|
The
Communitarian Third Way
A.
Constitutional Republic - The United States of America - Government of the
people - American's Individual Freedom (1775 - ): power inherent in the
people; individual rights of the common born man: life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
(God given, unalienable, constitutional rights that are
national law)
B.
Communist government - The former Soviet Union - government of the State -
Marx's theory of world communism (1847 - ), power inherent in the state.
"For The Common Good of the Party", sacrificing the individual for
the good of the state. Frederick Engels revised Hegel's theory to suit his
needs, and then passed them on to Karl Marx, who rewrote them and published
The Communist Manifesto in 1848.
C.
The coming New World Order / Global Governance / Communitarianism / Third
Way, etc. - Government of the Community. The Communitarian Third Way (2002 -
) power inherent in the global community: enforced through mandated duties
and responsibilities versus individual freedoms. The Third Way: Elitist
social justice enacted by sacrificing individual rights. It will institute
communitarian laws (by way of facilitators and agents of change), launching
state and corporate interventions in private matters; easing the way for
confiscation and redistribution of individual wealth in the United States of
America. Its elements includes: faith-based initiatives, community
governments, community policing, limiting individual's privacy, and the total
elimination of individual's right to bear arms.
The Third Way / NWO / Global Governance / Communitarianism, etc.,
irrespective of what it's being called, is being brought to fruition by means
of George W.F. Hegel the nineteenth century German philosopher.
Hegel
turned the concept of Socratic reasoning (the Socratic method) upside down by
equalizing Thesis and Antithesis. This made all intellectual positions
relative by means of the Hegelian Dialectic and through the abolition of
absolute truth. "Truth" was now found in Synthesis alone (in the
compromise of Thesis and Antithesis). It was no longer a beginning point in
the cognitive reasoning process, as it related to the actions contemplated by
forces for social change, their motives, or factual claims.
It
was Hegel's view that all things unfold in a continuing evolutionary process,
whereby each idea or quality (the thesis) inevitably brings forth its
opposite (the antithesis). From that interaction, a third state emerges in
which the opposites are integrated, overcome, and fulfilled in a richer and
higher synthesis. This synthesis then becomes the basis for another
dialectical process of opposition and synthesis. Hegel believed that the
creative stress of opposing positions was essential for developing higher
states of consciousness.
In
the moment of synthesis, Hegel held, opposites are both "preserved and
transcended, negated and fulfilled." The new theory was
dialectical, as well as materialist. It envisaged change, constant and
inherent. And in that never-ending flux the ideas emanating from one period,
would be found the embryonic ideas to help shape the next.
Thus,
Hegel's premise was not a proposition whose benefits went unnoticed by the
forces for global change; forces like those at the United
Nations.
Through
the UN (and their desire for global unity) leaders there knew that
sovereignty had to cease. They knew they had to convince people that borders
prevented us from developing relationships based on consensus. They had to
convince us of the commonality of our "human natures".
If
a person lives in the middle of a country they are patriarchal for the most
part. It's the people who live on the border; they develop relationships with
people across the border. Yet they know that if their country goes to
war with this other nation that they're on the periphery. They understand
that it's they, and their friends, who are going to face the wrath of this
foreign state. Therefore, these folks develop this "border-less
language". Which is a "synthesis" language.
That's
what globalization desires to do - produce a "synthesized border-less
language" that can be used globally. As if you live on the border
but there's no longer any sovereignty.
It's
the relationship with those who are different than you that becomes
important. Important enough that you will be willing to compromise your
principles, your sovereignty, and the principles of your nation for the sake
of continuing a relationship with people who are different than you.
Here
again the Hegelian Dialectic enters the scene and proves most useful.
Educating the children using transformational outcome-based education in the
schools, while at the same time reeducating their parents in the workplace
using Total Quality Management.
Total
Quality Management teaches the worker how to not be concerned with
sovereignty and borders, but rather relationships across those borders.
