Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Who is Constance Cumbey and why does she lie about me?

Finished the last interview with Constance Cumbey last night. I can hardly believe it, took three shows to get there, but I managed to finally discuss Communitarian Law with a practicing American attorney. I don't have a copy of the show transcribed yet, but her explanation of why I have been unable to find ONE "American" lawyer who's studied it is quite a revelation. Apparently it's just too darn expensive to study!

Her blogpost about me prior to the show was also very interesting.

"I'm on the radio tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern time. I will finish the series with Niki Raapana on "Communitarian Law". It is controversial here, but the Communitarian puzzle is a vital part of global governance mechanisms being put in place and Niki despite our differences over Israel and her false premise that it is a Zionist scheme (which she appears to have based on New Ager Martin Buber's involvement -- he moved to Israel after his Eranos lecture stint - see my posts to the last two threads on tha yesterday) -- This will finish that series.

Constance

5:25 PM"

First of all, my premise is not that Communitarian Global Governance is a "Zionist scheme." My research includes many aspects of the overall globalist agenda, of which Zionism is only one ugly part. This is a tactic used by group disinformation experts. First they change their targets' premise, and then they proceed to argue among themselves against their "false" representation of their targets' body of work.

Secondly, I write very, very little about Martin Buber; my opposition to political Zionism is most definitely NOT based on Buber. ACL opposition is based almost exclusively on Dr. Amitai Etzioni. Any honest perusal of my work will confirm this fact. I have published hundreds of articles about Buber's student, Dr. Amitai Etzioni, former Haganah terrorist, co-inventor of socio-economics, founder of the Communitarian Network, and high level adviser to U.S. Presidents since 1979. Her lack of interest in exposing Etzioni and his direct ties to Obama and Biden indicate her lack of genuine interest in exposing the whole supranational communitarian system.

That she would lie to her audience about the basis for my research indicates her job is to deflect attention away from the actual, living man who advises Obama, who can and should be held accountable for his treasonous activity in the united states.

Constance's expertise on the New Age movement is well known. I do not dispute it nor would it be worth my time to do so. But apparently she thinks she needs to fit all new information into her narrow minded Christian fundamentalist world view.

I urge everyone seeking information about the emerging supranational system to notice how often writers who mention communitarianism FAIL to mention the man who preaches it to the world. Even Nancy Levant's latest article at Newswithviews, a "new" article that has communitarianism in the title, never once mentions Etzioni's name, nor does it source the ACL (which is where she got all her information used in the article).

When DoD analyst Brian Bloomquist visted me here at Gerteeville last summer, he told me to back off on talking about Etzioni and the Mossad, because they're untouchable and extremely dangerous. We were sitting by my outside firepit and he actually warned me they could have me in their gun sights that very minute. I told him I think the DoD should put me on the payroll because I'm obviously doing their job for them. Etzioni isn't even in the DoD database of foreign terrorists when he openly promotes his "experiences" in the Israeli underground terror network in his resume!

After Elizabeth Ridenour of the Bible Studies Curriculum project told me she was warned to stay away from Etzioni because he's "the most dangerous man in DC," I never heard from her again.

Who is the most influential man in the White House? Amitai Etzioni, without a doubt. So why won't the American "free" press ever mention his name? Gee, I don't know. Maybe it's too expensive to study him.

14 comments:

Bobby Garner said...

Not only is she reluctant to expose Etzioni, it seems to me that she was almost apologetic. In each of the last two interviews, Cumbey spent some time explaining to the audience just how much "good" came out of the communitarian programs that she was involved with back in the `60's.

Did she really say that she had been involved, or did I just imagine that? I didn't record either of the shows (I missed the first one), so I'll be looking for a transcript.

REB said...

Niki,

I have to agree that you are unfairly judged in Evangelical circles. Evangelicalism has fallen victim to the dialectic process, so the judgment of evangelicals is corrupted in many quarters. The opinions of evangelicals ought to be scrutinized very carefully, as you are doing.

Evangelicalism originally stood for Biblical reason and objectivity. By that I mean that Christians are supposed to use there heads before they use their "hearts". Existentialism has crept into evangelical churches and taken control in many (if not most) of them, so reason seems to be out the window.

