[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: NEO AMERICAN VALUES As if we are all kindergarteners, Americans are being taught to honor and obey new values. According to our wise leaders, we now have a new sense of purpose, a new way of thinking, and a new duty to volunteer in our communities. We all must serve goals larger than self. Our new sense of purpose is to make war in order to bring democracy to uncivilized nations. Our new way of thinking is to think collectively rather than individually. Our new duty is to volunteer for the collective, which is so important it must be made mandatory. Our old sense of purpose was to protect the Republic against monarchists and imperialists, to ensure the rights of each individual citizen were not violated by agents or officials in power. Our old way of thinking was that U.S. law was designed to protect individuals from despots, tyrants and other unsavory types, like liars, thieves and murderers. Our old-fashioned duty to our community was not only voluntary, but forced volunteerism was very illegal. There is a "new vision for the future," and obviously, average Americans cannot be told the exact nature of this vision or the required changes to their system. The vision, in its entirety is only discussed in upper academia and behind closed office doors. When the national press does write about it for the vulgar masses, the theory and the ideas are never scrutinized as a genuinely free press would be free to do. Not even modern American political scientists are told the exact nature of the evolution of America. It's missing from every school textbook. What Americans are not taught is the purpose and goals the new un-American values serve. Our free and enlightened citizens are learning to serve without a clue what it is they serve. Why don't our citizens know anything about the ultimate goal of the New American ideals? Because if they knew what the real terms are they would overwhelmingly reject all of it. They are expected to uphold the new requirements for the new citizenship, but they are not to be told what the new American values are based upon. It's called rule by "consensus." Americans would never agree to adopt a new communitarian global system of law. That's why the real goal is so obscure, and why the only research about it is left to people like me. In many ways, it's what's not included in our lessons that indicates the true motives of our teachers. A lie by omission is still a lie, and probably more effective than any other form. In Government by the People, the Twentieth Edition published by Pearson in 2004 and edited by a group of experts on American government, there is not one mention of the "new" goal. The Democratic Leadership Council is barely mentioned in Part II on p. 173 as a "moderate" Democratic faction "dominated by an array of southern governors and senators." Defining the Third Way is the stated purpose of the New Democrats, but again, the Third Way is excluded entirely from this school book. The power of the New Democrats and their "new" communitarian agenda (which elected Clinton and was carried on without hesitation by the Bush Presidency, using the same advisors) is simply not included anywhere in the entire book. Interestingly, Bush's theocratic advisor and speechwriter, Robert Putnam and his communitarian book, Bowling Alone, are referred to on pages 11, 12, 86, 197-98. This factual American textbook does explain on p. 6 that, "The word 'democracy' is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution, nor was it a term used by the founders of the Republic. It is both a very old term and a modern one. It was used at the time of the founding of this nation to refer to various undesirables: mobs, lack of standards, and a system that encourages leaders to gain power by appealing to the emotions and prejudices of the rabble." They tell us our framers preferred the term republic to avoid confusion with the idea of direct democracy. Then our good teachers explain that, "Today, as in this book, the terms republic and democracy are used interchangeably." This American government textbook cannot avoid the truth about the roles Personal Liberty and Respect for the Individual play in the American system. But once we turn the page we learn communitarian modifications of the American system, without being told that's what it is. On page 8 we are introduced to the Hegelian conflict ideology (which is the basis for communitaranism): "Democratic Values in Conflict- The basic values of democracy do not always co-exist happily. Individualism may conflict with the collective welfare or the public good. Self-determination may conflict with equal opportunity." Then the true goal of communitarian thinking is introduced: "Much of our political combat revolves around how to strike a balance among democratic values." Here our learned teachers made the conscious choice to refrain from explaining or exploring where the terms "strike a balance" originated. Another clue that we are being purposefully misled is also on page 8: "Expansion of democracy in the United States and elsewhere was in many ways a twentieth-century idea." No mention is made of the many declarations of independence made in colonies around the world in the fifty years following the American Revolution. No mention of how many national constitutions were written and passed based entirely on the American principles for self-governance. And, expansion of "democracy" was not a twentieth century idea, it was a nineteenth century global political and economic platform explained in the Communist Manifesto. On page 10 our lovely communitarian teachers explain, "A relatively prosperous nation with an equitable distribution of wealth, provides the best context for democracy." This is the part where Americans just cannot grasp the truth about the changes to the laws that govern their nation and take away their rights to property and privacy. An "equitable distribution of wealth" is a heavily loaded phrase that opens up the whole communitarian can-of-worms. Good thing our teachers don't bother to explain what it really means (or why it's the goal of every U.N. programme for development). They simply state: "Some measure of private ownership of property and a relatively favorable role for the market economy are also related to the creation and maintenance of democratic institutions. Democracies can range from heavily regulated economies with public ownership of many enterprises, such as Sweden, to those in which there is little government regulation of the marketplace." The actual term communitarian and the political system it creates, if you believe this