That's why NAFTA and GATT and all these transnational agreements were
developed. To destroy our sovereignty and to weaken our borders, thereby
allowing relationships to developed across national divides. So that
eventually, the methods used in solving work related problems would be the
same in Canada, Mexico and throughout the world.
Typically,
these type schemes, as well as other UN directives, come down to the
individual communities through the local Chamber of Commerce or groups like
them. The Chamber gets its direction from the International Chamber of
Commerce, which has special recognition at the UN. Unfortunately, the Chamber
presidents don't know this - most of them being good local folks who want to
help their community.
Moreover,
the dialectical school-to-work kinds of reforms that have come into being,
have come through a lot of different industry, trade, and social alliances
like the Chamber of Commerce and Better Business Bureau. At these
organizations the businessmen meet without realizing they are fully involved
in a "dialoging to consensus" process.
In
point of fact, the schools may be the most important players in this
globalist dialectic. Because in the schools, administrators are used as
facilitators who indoctrinated both teachers and parents. The theory being
once you have the schools, you can then move on to the community at large.
Certain
private schools in America, like the Glasser Schools, even go so far as to
talk about the stations of the mind, where the tenth station is like Zen.
Except, in Zen you focus on one thing. Where as, what Glasser Schools claim
to do, is focus on nothing and simply listen to the motor run...
This
is the kind of insanity that is developing the next generation of minds
within our education system.
Richard
Bandler in a book on further human education, Changing with Families, has a
poem in the middle of it by a sorcerer. He says the sorcerer must
"silence the voice," (those who don't agree with the agenda) and
he, the sorcerer, must silence the dialogue.
Now, the dialogue is when you show up at a meeting with your principles. And
how does the facilitator get you to put your principles aside to work with the
group? He has to silence the voice; "the dialogue" you're having
with your conscience. Because, when you're sitting there thinking: "No,
I don't agree... This is not what I believe to be right." You're
dialoguing with yourself; with what you can or cannot do based upon the
standards you walked in the room with. So the sorcerer, once he silences the
dialogue you're having with your conscience, can then move you into the
dialectic process.
School-to-work,
then, can be thought of as the political end of this whole thing. Its the
schools that develop the dialectic mind in the transformational outcome-based
education classroom; while in the work place the dialectic process is being
propagated through ISOs (International Standards Organizations), or Total Quality
Management.
Total
Quality Management was the brainchild of Kurt Lewin who went to M.I.T. when
Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany. He conducted research involving group
dynamics that laid the foundation for Total Quality Management; which can be
summarized as a method of belief and behavior modification using
dialectic-reasoning skills in a group setting.
It
utilizes the inherent fear an individual person has of being alienated from
the group. By use of a change agent, or "facilitator," individuals
are herded toward "consensus" by compromising their position for
the sake of "social harmony."
According
to Lewin, "A successful change includes three aspects: UNFREEZING the
present level, MOVING to the new level, and FREEZING group life on the new
level."
In
group dynamics the pain is not physical, it's emotional, and is caused by
long periods in isolation from the group.
1.
A Diverse Group ("Diversity" needed for conflict)
2.
Dialoging to Consensus (Dialectic process unshackled from the constraints of
truth)
3.
Over a Social Issue (Problem / Crisis)
4.
In a Facilitated Meeting (Using a facilitator or change agent)
5.
Herding Group Views Toward a Predetermined Consensus
(Paradigm
shift: problem, reaction, solution)
A
prime example of Total Quality Management is "community policing".
Dr.
Trojanowicz, formerly the director of the National Center for Community
Policing at the University of Michigan, considered the father of Community
Oriented Policing, ponders the dilemma of the current state of affairs in his
paper Community Policing and the Challenge of Diversity.
He
states: "The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and
fear of crime becomes the goal to allow the community policing officer an
enter into the geographic community."
Let
me repeat that. Trojanowicz says: Social chaos is the GOAL and that the
crisis of crime and disorder is the door for the police officer (as
facilitator/change agent) to enter the community.
Formerly,
the police administrators were accountable to the elected officials who were
accountable to the voters (representative democracy).