That said..., Christians are supposed to use Biblical discernment to filter our perceptions. I think Constance is right to do that, if that is what she is doing. I think another filter is in play there too. Her view seems to be distorted by something else (group-think?).

As for myself, I don't agree with either of you fully. But I think both of you are working on parallel tracks and suffer from a bit of myopia.

Constance Cumbey said...

Niki, you have me baffled. I approached you about Communitarianism and Amitai Etzioni. I have tried very hard to honestly understand you and your work. I respect your research. I canot say same at the present time based on my present understanding about Bobby Garner. I'm the one who rcommended you to Dr. Monteith. I may not have a full understanding of you, but I certainly have not lied about you. You raised the subject of Martin Buber's influence being ignored in one of your posts. I thought I gave plenty of air time over our three interviews to Amitai Etzioni. In fact, I said that I had noticed him as an item on the reading lists of Bill Clinton and Javier Solana.

I have been puzzled by your strong world Zionist claims. I'm puzzled. I tried to handle you and your work with respect -- I'm very surprised that you would at least not call and discuss this with me.

I guess you and Dorothy can fight over my carcass. It looks like BOTH of you are angry at me. She, inter alia, because I gave you a forum! Some days you just can't win. Oh well!

Sincerely,

CONSTANCE E. CUMBEY

Constance Cumbey said...

I would like more documentation on the Amitai Etzioni - Martin Buber relationship. If you will view my forum section on my own board, Martin Buber had close relationships with Alice Ann Bailey and Olga Froebe Kapteyn. This would be a key New Age linkage.

Constance

Bobby Garner said...

Reb said: "Christians are supposed to use Biblical discernment to filter our perceptions. I think Constance is right to do that, if that is what she is doing."

Statements like this tend to self destruct on analysis, and it continues to amaze me that its so prevalent. The preposition "if" is very common in doubleness of expression, appearing to say one thing but meaning another (or nothing). It is so common that many do it without thought, which is likewise very hazardous when expressing an opinion.

Nevertheless, assume for a moment that Constance uses "Biblical discernment", and her conduct reflected that. Reb is saying then in effect, that her conduct is justified even though she lied about Niki's work. This requires a twist of logic which defies all reason.

If Cumbey used "biblical discernment" she would not be deceiving her blog contributers with lying insinuations and indirect implications that I "called for extreme marginalization and or even extermination" (of her and her friends apparently). Since she did in fact make that statement, defining the words tells us what it means:

innuendo - an indirect (and usually malicious) implication

"An innuendo is an equivocal allusion so framed as to point distinctly at something which is injurious to the character or reputation of the person referred to."

"An insinuation turns on no such double use of language, but consists in artfully winding into the mind imputations of an injurious nature without making any direct charge."

With what may we easily associate "artfully winding into the mind imputations"?

artifice - artifice n. An artful or crafty expedient; a stratagem.

imputation - a statement attributing something dishonest

stratagem - an elaborate or deceitful scheme contrived to deceive or evade;

deceive - to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid, to practice deceit, to give a false impression.

A deceiver is first and foremost a liar.

Lark said...

Gee, and I always thought that real Christians were taught not to be so damned 'judgmental' - or did I maybe... miss something... from my long-ago readings... of those books?

Seemed like I read it was about 'casting stones', if I recall it correctly. And to think, back then I thought it was a good way to lead one's life.

But reading that lady's blog made me feel like I was in the biblical Tower of Babel story - like right there!

Oh I mean it. The sheer turmoil of it all... the macabre sounds... all the fury... was a-swirlin... just like I imagined getting trapped in the middle of a riot must feel. Like sweet Dorothy and little Toto must have felt it... before being cast in the The Wizard of Oz! ~lol~

Boy, Bobby, I sure am glad I stay out of those snake pits anymore... and far away... from those boilin' cauldrons... of witches' brews... too! Shoot, I don't wanna have to... even think... about goin' to hell... or gettin' eaten... by an ugly old woman - oh no, not me!

My goodness, Niki, you'd best lock up all the doors and shutter the blinds tonight - yea, put in a special call in to security - the demons are out in full force... and I do mean, like for real!

Some of those folks were not only thoughtless and unkind... they seemed downright hateful, girl!

Boy, do you feel like a few of 'em might be violent?

REB said...

