First, he rants that the philosophy is damnable, dangerous, disorderly, counter-opposed to law and the Christian faith and is a scourge to a "free society".

Next, he is brainwashed to believe he has no rights and tires of standing up for some nebulous thing. The issue is of no importance one way or another to him, he says.

Finally, he asserts to having always upheld and believed in the socialist doctrine. He is converted to the fold and displays solidarity in the spirit of "getting along" with his new comrades.

When people stop fighting for their rights, beliefs and the law that governs their freedoms, they are finished; they are slaves.

Almost daily another person falls victim to socialism. And another so-called conservative politician is heard speaking from the left side of his mouth about the virtues of "sustainable development" and extoling extortion of the private sector with catchy terms like "partnerships" and "stakeholders".

Why would conservative-thinkers praise "sustainable development"? It is not compatible with a "free society". Sustainable development thwarts ownership of private property which is the cornerstone of any democracy.

Inclusive are mining claims, which are privately-held property where a person conducts his business.

A regulatory taking of any privately-owned property by any government is the beginning of the end to a "free society".

In upholding the United Nations' desire to destroy capitalism, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against private property rights last July.

"Anything you own can be expropriated without due process and without compensation," said the top court.

This ruling means that the Liberal government can simply ram a law through Parliament, giving itself the right and the power to confiscate each and every bit of Canadian-owned property falling under federal law without paying a dime in compensation to the legal owners.

So warned member of Parliament Garry Breitkreuz, the Official Critic for Firearms and Property Rights.

"This Supreme Court ruling should raise concerns for all Canadians over their ability to enjoy their own property, including the fruits of their labour.

"What more evidence do you need that Liberals are undoing everything our ancestors fought for, for hundreds of years?"

The-then Canadian Alliance MP said in a news release that "a free and democratic society needs to have the best protection of property rights or else all is at risk."

Breitkreuz has repeatedly called for entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

His dream won't happen as long as Canada is closely aligned with the United Nations, an unscrupulous institution that does not recognize a "free society". Its manifesto calls the new communist governance a "civil society".

The UN created its Commission on Sustainable Development to advance Agenda 21, a method for removing land from human activity.

Sustainable development is a "corroborative decision-making and consensus-building process". It enables crafty, free-wheeling, non-elected, non-accountable individuals to formulate public policy while by-passing statutes, Charter rights and the legislative process.

Through this politically-correct agenda, a swarm of non-government organizations (NGOs) has spun off to concentrate on a myriad of "special interest" that aid and abet sustainable development.

The representatives who comprise these boards and councils are "policy hounds" who only bring in hand-picked, like-minded eco-greens from government, environmental groups and Indian bands to serve as other "stakeholders".

The few token seats reserved for private industries never equal the eco-Nazis at the table.

Most private-sector reps are volunteers who are not paid for this time-wasting exercise and should have been out working all these years. Countless presidents and directors from mining associations have suffered burn out over the last decade attending an endless string of meetings that are charting their demise.

Private industry should have learned long ago never to try playing paddy cake with rattlesnakes. Why "negotiate" a process when the decisions are predetermined?

If they are present at the table and don't like the outcome (which they won't), then they have no recourse.

As proven by the Group of Nine from business and industry when the protected areas shenanigans were boycotted, the non-legal, land-grabbing strategy had to be put on perpetual hold. (The Fentie government should burn it!)

Not showing up to "negotiate" offered leverage. Industry at least had room to complain. It can ask governments at all levels to ignore the sneaky, ill-conceived environmental policies which allow bullish bureaucrats the power to withhold rights through a discretionary licensing and permitting system.

Same rings true with the placer miners. They should not be at the table "negotiating" rights they already hold. If they don't like the outcome (which they won't), they won't have any recourse because they were present when the decisions were made. (The Green Clubbers will call it a "consensus".)

But the real hazard with these eco-groups, spawned in the name of "sustainable development", is the absence of accountability.

It is one thing for industry to boycott the process but quite another matter if the general public does not like the policies developed by these specialty groups.

Ordinary citizens can't unelect those who were not elected. The ones appointed won't be unappointed until their designated tenure expires.

Most times, people don't know what transpired behind closed-door sessions at these public-funded meetings that are wrongly designated off-limits to observers. These meetings are not televised and broadcast for home viewers and listeners like city council meetings and the legislative assembly.

Sustainable development is an evil, lunatic concept that eliminates individuality and provides a textbook description of how each person will behave collectively under the "Third Sector", which is trendy UN vernacular for "Third Reich".

"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing, are not sustainable."

Those are the words of Manitoba-born Maurice Strong addressing the opening session of the United Nations Earth Summit II in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Strong's proposals mean reversing the advancements of human civilization by eliminating domestic livestock and fisheries, thus depriving the masses of meat and dairy products.

He proposes to dismantle all industry, including farming. Without industry, there is no need for rural and northern communities.

There will be no more comfortable houses heated with an oil furnace or electricity.

To meet these Hitlerism objectives of eliminating benefits and amenities that serve humans' health and comforts, first the planet must be cleansed of capitalism.

The best place to start is by ridding the planet of the middle, educated class. Survivors of the purge will be reduced to poverty and relocated into human concentration camps.

The principles of "sustainable development" are set forth to determine the food you eat, clothes you wear, where you live, how you dispose of waste, where you our "allowed" to work, how you get to work, and even the number of children you are "permitted".

The United Nations has decreed that a One-World Government will take custody of all children.

The goal of sustainable development is to transform the world into a feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society, explains Tom DeWeese.

The president of the Virginia-based American Policy Center advises that the international agenda has been set in motion, beginning with the United Nations' treaties and agreements.

"That agenda is now working its way down through federal to state to local government policy," he added.

"It is now the official policy of the United States government; and every single city, town and small burg in this nation is working on plans to implement it."

Sound familiar? There are no exceptions in his country nor in Canada. Sustainable development is an odious concept that does not recognize constitutional rights nor property rights.

While freedom cannot survive "sustainable development", likewise "sustainable development" cannot survive in a "free society".

One sage suggestion as to how society can start zapping this freedom-sucking pestilence came from journalist Henry Lamb, chair of Sovereignty International.

All political candidates should be asked publicly before every election to state his/her commitment to a "free society" or to a "sustainable society".

It cannot be both ways, he said.

-- 30 --

Copyright 2004 diArmani.com