Community versus Community

Community versus Community

by Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich

copyright June 3, 2013 all rights reserved

 

Across the globe there is a massive effort underway to transfer land use control away from the local people and hand it over to a different community. When the word community is used in a local land use plan, you can be sure it doesn't mean the local people. There are opposing meanings for the word community.

 

Most common born locals naturally assume community means all the residents in their neighborhood. But to a communitarian change agent, community means only the spiritually advanced converts seeking to control the neighborhood.

 

This is why development plans following Local Agenda 21 (LA21) suggestions always claim the community wants the plan. It doesn't matter if 95% of the local population have no idea there is a new plan. It doesn't matter if 90% of the local residents would reject the new plan if they knew anything about it.

 

LA21 plans rarely claim a majority of registered voters approved the plan. * The planner can honestly say the "community agreed" this is the plan they want, because their definition of community is: we the people who write the plans.

 

Profits from the transfer of control over the local economy to the community are incalculable. For 20 years LA21 planners bragged how much effort they put into enticing locals to be in their planning process. Where they advertised is key to their success, and some locals were happy to become partners in the global scam.

 

Trained to follow TV news and kowtow to academic titles of nobility, working class people don't choose to spend their precious few leisure hours talking about how to build a stronger community. Whatever that is, it sounds way too boring. Commoners don't do things they don't enjoy unless they're forced to. If it's not reported on TV or in local papers, it can't be very important, right?

 

LA21 legislation, usually in the Whereas portion, lists the hilarious ways locals were informed of the planning meetings. If 500 out of 300,000 residents show up and participate, that is considered a very, very good turnout. The City may even get a special award for Community Participation if less than one percent of the population participates in writing the final draft. Even if there is public opposition to it, in most cases it passes the local legislature without one dissenting vote. Elected officials adopt most everything the community asks for.

 

According to the communitarians who promote the "need" for the new plans, and then lead the planning process from start to finish, uneducated common people cannot understand the lofty purpose for the plans. Only a small group of trained experts are capable of determining the future use of local land and resources. It's a huge sacrifice they've made helping the rest of the world with their superior intelligence. To doubt their motives is akin to doubting God. Pope Benedict declared, "Communitarian development is God's plan" on January 1, 2013. LA 21 plans are long and filled with complicated new regulations. It takes the Bible, the Talmud/Cabala, the Koran and exegesis to comprehend God's secrets. Average people are confused (and bored) by the planning meetings as well as the plans, therefore their exclusion is justifiable.

 

Few unenlightened souls are found in community oriented groups. It's not hard to keep them out. The community isn't exactly friendly to non-grant funded working class people. This isn't local carpenters, farmers, housewives, bartenders or factory workers planning the future. Even if they have the intuition and courage to speak up, commoners haven't an inkling of the grandiose community purpose, so they never address the bottom line. Auto mechanics can't see any good reason why they should go sit through 100 meetings about bike paths. The ads inviting locals to attend the meetings say many different things, but the ads never even hint at the power the plan with have over the local economy. So, not only do our neighbors not go, they could care less what happens at endless meetings. Why should they care about livability and quality of life (whatever that is)?

 

The only people who join the LA21 community planning process are people who were pre-trained and are often paid to join it. The committed people controlling both sides, including the fake opposition, either have degrees in the fields created by the communitarians, like urban planning, environmental law/activism, sustainable development and socio-economics, or they are financed by rich communitarians, or they have a business that stands to profit from the plans, like green building/products,  eco-tourism, earth stewardship training, climate change research, etc.

 

Many LA21 planners who "volunteer" for the new community are government or ex-government employees. In the cities, they work for recently added agencies and departments created by the communitarians. Just a few of them are Department of Neighborhoods, City Manager, Community Police, Community Development and Homeland Security. In the rural areas the community is full of BLM, Department of Forestry/Agriculture, Tribal governments, public school teachers,  Dept of Transportation, and Community Mental Health Services.