Bobby,

I use the little word "if" to signify that I'm willing to give Constance the benefit of the doubt. I find that I am justified in doing so now that Constance has left her comments. She admits to being a bit mystified over the animus on both sides.

You are clearly reacting to (not only my comment here but to) comments left about you by someone else elsewhere. I work for a living and don't have the time or patience to wade through hundreds of comments on a blog.

I believe Constance is concerned with the spiritual consequences of the dialectic. She filters the whole thing through a fairly orthodox Christian world-view. She cares about the political and sociological phenomena only so far as it affects the Church. Has it occurred to you that she can't make sense of your perspective and is suspicious of you? As for myself, I am naturally suspicious of someone who takes a dialectical view of the Bible, which you seem to have (from reading your 'The Deception of Belief' article).

That's it in a nutshell. With so much suspicion going around, it's no wonder that we're all at odds with one another. (Feel free to scrutinize that nugget without further comment from me on this topic.)

The Angry Cheese. said...

I would not be at all surprised if the opinionated "Dorothy" on Constance's blog is some hairy old fat bloke paid to cause disruption, and to mislead people, including Constance herself.

www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Chapter04.htm

I think a great deal of good has come out of these interviews, I have learned a great deal from both you and Constance, thank you both very much.

Bobby Garner said...

Well Reb, Sometimes I don't know what to do either. We have Constance's assurance that she didn't lie when she said she disagreed with Niki's work on communitarianism because its based on a "false premise that it is a Zionist scheme"

Who was it with that line; "I did not have sex with that woman"? In Orwell's world, denial establishes the truth. In Washington they say it requires three, but maybe one is enough here.

Bobby Garner said...

Cumbey wants information on the relationship between Etzioni and Buber?

The common bond between them is Zionism.

"Buber was a utopian Zionist. He believed strongly that the most important possibility for Zionism was in changing the relationships between people. He wrote powerfully in favor of Arab rights in Palestine."Jewish Virtual Library

Could I recommend the book The First Buber: Youthful Zionist Writing of Martin Buber, by Martin Buber?

If she needs more, Google Zionist "Martin Buber" 29,000 results

Terry said...

Re: Buber Etzioni connection

Etzioni is quoted as saying that Buber was his "Master-teacher," here: http://tinyurl.com/7eo9k6

Also, Etzioni explicitly says, "[s]tudying with Martin Buber, I was introduced to communitarian philosophy and sociology."

mary said...

I can only say this... I've been studying Zionism and Israel for almost 30 years now. I had never heard the name Amitai Etzioni before (mind, I live in Europe and he is not on TV here yet). I can absolutely testify to the best of my own knowledge, that you are totally on target.

Etzioni may well be the most dangerous man on the planet. Zionism is certainly the most dangerous philosophy I know of (well, the bloodiest), and there is much that it has in common with Communitarianism. They are siamese twins.

Niki, I can't thank you enough for your work, and for your grace.

Anonymous said...

I find it extremely interesting that Etzioni, like J.j. Dewey have the same philosophical mentors.
Both shroud their walk - in work, they claim it as their own but most assuredly it is spiritual death that writes through/for them.
Little do people know that they are mediums, willing human channels of demonic writings that then goes to the politicians, then to the masses.
Both writers wait for their master teacher, who lies in wait to deceive.
Rightly devide things here folks, it's an age of deceit, few will make the proper discernment regarding such issues as this

JohnL said...

http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2015/07/d...l-vallely.html

I haven’t heard about Constance Cumbey for awhile, but recently she wrote an intriguing article about Gen Vallely (ret.) which I thought was very significant because the article considers a possible alliance between Gen. Vallely and the occult-psyops of Colonel Aquino. Gen. Vallely has had intentions of using idealistic revolutionaries to overthrow a corrupt government, -- but is it based on nobleness or Aquino-type psyops?

C. Cumbey possibly has been brought up in a christianity that embraces Israel closely – christian zionism. I personally think that the bible has a lot of good things to say about Israel – Daniel, David, Abraham, Sarah, Deborah, Esther, the apostles, etc. However, until they accept Christ as savior, many of them have undermined the economy of the countries they’ve been in, at least. Communitarian ideas by Etzioni might be typical of the ideas of Jewish communism, with a different slant.

Christian zionists don’t seem to want to see the corruptions of zionist-type ideas. But forgiveness should be the the first thing to do.