This
new paradigm describes exactly what Marxist, George Lukacs, termed
"participatory democracy" and is nothing more than the Soviet style
council.
The
United States Constitution was the law of the land (absolute authority)
restraining government intrusion into the rights of the individual. The
framers designed it to insulate the private realm (the individual) from the
public realm ( the government).
By
practicing the dialectic, we are removing the only barrier between a
tyrannical government and the private citizen.
Again,
according to George Lukacs, a Soviet is when the public and the private
sector are in a facilitated meeting; versus in the private sector, where you
tell your workers they had better do the job your way, or you won't get a
paycheck.
When
you go into a public sector you get into the partnership arrangement, which
means you have just given up the private sector structure. In essence, what
you've really done is you've gone into a politburo, the Soviet structure,
which is dialoguing to consensus with a diverse group of people. Meaning, you
find what a diverse group of people has in common, usually through dissatisfaction
over social issues, and begin a facilitated dialogue towards a predetermined
outcome. An outcome that's almost always concealed.
Consequently,
when you have your laws being developed, promoted, implemented and enforced
by The Environmental Protection Agency, The Departments of Health, Education
and Welfare and The Department of Labor, which have instituted the same
Soviet structure - a diverse group dialoguing to consensus - you've entered a
"Politburo structure".
In effect, the whole thinking (the whole mindset of communism) is based on
the dialectic process; and that process has been introduced into America, to
the extent that it is being used on every wavelength possible. As a result
America's whole social being has been furtively Sovietized. We have basically
become a communist republic and we haven't woken up to the fact that we are
now a communist style state.
However,
for the dialectic process to be completely successful the media had to be
controlled first. Paul Lazarsfeld from Columbia University worked on radio
communications. He worked to make sure that no radio or TV station would
produce one ideal. While you could find a position that supported the
patriarchal way of thinking, it was never broadcast alone but always surrounded
by diversity. That was because the patriarchal position was Thesis, and
diversity the Antithesis. This forced you to dialogue, to try to find
consensus (Synthesis as truth) in that relationship.
From
journalism you learn the dialectic process. The news does not come on without
a diverse group of people (the journalists) getting together, dialoguing to
consensus over social issues in a facilitated meeting. On Sunday's you can
turn on the television and watch the process in action on programs like
"The McLaughlin Group" or "Inside Washington." You see,
what the social psychologists knew when they started was that they had to
produce dialectic hegemony.
Now,
we use to have patriarchal hegemony. In other words, if your child went and
played with the neighbor's kids and they misbehaved, those parents would come
out and say "I know how your parents would want you to behave" and
then they would do some disciplining; because there was this common
patriarchal relationship within the community.
Today,
however, we've gone to hegemony in a dialectic world. Which means your
child, who you believe should behave a particular way, can misbehave with
another child whose parents are in the dialectic process. This is because
those parents believe that the misbehaved behavior is normal; owing to the
fact that in a transformational way deviancy is the norm.
Americans,
therefore, have been caught up in this process. Our churches have been
watered down. Our kids are being programmed; and our government now looks at
people who support the American flag, and those people who are patriots, as
the criminal. They are extremists. They are over reacting. They are not
tolerant for the sake of social harmony. They are deviant because they resist
the group.
There's
a difference between Dialectic Materialism and Historical Materialism,
however, and both are at odds with one another.
The
Tiennamen Square issue, which we thought was a struggle between democracy
versus communism, was actually a struggle between Traditional Marxism versus
Transformational Marxism. The ongoing fighting in the Soviet Union is not a
struggle between democracy versus communism. It's a struggle to make the
world safe for Transformational Marxism, (which is a "Diverse group of
people dialoguing to consensus over social issues in a facilitated
meeting"), versus Traditional Marxism. Which says, "you do it my
way or bang you're dead."
The
Transformational Marxist agenda is to take Marxism around the world, never
allowing it to become rigid and tied to any one nation or organization. All
nations are to be interconnected. And what interconnects us is what we find
in common, the human agenda. The "human agenda" is the purpose for
our interconnectedness.
