Oregon Ranch Land: A Bully’s Paradise (Part 2)

Likely the Hammonds, as well as Ammon Bundy, his siblings and parents who own a cattle ranch in Nevada, would be considered “kulaks” under its later definition of the former Soviet regime:

Subsequently, after 1917, by a transfer of meaning, the name kulak began to be applied (in official and propaganda literature, whence it moved into general usage) to all those who in any way hired workers, even if it was only when they were temporarily short of working hands in their own families. ³

Once the kulak, was sufficiently demonized, the Soviets progressed, or more accurately descended, to the next level:

But the inflation of this scathing term kulak proceeded relentlessly, and by 1930 all strong peasants in general were being so called – all peasants strong in management, strong in work, or even strong merely in convictions. The term kulak was used to smash the strength of the peasantry. Let us remember, let us open our eyes: only a dozen years had passed since the great Decree on the Land – that very decree without which the peasants would have refused to follow the Bolsheviks and without which the October Revolution would have failed….And now these peasants, whose breadgrain had fed Russia in 1928, were hastily uprooted by local good-for-nothings and city people sent in from outside. Like raging beasts, abandoning every concept of “humanity,” abandoning all humane principles which had evolved through the millennia, they began to round up the very best farmers and their families, and to drive them, stripped of their possessions, naked, into the northern wastes, into the tundra and the taiga…. 4

So what does the shameful persecution of unfortunate landowners in the USSR have to do with our day?  Let us continue our exploration of Agenda 21.  If this is a new term or concept, consider this short video which provides a good overall understanding:

How does Agenda 21 compare to Lenin’s “Decree on Land”:

The Decree on Land, written by Vladimir Lenin, was passed by the Second Congress of Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies on 26 October 1917, following the success of the October Revolution. It decreed an abolition of private property, and the redistribution of the landed estates amongst the peasantry.  According to the Decree on Land, the peasants had seized the lands of the nobility, monasteries and Church. This decree was followed on February 19, 1918, by a decree of the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets, “The Fundamental Law of Land Socialization”.

Lenin penned that the land would be redistributed “to the peasants”.  This of course did not make its way into reality, as is quite common with Communist tenets.  Conversely, the peasants were often driven from, or handed over to starvation within their own land, as we have seen in the Stalinist era.  However, Agenda 21 and its sister-agendas like America 2050 go a step further — they do not make empty promises that the land will be redistributed to the people. Conversely they clearly map out “no human access” zones, and assert to move the American people to less than a dozen “megacities”.  Hodges explains:

During this time, the global elite’s plan to establish 11 megacity regions, each containing approximately six million people each was being established under stealth….

In the present time, locating the publicly available information on the megacities topic is child’s play. In fact, I am quite shocked that more of my colleagues in the truthful media are not immersed in this topic and shouting from the rooftops about the implications posed by the implementation of these 11 urban areas to our collective lives, liberties, properties and our very existence….

Where ever you find a bold new initiative related to the plans of the global elite, you will find documentation arising from various think tank organizations in support of these goals. With regard to the coming forced subjugation of the American population to the “stack and pack” megacities, two important papers, the “3-D: Infrastructure for California’s Future” and the National Academy of Public Administration’s “Memos to National Leaders: Partnerships as Fiscal Policy”, jump to the front of the line in espousing the megacities concept.

What is the end goal of Agenda 21?  Hodges has dire words for the future of his country unless “we the people” stand up against the ‘current’ of raging waters:

In the United States, food will be the weapon of choice that will be used to be move people to the target areas. Today, people are being nudged by EPA and BLM policies to the inner city areas. In tomorrow’s world, food will be the enticer to move people to the inner city. With small farmers out of the way, only large corporate farms will exist. This is what the Ammon Bundy situation is all about. If he loses, the following will continue unabated, which means America has a date with genocide.

His is an interesting analysis of Agenda 21 – for “food” to be the “enticer”, and a world where “only large corporate farms will exist”. It piques an interest because history is in fact playing twice.  Solzhenitsyn refers to the Bolshevik and Stalinist orchestrated famines as the “Plague”:

But about the silent, treacherous Plague which starved fifteen million of our peasants to death, choosing its victims carefully and destroying the backbone and mainstay of the Russian people – about that Plague there are no books. No bugles bid our hearts beat faster for them.  Not even the traditional three stones mark the crossroads where they went in creaking carts to their doom. Our finest humanists, so sensitive to today’s injustices, in those years only nodded approvingly: Quite right, too! Just what they deserve! 5

The Soviet Union accomplished her starvation plan through the dreaded policy of “Grain Procurement”, as in this example of a province called Kady.  Its leaders were distressed that the people would have little food to survive once their grain was procured:

It happened that Fyodor Ivanovich Smirnov, the First Secretary of the District Party Committee, was a man with a strong sense of justice; Stavrov, the head of the District Agricultural Department…. These men tried to do something for the peasants in their new district, but directives kept pouring down from above and each one ran counter to some initiative of theirs; it was as if, up there, they were busy thinking up what they could do to make things worse and more desperate for the peasants.  And at one point the leaders in Kady wrote the province leadership that it was necessary to lower the plan for procurement of breadgrains because the district couldn’t fulfill the plan without becoming impoverished well below the danger point. One has to recall the situation in the thirties (and maybe not only the thirties?) to realize what sacrilege against the plan and what rebellion against the government this represented! 6


In this same way, millions of Ukrainians were starved to death, although their land was none other than the famed “breadbasket of Europe“.

This intentional famine is known as “Holodomor”.

Ukrainian grain was sent to Moscow and other places, and sold to procure money for Stalin’s “Five Year Plan” — all while the locals starved.

Stalin sent many dissenters to these regions of death.  This ensured lies flourished in the “Main Stream Media” that no such famine existed.  His propaganda squad also played international hard ball as well, as described in this article:

The Soviets bolstered their famine denial by duping members of the foreign press and international celebrities through carefully staged photo opportunities in the Soviet Union and the Ukraine. The writer George Bernard Shaw, along with a group of British socialites, visited the Soviet Union and came away with a favorable impression which he disseminated to the world. Former French Premier Edouard Herriot was given a five-day stage-managed tour of the Ukraine, viewing spruced-up streets in Kiev and inspecting a ‘model’ collective farm. He also came away with a favorable impression and even declared there was indeed no famine.


We may ask, why didn’t the Soviet citizens secretly take grains for themselves and their families?  Why did they starve in this manner?  Many tried, but this sort of treasonous act was thoroughly punished:

….There was a wave for snipping ears, the nighttime snipping of individual ears of grain in the field-a totally new type of agricultural activity, a new type of harvesting! The wave of those caught doing this was not small-it included many tens of thousands of peasants, many of them not even adults but boys, girls, and small children whose elders had sent them out at night to snip, because they had no hope of receiving anything from the collective farm for their daytime labor. For this bitter and not very productive occupation (an extreme of poverty to which the peasants had not been driven even in serfdom) the courts handed out a full measure: ten years for what ranked as an especially dangerous theft of socialist property under the notorious law of August 7, 1932-which in prisoners’ lingo was known simply as the law of Seven-eighths. 7

To continue, go to: Oregon Ranch Land: A Bully’s Paradise (Part 3)

This entry was posted in His Creation, Judgment Now. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *