men­ta­tion) and trained to be good “glob­al cit­i­zens” — that it is their duty to be good stew­ards to the earth, as glob­al pow­er-hoard­ers define what that is to mean.

As time pass­es and the col­lec­tivist indoc­tri­nat­ed youth grow up, they are to become man­agers of these wilder­ness areas. Then, they must make sure the peo­ple who are still stuck in their old ways of think­ing will see the new ways for them, or be made to com­ply. As of yet, they have no reli­able way of know­ing that in today’s world, this repack­aged social­ism is just a vehi­cle for the ever increas­ing tyran­nies of a new style of total­i­tar­i­an con­trol, aid­ed by tech­nol­o­gy gen­er­at­ing the abil­i­ty to mon­i­tor vir­tu­al­ly every­thing about our lives — a sys­tem of which Lenin could have only have dreamed. And if these plans are allowed to ful­ly come to fruition, there will be no more free ranch­ers, farm­ers, or citizens.