Friday, September 10, 2010

Is Tom DeWeese misleading us on purpose?

I keep getting forwards that link to Tom DeWeese's last article on Senator Dodd's proposed Livable Communities Act (S.1619). http://americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer-action-alerts/%E2%80%9Clivable-communities%E2%80%9D-is-a-socialist-trap.html

DeWeese calls it a "socialist trap." He closes with a call for all Republicans to call and write their representatives to protest the bill because, I suppose, this will stop it, and in his expert opinion, registered Democrats (read socialists) have no reason to oppose it.

DeWeese claims he has been leading the fight against LA21 for over a decade. He tells us:
"S.1619 is the first federal Sustainable Development law to enforce the UN’s Agenda 21. It must be stopped now – or every single community in America will be forced to comply with UN policy."
Does the above quote give you the impression that calling and writing your Congress will STOP LA21 in the USA? Does it imply that as yet no place has been forced to comply with UN policy?

The truth is, there have been many federal laws and programs that have already implemented Sustainable Development from one end of the country to another. Clinton's President's Council on Sustainable Development was created in 1993. The National Town Meetings began in the 1990s too. The Communitarian Network and Presidential Adviser Amitai Etzioni worked side by side with the Clinton Administration to be the "moral" backbone for reinventing our nation under SD principles. Rebuilding Community and SD go hand in hand.

The federal department of Agriculture changed its mission statement to promote SD in 1993. The USDA is completely devoted to SD and everything they do promotes it. Sustainable Communities is the goal of every government program already ongoing in the country. Our best universities have been teaching SD for over a decade already.

There have been numerous state laws and programs since 1992 that have implemented Sustainable Development in every state in the union. There are numerous treaties that have already put the U.S. under U.N. communitarian law. SD standards are already mandatory.

So why would Tom DeWeese, a self proclaimed "leader" in fighting SD for over a decade, tell his readers that THIS new law proposed by Dodd is the key to stopping SD?

How is it possible that this "leader" of the U.S. opposition to SD has written only one article in all his years of "fighting" SD that mentions the philosophy behind SD? Why won't DeWeese tell you about the massive communitarian legal system and bureaucracy that already "legalized" SD in the USA? Why doesn't he explain communitarian law is supreme law under the revised U.N., or that every country in the world is facing the same changes to the structure of their governments? (Global government is NOT just an American problem!)

I asked Kevin Eggers if he could explain why average people like himself and the Santa Rosa Democrats Against LA21 can so readily understand communitarianism when people like DeWeese, who claim to be experts, can continue to completely ignore it. His response:
"Communitarianism makes sense. Senator William Borah described in his book "Bedrock" (1936) how the corporations were controlling things through their monopolies in a free market system and also how the corporations controlled things in the legislation or "planned industrialism" that was supposed to be for the people's benefit. Without calling it the Hegelian Dialectic, Borah explained the Hegelian dialectic of capitalism versus socialism with the large corporations winning no matter what. Today, the left can only see the expoitation of corporate controlled capitalism and the right can only see the exploitation of corporate influenced big government socialism. Our corporate controlled education and media maintains these left right divisions so they can get away with nearly anything."
Who else besides the corporate controlled media maintains the left right divisions?

Where can average people be the most effective in the war against the SD gangsters? At HOME, on their home fronts, where the SD programs claim to have the support of the whole community. Any time spent writing federal representatives about SD is a waste of time. They've already embraced the communitarian ideology. But if Americans go to their local meetings and take over their local councils... they can direct SD in any direction they choose (including straight into the garbage can where it belongs).

The bottom line is these innovative strategies to reinvent American government do not gain their validity only via national laws. Communitarian powers come from the communitarian claims that the "community" supports communitarian changes. If the residents in the community don't know anything about communitarianism, the planners have no clear opposition.

If we don't know what communitarianism is, then we can't identify the people who embrace it. If we don't know what legal theory supports SD, we can't challenge it using our legitimate local law.

14 comments:

ericswan said...

Think small. Think Love Your Neighbour. A communitarian is one who uplifts his neighbours. Define "neighbour". Support the neighbourhood. Save seeds. Compost. Network with your neighbours. How far are you going to carry that bag of leaves? That bag of grass clippings? That's your neighbourhood.

Rusty Mason said...

