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.

The Global Economic Crisis. The Great Depression of the XXI Century

Ever wonder why Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research in Canada never writes anything about Global Law, the Global System or the Global Religion? Do a keyword search at his website and see exactly how many articles he's written using the word "communitarian." Like revolutionary Tea Party founder Ron Paul, he never mentions it to his readers as part of his explanations or objections to globalization. Like Paul over on the extreme right, Global Researchers on the left write collaborative books on "the complex causes" of the economic crisis without ever once explaining the political theory behind the emerging economic system.

What continues to amaze me is how many "patriot" Americans still advertise these fakes. I used to refer to them as a source and many of their links are on my web pages. Like the Jones cartel, many of the disinformation experts have legitimate information at their sites.

"The complex causes as well as the devastating consequences of the economic crisis are carefully scrutinized with contributions from Ellen Brown, Tom Burghardt, Michel Chossudovsky, Richard C. Cook, Shamus Cooke, John Bellamy Foster, Michael Hudson, Tanya Cariina Hsu, Fred Magdoff, Andrew Gavin Marshall, James Petras, Peter Phillips, Peter Dale Scott, Bill Van Auken, Claudia von Werlhof and Mike Whitney." By Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19025

I began a search for the contributing authors, starting with LA attorney Ellen Brown (who coincidentally is the topic of a Peter Myer's email forward today) . The first return was to a familiar source, one whose contributions to anti communitarian studies is well established. I especially appreciate the way this article explains how easily the sly communitarian solution is introduced in all these brilliant "exposes." (There were also many people who thought I would link favorably to this propaganda film.)

Zeitgeist Addendum: Toward a Technocratic, Communitarian, Cybernated Society

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=685

Next I looked up Tom Burghardt. Can't find him writing about it either, but his search led me to a recent Prison Planet.tv review of Jones' new documentary Invisible Empire: "The most contemporary branch of the agenda to enforce neo-feudalism and top-down communitarianism, in total hostility to the notion of true freedom and individuality – the phony environmentalist movement – which is driven by the global warming fraud, is also blown wide open." It appears the writers at Alex Jones' media cartel are slipping it in now the same way Clinton does! heh. http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/category/clinton-regime/

Next I looked up Michel Chossudovsky and it led me back to this article, Bolivia: National Revolution and "Communitarian Socialism" by Federico Fuentes, a "frequent contributor" at globalresearch.ca: "The goal of the "historic project" of the indigenous peoples and popular movements is "a social formation where large private property of the means of production will given way to communitarian social property; the political power of the `colonial-imperialist oligarchic bloc' will be substituted by the revolutionary construction of a new power by the 'indigenous nations, revolutionary classes and urban sector bloc'."http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13339

Next I looked up Richard C. Cook, a former federal analyst who worked for 21 years for the U.S. Treasury. He writes zero about communitarian economics.

Then I found this looking for Shamus Cooke:

At the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, the consistent message is ecological, indigenous, communitarian and anti-corporate. The great majority of speakers sound radical and have the support of the thousands of attendees. The message is welcome at the top, in the person of Evo Morales, the indigenous Aymara former farmer and union organizer who is Bolivia’s president

The World At 4 Degrees Celsius:
Last Call On Climate (PDF)
By Andrew Glikson

www.countercurrents.org/glikson210410.pdf

and this too:

The Military's War On The Earth: By Linda Greene

www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2010/02/21/10311
sent by OrpRam since 76 days 3 hours 3 minutes