When
it came to transnational organizations, the Globalist said they could help
with human relationships there too. We bought into it not knowing (without
reading the small print) that it included communism in the bargain. As
traditional Americans we really weren't prepared for this.
Today,
organizations like the Army Corps of Engineers are directly involved in local
environmental issues, as well as with water rights... and when you get into
water rights you get into Maritime Law. The Globalist know that natural
resources are the key, which is why they always put their emphasis on
controlling natural resources and prevent people from consuming them.
Parenthetically,
Americans should also be aware that the law is changing too. Which means
you are now guilty until proven innocent. That's because of the way legal
problems are identified and solved today. Legal matters are no longer viewed
through the traditional prism of "unalienable rights" based on the
Constitution. Rather, your God given constitutionally based (unalienable) rights,
have morphed into government given (inalienable) civil rights.
You
don't need a counselor, social psychologist, or a Marxist to help you to
clarify what's really going on. "Change", including President
Obama's "change you can believe in", means that constitutional
rights, civil rights and human rights are all being changed (harmonized
downward) as the times change.
Private
property rights are in jeopardy too. Eventually there is going to be a
global tax on the environment, which will deliberately destroy the basis for
owning private property. You will not have rights to your property. You'll
have a title, which is what you're paying for today. The agenda is to take
the property away by consensus.
You
see, they don't have to take your property away. They don't have to take your
children away. They don't have to take your money away. They don't have to
take your parks away either. All they have to do is get you into consensus...
and now they possess your property, your children, your money and your parks.
Remember,
when you have a government come in to protect your children, your property,
your parks and your money... eventually that government will come in and
protect your children, your land, your parks and your money... from YOU.
In
Maryland the government passed two bills in 1997 called "Smart
Growth" and "Rural Legacy". This plan is basically a
United Nations biodiversity agenda where people will be told where they can
live and where they can't live.
In
getting people to accept this agenda many different ploys are being used.
Racine, Wisconsin was recently named a "Sustainable City." As such,
in order to get the people to participate, the powers that orchestrated this
movement set up "visioning meetings"; in which they got a diverse
group of people together from all walks of life: community leaders, school
teachers, factor workers, businessmen, etc., to talk about what they didn't
like and what they wanted to change.
This
is the dialectic process, i.e. the Soviet process; which is to get folks to
come to a point where they give up their individuality liberty and
unalienable rights.
They,
the globalist forces of the communitarian third way, look for hot button
issues. The type of issues that offers a common level of dissatisfaction to
everyone, say the environment. Once they find that common dissatisfaction
they can then almost guarantee consensus.
That's
the experience, then, of the Third Way. Wanting people to feel good about the
dialectic process. They solve a crisis, very often contrived - a common
dissatisfaction, but always with a predetermined outcome. Bearing in mind,
that to those facilitating this process, all truth is relative. Which means
that the truthfulness of the issue being presented, as well as the veracity
underlying the presenter's rational, including their facts and figures, ARE
ALL IRRELEVANT to them. It's the ends, which justify the means.
Look
at the oil crisis we had in the early 70s. Artificially produced, it was an
illusion. We have followed that illusion and have had crisis after crisis
(the antithesis - creating the problem); from the ozone and fluorocarbon
illusion, to the carbon tax and the climate change illusion.
This
is the Hegelian Dialectic in its essence: contrived problem - facilitated
reaction - predetermined solution.
The
Communitarian Third Way, then, is a process whose foundation was laid upon
the work of a 19th century philosopher named George W.F. Hegel. Like a
cancer upon the world, Hegel's philosophy was designed to metastasize globally
via government, business, education and even our religions.
In
the end, what we are dealing with is a dialectic. It is the very same
structure that Satan used on Eve in the Garden; that presidents Bill Clinton,
George Bush and Barack Obama used on America; and that Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon is using in the United Nations.
It
can be called "secularized Satanism" or "intellectualized
witchcraft". Whatever you call it, though, you had better believe that
it's REAL and working against the best interests of you and your nation...
~
Anonymous ~
|
No comments:
Post a Comment