 

Every member of the LA21 planning community has made a commitment to making a profit on sustainable community development principles. Every business member helping LA21 planners write the plans made the same commitment. Anyone who tries to participate without dedicating themselves to the development community will find their participation severely marginalized.

 

After the plans are adopted into law, and the laws go into effect, it's a done deal. Any local resident who openly objects to the law is criminally disruptive. Concerned about a plan that drastically reduces your ability to thrive? We're oh so sorry, but this is what the community said it wants. Case closed.

 

Anyone questioning the new junk science that justifies LA21 law is labeled, ridiculed, attacked and discounted. Legitimate questions about the plan are deflected by the Communitarian Left with tirades against the Communitarian Right. Cons on both sides of the political spectrum allow for no scrutiny of the community system. The less we all know about it, the easier it is for the community. Even the authentic local environmentalists who attend LA21 meetings in good faith quickly see that the LA21 planners will not include their suggestions in the final plan, unless it helps to achieve the desired LA21 outcome.

 

The desired outcome for every land management plan in the world is the same. Creating a global standard of law regulating all human activity on the planet is the communitarian's phase one goal. No matter what the locals living in the local community want, no matter how sustainable they already are, no matter how responsibly they already manage their local resources, the community will still insist they adopt laws that comply with communitarian legal standards.

 

Locals aren't told LA21 plans justify the community government's new powers to invade and take private property. Locals are never told LA21 plans establish the framework for community governance. Locals are never told Communitarian Supremacy of Law grants the community limitless regulatory control over all local business, resources, and people. Locals are never told anything about Community Law. They don't even hear about it when they are fined and jailed for violating it. Millions have lost businesses, property and freedom to the community, without having a clue as to why or how the transfer took place.

 

Community Developers write Community Laws that are adopted by Community Councils and enforced by Community Police. In order to stop the LA21 plan, commoners around the globe have got to take back their local communities. Locals could follow the communitarians' advice for Mapping and Mobilizing Community Capacity. ** Commoners can also go house to house, block by block, town to town doing knock-and-talks and survey for assets. Anyone can assess and mobilize local citizens for capacity to resist the communitarian con.

 

* The 2009 Bolivian Constitution is one rare exception. The French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Constitution in 2005 because of its Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause (it became official under the Lisbon Treaty). The EU Court is the home of the acquis communitaire.

 

** See Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. This is where the Obamas trained to be community activists.

 

Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich founded the Anti Communitarian League (ACL) in 2001, changed it to ACL Books in 2006. The ACL is not affiliated with any political, religious or fraternal organization. The ACL has published over a thousand free online articles on LA21 & Communitarianism, many cited in academic papers. ACL research was used in several lawsuits, including Dawson v Seattle (2002). Both women have appeared on numerous radio shows and occasionally do public speaking engagements. They co-wrote two books, "The Anti Communitarian Manifesto" and "2020: Our Common Destiny". Combined and updated in 2012, they are available only at the ACL Books website, nord.twu.net/acl. 

Claiming ownership of our original thesis on Agenda 21 & Communitarianism

Keep finding new places that are citing our antithesis as if it's just "common knowledge" now. This is a major breakthough and we're very pleased to see how far and wide it's gone. After ten years of being the only people pushing an original Anti Communitarian thesis into the mainstream arena, it's a very good feeling to witness how many people have finally learned to pronounce it! 

The downside for us is, the world is so communitarian now that our copyright on our published thesis and our original idea has been violated on a scale we never imagined. We are seeing our names removed, portions reproduced as if the author was someone else, or flat out plagiarization of everything. Worst of all, some writers are twisting it around and adding their own conclusion to our thesis without bothering to show where in the hell they came up with their idea! Academia has always been plagued with robbers who steal papers from fellow students. I wonder how often it's happened outside academia. We may not only have one of the most widely read original theses in modern times, but we may also own the most plagiarized thesis by non-academics in modern times.