book, does not exist. The term, the philosophy, the international integration requirements and the abundance of American communitarian trade agreements, plans, laws and programs do not exist. There is nothing about U.N. Local Agenda 21 or sustainable development in this book. The truth about the new American system is excluded. Our American students will never know anything of value or how to defend their republic from corporate thieves. The truth, which can easily be verified in official documents and websites, is just plain missing. The most powerful and lasting changes to the American system cannot be revealed to our reformed public,. We're just expected to comply with the new requirements and regulations. To suggest there is an ongoing plot to destroy our republic and the unity of our nation is to defy legions of professors and politicians who support the plot. Where are the Americans of today brave enough to take on the new empire's entire academic and political establishment? It's been several years since we found President George Washington's Farewell Address to the Nation. Published upon his retirement from Public Office in 1796, he spells it out, in no uncertain terms, the exact way America could be destroyed. He offers his wisdom to our "solemn contemplation," and recommends we review it frequently. His precise and clear sentiments are based on what he calls, "of no inconsiderable observation." "That it is easy to foresee, that from different causes & from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal & external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; …" ( "The Declaration of Independence and Other Great Documents of American History" p.50, Dover Thrift Edition .) The Communitarian liars are our newest "batteries of internal and external enemies." Isn't it just too funny that the Communitarian Network is at George Washington University in DC? When we read Washington's Address the first time, we were still deeply engrossed in our COMPASS database research. All of the new laws allowing the federal government's new data-gathering operations were "innovative strategies of enforcement." The term innovative was used throughout Seattle's Local Agenda 21 Plans, and we had come to recognize it to mean a way around constitutional restrictions forbidding government intrusions. After we read Washington's line, "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts," these words became the basis for the ACL's Mission Statement. We are absolutely certain U.S. government officials have no authority what-so-ever to change or "balance" U.S. Constitutional Law. We didn't fabricate the terms for sedition. "The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."( G.W.) Part of my communitarian research is devoted to understanding why Americans have not been informed of it's existence and why they continue to label us conspiracy theorists. To my knowledge, President Washington wasn't labeled a conspiracy theorist for insisting that the basis of our system is our Constitution and NOT "democratic ideals." But today, like us, he probably would be. He far too openly said internal espionage and covert methods would be used by the American people's enemies. He quite frankly told us how many artifices would be employed to" weaken in our minds the conviction" of our Unity of Government. Unlike modern politicians who speak to us only from the dialectic, Washington spoke freely about the real issues facing our nation in 1796. He addressed highly critical public topics like religion, sedition, party politics, love of power, foreign entanglements, and public credit. Unlike modern Americans who blindly trust their political leaders, Washington called the union between the states a political fortress which would be under continual attack from many groups coming from many directions. According to The Father of Our Country, what constitutes us as one people is our Unity of Government, "a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize." The awesome new Communitarian ideology has a fatal tendency, just ask George: "All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force- to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the Community, and according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reigns of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." (ibid, pp 53) Beware the word "new" when it's used to define someone's politics. This is a key term used by communitarian unconstitutional planners. The framers for the New America are framing our new regional system the same way the American Founding Fathers created our national system in 1787, in secret. Cunning, ambitious lawmakers just disregard the fact that the U.S. Constitution adopted by the 13 states explicitly requires an open, public discourse followed by a national vote regarding any attempt to "strike a balance" to the national system of law. If there were only one prominent American who has the courage and the principles to declare war on the communitarians. But the comms are powerful and extremely well-funded (and have a bad reputation for assassinating opponents). Our new system is based in lies; it values most its liars, it honors them with wealth, titles and positions. Unprincipled men will not be subjected to the same restrictions placed upon all the other individuals in the democracy. Who will tell the American People that the inheritors of the great American experiment in self-government failed to maintain it? We've lost it all, most miserably, and with almost zero resistance. Our free and united People morphed with their eyes closed into becoming the greatest slaves and dupes in the history of the world. Maybe it's fitting that our People will never learn of their fate; what values can we possibly possess when a lie becomes our truth?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
bounce
bounce again
You posted this. I read it. The person who posted it is the same person who supports "personhood" for corporation. The article is anti-corporate.
Day 14 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 12 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
No one supports personhood for corporations. Some people just know that you don't surrender your free speech rights because you choose to associate with people and form a corporation. You are anti free speech here.
Sure you do...re-read the article...what this article takes a stance against is EXACTLY the opposite of how the court ruled... Communitarianism and Corporatism are congruent philosophies...
Day 15 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 13 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|