Hello, Niki,

So glad to see your post; I was directed here from Rense.com. Thanks for your hard work and please keep posting and explaining, in as many ways as you can. The longer you keep sending the same signals about, the more people will see them. There is a small awakening going on among the sleepy middle class, and it's good to be able to direct new people to your articles.

DaveY said...

I'm conservative, and I'm an active member of a Sustainability organization in my community.

What's wrong with sustainability?
"Sustainability doesn't turn folks into ideological slaves...people turn people into ideological slaves"

People see the word sustainability... and they freak out and presume it's a U.N. plot. There may well BE a U.N. plot.

But perpetuating primitive energy technologies... and spending billions to suppress emerging technologies makes very little sense.

Monsanto Corp and some other large bio-tech companies are subverting and breaking the law of the land here, and around the globe, and even using the term "sustainable" to do it... but they sustain nothing.

PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION thinking is theater, Bread and Circus if you will, for the masses.

But railing on anything that contains the term "sustainable", merely suggests slavery to ideas and beliefs that others have jammed down our gullets.

If some Middle East country invades another... over... lets say... supposed nuclear technology, and the country attacked control a major artery where oil flows... say... the Straights of Hormuz...

Everyone in the U.S. will discover what sustainability should have been, when the grocery shelves are empty, and there's rioting and savagery running in the streets over food and fuel.

Sustainability, so far as one family, one property, is being able to grow your own food and feed your family when TSHTFan. Call it what you want. Sounds like common sense to me... UN plots be damned.

Individuals building community with their neighbors. That's not about UN control. That's about folks taking control BACK.

Louis Turner said...

Great post Niki! Its good to see that somebody has finally exposed Tom DeWeese and his Masonic smoke and mirrors for what he is – a snake in the grass. In 1828, Masonic Andrew Jackson defeated Anti-Mason John Quincy Adams in a landslide, and created the modern Democratic Party thus inaugurating the Second Party System. With Republicans and Democrats now in charge, the Masonic plot to morph The Republic into a Democracy soon took its roots. The end result and defeat of the Anti-Masonic Party was the birth of the Democrat Party aided by the fact that Andrew Jackson was a high-ranking Mason and would do anything to quash the rebellion against Freemasonry. Ever since then many authors of disinformation had a job to do, and that was to water down any facts that pointed toward exposing that fine communitarian machine that has slowly crept into society and retuning the focus onto two bogus parties that will lead US to our own destruction.

Anonymous said...

http://cygnids.blogspot.com/

Eric Swan, who posted the first comment appears to be into heavy occultism. Theosophy perhaps? Blavatsky,Bailey stuff. "As above, so below" comes from witchcraft.

the tent lady said...

Thanks everyone, there's some very interesting opinions on this topic. I had second thoughts about publishing my reaction to this big "alert," so it's good to know I have a little bit of support for my concerns about the way people keep leaving out the core issue. It's to the point now where I just can't hold back anything, and if I'm proven wrong I'll be happy to apologize to anyone I offend. But I've been waiting for the experts to catch up with the real world for over a decade.. my patience has worn thin.. and we are LOSING this war because too many of our people are suckers for the nice sounding new ideology and the experts keep calling it by names that take us away from scrutinizing communitarian law.

I can see why some supporters of SD believe it's a genuine folksy movement and empowers citizens. It certainly empowered SOME citizens when I was directly involved in Seattle. It always does. But it also disempowers many more people whose lives are destroyed by it, and then there's the many others who have never had the opportunity to know anything about the UN theory of building sustainable communities in every corner of the globe, pro or con.

I always wanted a public debate against Etzioni. I never wanted to debate other writers trying to expose the agenda their own way. But maybe now that we're nearing the final phase, it's becoming the public debate that matters most to me. We need to talk about this crap openly, somewhere anyway. So I will publish comments from anyone on this post, even witches I guess. But Eric is Tiny Tim foolish if he thinks a communitarian is "one who uplifts his neighbors"; there's not a shred of evidence to back that up. Just as there's no evidence SD does not violate our constitution. SD protects corporations in public-private partnerships. And when TSHTF the there won't BE any private property to grow our own food, the law that protects it was balanced under SD. We'll just have our Food Policy councils telling us what we can and cannot eat and grow on our community owned land.

ericswan said...