Our original research, thoughts, lines, articles, and thesis is in other people's books 

Sustainable Development Handbook

It's in videos of other people

ROSA KOIRE: Shut down Agenda 21 and communitarian Fascism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBrwuhoavG0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qKvnu_f02F0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PHBHsxIG-zg

http://shiftfrequency.com/tag/communitarianism/

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/10/un-agenda-21-exposed-with-rosa-koire-video-2482896.html

It's in articles "written" by other people

http://ppjg.me/tag/communitarianism/

Communitarian Heresy in the Classroom: Charles Haynes and the Bible Literacy Project

Community by Coercion Communitarianism New American May 31, 2004

COOLECTIVIST MINDSET: RECIPE FOR REVOLUTION

It's in letters written by other people

http://resist21.com/2013/02/05/letter-from-rosa-koire-executive-dir-of-post-sustainability-institute-to-democrats-in-the-oklahoma-legislature-to-support-hb-1412/

Our original idea has been reproduced so many times many people may assume Rosa Koire, the John Birch Society or Debra Rae are the ones who showed conclusively the role of Communitarianism in Agenda 21. They did not. The JBS barely mentioned it in the past 20 years, and only lately began using the term in their Anti Agenda 21 meetings. Debra Rae went so far as to take entire sections out of 2020: Our Common Destiny as well as TACM, and while she mentions she took most of her article from us at her website, she apparently forgot where she got it when she gained a larger audience at News With Views. Rosa Koire did not do any original research that led her to a Communitarian conclusion either. Rosa read both our books before she put her final argument together. But she never cites us in her public speaking engagments anymore (not since her Tea Party video in 2011), and she actually removed Nordica's name from TACM. The upside is that Rosa never removed the reference and link to the Anti Communitarian League at DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21. We're still in her book somewhere (haven't seen it yet). 

I have no problem saying Rosa Koire has done a tremendous amount of research on her own. She has been a major force in bringing Agenda 21 in front of the Tea Party and the Religious Right. We do not disparage the valuable contributions she's made to exposing the plan in her traveling book promotions. But Rosa did not make the connections between Communitarianism and Agenda 21, she knows she didn't, and it's dishonest of her to make it appear like she did. 

Now I'm fully aware that communitarian America doesn't care what we sacrificed to provide this thesis to them. I've heard the Christian collectivists whining more than the leftists about how it doesn't matter where the information comes from, it's so important the rules do not even apply. I've been told I'm jealous of Rosa's success. I've been told I need to "share more." Total BS. I defend property rights for everyone else, why wouldn't I give myself and my co-author the same consideration? I do know zero value is placed on intellectual property on the internet, but it's just hilarious that other people so worried about their property rights think it's okay to steal ours!  We haven't gone around asking everyone who reposts our website/works to take it down. As long as there is proper attribution, it's educational and not for profit, it's allowed. Remove the attribution, pretend it's your original thoughts and words, or make money off it, and it's not allowed. 

Copyright Law of the United States

There is only one antithesis that shows Communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. There is only one antithesis that shows Agenda 21 is Communitarianism. There is only one book in the world that shows evidence for the connection between Agenda 21 and Communitariansim, Communitarian Law, Asset Based Community Development and Community Oriented Policing. Those are chapter titles in 2020: Our Common Destiny & The Anti Communitarian Manifesto.

Undeniable Proof the US Government adopted Agenda 21

I keep seeing articles in the mainstream press ridiculing the Tea Party groups over their concern about Agenda 21. The standard line is that Agenda 21 is a "non-binding" agreement and holds no force of law behind it. That is true. The laws that enforce Agenda 21 have to be passed at the local levels, and that is where Agenda 21 has been passed and adopted in the USA for the past 20 years. Never to rarely introduced to Americans as Communitarian Law, these changes to the constitutional system have gone un-noticed and un-challeneged for over 2 decades.