Use as many low-energy lightbulbs as you like, turn down the thermostat and drive a hybrid car, but whatever you do as an individual -- indeed, the sum of what we all do for the environment -- does almost nothing to alleviate the U.S. military's destruction of the earth. --- --- In ‘The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism’, Barry Sanders writes that like other capitalist institutions, "each military branch ... must grow larger and fatter each year; expansion is the life blood of imperialism." --- Further, Sanders asserts, "The military can brook limits of no kind whatsoever. ... The Pentagon conducts its business behind very thick and very closed doors. It writes its own rules and either follows them or violates them, depending on the situation." --- Almost all "military numbers remain off of official reports, secret and out of sight." Sanders obtained the information he cites in the book by gleaning what he could from "arcane reports" and obscure Web sites belonging to the Department of Defense and Government Accounting Office, plus books and articles. --- Sanders describes, in horrifying detail, how the military is "the largest single source of pollution in this country and in the world: the United States military -- in particular the military in its most ferocious and stepped-up mode -- namely, the military at war." --- He goes on to say, "When we declare war on a foreign nation, we now also declare war on the Earth, on the soil and plants and animals, the water and wind and people in the most far-reaching and deeply infecting ways." --- --- --- "Sanders has a solution to the environmental devastation the military causes: Banning War." --- This goal, Sanders says, can be achieved if "our efforts ... expand exponentially, in a communitarian movement around the globe the likes of which no one has ever witnessed, one that refuses to make compromises about a basic respect for life." - "In the 21st century the military is the most sacrosanct institution in our country." - So far, almost no one has dared to criticize its policies and practices, let alone its budget. --- That silence, Sanders insists, must end.

John Bellamy Foster is a Marxist professor of Sociology at UO, Eugene. (You'd think this guy would know what communitarianism is.) http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/foster.php

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street analyst who writes nothing about communitarianism.

Tanya Cariina Hsu is a British political analyst who apparently has no idea what political communitarianism is.

Fred Magdoff is a professor of plant and soil science who has no idea what it is either. He did lead me to this article at Monthly Review (where the above mentioned Foster is editor) http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/douzinas290509.html:

The individualism of universal principles forgets that every person is a world and comes into existence in common with others, that we are all in community. Being in common is an integral part of being self: self is exposed to the other, it is posed in exteriority, the other is part of the intimacy of self. Before me comes the (m)other. I am I because the other and language has called me 'you', 'Costas'. My face is always exposed to others, always turned toward an other and faced by him or her never facing myself. On the other hand, being in community with others is the opposite of the communitarian common being or belonging to an essential community. Most communitarians define community through the commonality of tradition, history and culture, the various past crystallisations whose inescapable weight determines present possibilities. The essence of the communitarian community is often to compel or 'allow' people to find their 'essence', common 'humanity' now defined as the spirit of tradition, or the nation, religion, the people, the leader. We have to follow traditional values and exclude what is alien and other. Community as communion accepts human rights only to the extent that they help submerge the I into the We, all the way till death, the point of 'absolute communion' with dead tradition.⁶

Andrew Gavin Marshall published an article last month called Global Oppression: Transnational Security State, and he never mentions it once. http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=67&contentid=6833

James Petras is very familiar with the word communitarianism; in fact he openly discussed the Chilean transition to a communitarian society in a book he wrote in 1969: http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1758

Not sure is this is the same Peter Phillips, but this one teaches economics at UToronto and studies communitarian integration procedures and methodology

Peter Dale Scott is a former Canadian diplomat and professor at Berekley who writes books about communitarians, but apparently he doesn't know that's what they're called yet. http://www.peterdalescott.net/q.html

Bill Van Auken has an article at the World Socialist Website that I linked to from the ACL's Community Policing page http://nord.twu.net/acl/commpolicing.html

Claudia von Werlhof is a German sociologist who wrote The Interconnectedness of All Being: A New Spirituality for A New Civilization. A student of Gramsci?, she understands the "new paradigm shift" but doesn't use the word that describes it, instead she tells us:

In this context, Renate Genth (2002) says that we need a new “politics of civilization”, since we are experiencing a “civilization crisis”. This new politics of civilization has to focus on a new relationship to nature, a new relationship between the sexes, a new relationship between the generations, and a new relationship to “the transcendent”. The transcendent generally means religious needs and our relationship to death. I would say that the relationship to the transcendent is the relationship to earth spirituality.

Mike Whitney is a writer at counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney10162008.html, here's a blog that republished one of Whitney's articles where the owner links to Amitai Etzioni under the heading of an "Independent Thinker" (hahhahah!)

http://thecommons4change.blogspot.com/2005/03/mike-whitney-scalia-and-opus-dei.html