Gee, looks like I ruffled a few feathers. I have to admit that my response had nothing to do with De Weese. never heard of him. My response is strictly to the language "communitarionism". I do not subscribe to your definition. I subscribe to "your feet on the ground" this is my house, these are my neighbours. I have a need for these people. They have a need for me.

I don't read Bailey. I am, however, a great fan of Blavatsky. Some of you know more about her than I do but I'm not convinced that she is without merit. As for practicing witchcraft, neither I or Blavatsky pursue that activity. Regarding my place in heaven or hell, I have no clue.
We still depend on the corporations and they are not about to give up and let freedom reign. If they need 90 percent of the wealth for 10 percent of the population; so be it. I would be content with 10 percent for the remaining 90 percent of the population just to live a life without fear, without folly, without chains. I'm not here for money, politics or religion. I am here because I AM I.

Anonymous said...

I have also suspected people like DeWeese for some time. And I have a friend, a very political friend, who has challenged some of these people like DeWeese about their seeming ignorance about matters they, as experts, should be on top of. They run like cockroaches when challenged.

Alan Donelson said...

Also brought to your blog (once again), this time by rense.com, I am a recovering Doom & Gloomer. It strikes me that anti-communitarianism still entraps one in the (Hegelian) dialectic; that the way out is the Way in; that we have to know our Self before we really know anything; and that we have good guidance in abundance from both Master Teachers and Yogis. Let me see if this posts before rambling on.

Pole Star said...

To DaveY and fellow thinkers. The response I would give to your comment can be summed up in three lines:

"War is Peace"

"Freedom is Slavery"

"Ignorance is Strength"

George Orwell got it right on redefining language. What you mean by, such nice sounding buzzwords, as sustainability, community, and livable do not have the same meaning for the forces pushing this agenda. Better in terms of understanding, would be population reduction, privation, and slavery.

Because someone with an agenda cloaks their intent in warm and fuzzy verbiage does not mean their intent is benign.

The world of Public Relations, as developed by that execrable little man Edward Bernays, refined by Goebbles, and practiced by Washington is a world of manipulation where up becomes down and black becomes white.

Be aware and follow actions not merely words. Words are useful things and when used well by a thoughtful and well meaning person can be used to convey useful and even uplifting information. To one with a veiled hatred of humanity and megalomaniacal thirst for power they become tools to mislead, beguile, and bamboozle.

Under the label of communitarianism lies an agenda for a controlled Platonic Republic of Ants and Kings.

Hint: You're not one of the Kings; nor are 99.9% of the living human population on this planet.

Anonymous said...

The Blavatsky fellow doesn't like the real definition of Communitarianism. He likes his own definition. How that changes the real meaning I don't know?

Anonymous said...

Niki, Glad to see you are still at it and going strong. We are at the last leg of journey and it means we all have our missions to carry out. I am not quite sure why I am optimistic because there isn't much there to give me optimism. I just know I have met or become acquainted with some really fine dedicated people who give a damn and keep their eyes open.

Anonymous said...

Interesting place! Yes, we are losing from the left and the right. As someone who hoped against hope the left would save us from the right, the left has turned out to be a major disappointment. They are fanatical in their devotion and blind to the control.

You mentioned "public-private partnerships" and it's a good example of the left's failing. It sounds benign. What could possibly go wrong with a "partnership" like that? The left really needs to wake up.

FTS said...

Some of you missing the point. It's true that nothing is wrong with "sustainablity". What I mean by that, is there's nothing wrong with helping to make this world a better place. To be good stewards. Being responsible.

However there is something very wrong with using people's weaknesses against them, and implementing false reports, data, statistics to scare people to the point we lose our freedom and libery for a fake threat.

We the people see "sustainability" as doing good for the planet to create freedom. The elite see this word as a means to enslave us and make us serfs. The duality is shrouded by a "green mask" by good people wanting to make a positive difference, and maintaining their freedom and liberty to do so.

The OP talks about Tom making the mistake of using generalizations to explain how one bill will eliminate the problem. And she's right. It won't. Fact is, no product will. Just like guns don't kill people.

It's up to YOU to act. Whatever the product is, it requires the reader to take action, and get in the faces of your elected officials who, as of right now, are not doing their jobs, and not working in your best interests.

WE are the difference. We the people are the solution to ending this problem and stopping in it's tracks.

And nothing will get done if we fail to act on the information we are given.