Now that some people have learned about it, looked into it, and decided they don't want it, their opposition has been relegated to a right wingnut conspiracy. Yet, many documents exist that say otherwise, and this is but one of thousands that confirm our worst suspicions about the plan:

Objectives of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development

Intervention

Lawrence J. Gumbiner
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

Second PrepCom of UNCSD

Washington, DC

March 7, 2011

Share on facebookShare on twitter

---

The United States is pleased to participate in the PrepCom and to contribute to a successful Rio 2012 Conference on Sustainable Development. We have developed a robust process within our government to evaluate how far we have come since Rio, and to identify gaps that we need to address and emerging issues where we need to make progress. This effort is reinvigorating discussions on sustainable development within our government as we work together to identify shortcomings and replicate successes, and to avail ourselves of new science, information, technologies, and collaborations to make real progress toward achieving sustainable development.

In doing this, we increasingly understand that, while the United Nations and national governments are essential to sustainable development, our participation alone is not sufficient for achieving meaningful progress that improves people’s lives and the environment. We are beginning to engage our stakeholders – including nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, local and regional governments, and academia – all of which have important contributions to make to this process.

In this vein, a concise political document should only be a part of the outcome. We also need to look to major groups and stakeholders to bring forward good ideas and take on commitments and actions. Sustainable development can only be achieved when we enable all citizens and empower all stakeholders to take action to achieve a sustainable future. We need to invest in people, recognizing women and youth as key agents of change in society. We need to promote human capacity development through education, especially in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and to enable the development of skill sets vital to emerging sectors of the economy. development path.

The partnership approach out of the World Summit on Sustainable Development continues to be an important tool for achieving sustainable development, and we should look at how we can strengthen and further legitimize this approach. For example, our domestic policy on innovation realizes that governments can catalyze and leverage action across stakeholders, provide enabling frameworks and incentives for private sector investment, invest in people, and facilitate meaningful collaborations across all stakeholders. Together, we can address market failures, invest in sciences and innovation, develop human capacity to meet today’s challenges, and adapt solutions for local contexts.

Good governance at all levels is critical to our ability to make good on our Agenda 21 commitments. While national governments will make the political commitments, we rely upon regional and local governments to implement new policies in the context of local situations, to enforce environmental regulations, to innovate and adapt solutions that will succeed in unique environmental, social, and political realities. Some of the most creative solutions to our sustainable development challenges are emerging in the U.S. from our state, regional and local governments. We should encourage communities to do integrated planning, to develop sustainability plans and a local Agenda 21. {emphasis added}

Cities are hotspots for population growth, investment, and increasing demand for energy, water, food, buildings and waste disposal. Rapid urbanization is a challenge and an opportunity to focus our global efforts to minimize impacts from this development, to develop state-of-the-art disaster preparedness plans, to integrate planning with smarter designs, to build more livable communities and to address the needs of the poorest of the poor. With good governance and sound planning we can implement solutions that address the needs of people and promote inclusive growth that works for all strata of society. We can identify and leverage solutions to improve access to water, sanitation, food, and energy that will help us to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Chair, we support the Rio 2012 process and the need to review our progress and to identify gaps and emerging challenges. We want Rio 2012 to be forward looking, to address ways that we can learn from past struggles, build on our successes, and achieve a sustainable future. We believe that all countries should be able to monitor natural resources and make informed and integrated decisions about their development paths. We support efforts to measure progress and to share information and best practices.

Our challenges are significant. We recognize that economic growth is an essential component of any sustainable development strategy. But economic growth should not and does not need to be “development at all costs.” It should be balanced in a way that takes into consideration the environment, natural resource, and social dimensions, addressing poverty and improving the status of women. This is a challenging objective, but one toward which we are making great strides. We are committed to this process and to working with all stakeholders to identify actions we can take reinvigorate our commitments and to harness 21st century tools and human capacity to achieve sustainable development.

Thank you.

http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/remarks/2011/157993.htm

{Note: "balancing" is the communitarian concept that all national and state constitutional law must be balanced in favor of the global elite's objectives,)