December 2022 S M T W T F S « Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
- Animals (2)
- Art (1)
- bike paths (2)
- Biodiversity Spheres (4)
- Children (4)
- communism (5)
- Communitarianism (22)
- Comprehensive Plan (3)
- conservation easements (1)
- conservation groups (1)
- Constitution (77)
- Money (5)
- courage (1)
- Education (21)
- Food (6)
- free speech (1)
- Fusion Centers (1)
- Genocide (7)
- guardianship (1)
- hate (2)
- Hegelian Dialectic (1)
- Immigration (1)
- International Code Council (1)
- Main (72)
- manipulation (7)
- Media (1)
- NWO (2)
- Podcasts (353)
- Police State (24)
- political correctness (1)
- Posts (39)
- Property Rights (81)
- Racism (5)
- regionalism (1)
- Smart Growth (20)
- Social Justice (72)
- Treason (1)
- UN Agenda 21 (166)
- UN Agenda 21 executive orders (1)
- Urban Growth Boundaries (20)
- War (2)
- Water (2)
- Western Civilization (11)
- Wildlands Project (19)
- Zoning (3)
- Stealing land the smart growth way December 6, 2013
- There’s always free cheese in a mouse trap. August 18, 2013
- Arrest THAT tomato!! August 16, 2013
- Out and about in your green ghetto- America 2050 August 1, 2013
- One Big Club and YOU ain’t in it! July 30, 2013
- Riding the green train into hell July 29, 2013
So who are the racists now?
“…Irene van Niekerk is a 15-year-old runner who lives in a squatter camp near Pretoria, South Africa. She has won, in total, 27 gold medals, but owns no shoes.
Irene is a young Afrikaans girl who lives in a shack in a squatter camp near Pretoria, South Africa. They have no electricity or running water, and Irene owns no shoes. She runs barefoot, because the shoes that were custom-designed for Irene were stolen by a drug addict. The shoes were custom-designed because Irene lost most of her toes in an accident as a child, when boiling water spilled on her feet. Her family eat when there is food and they bathe when there is water, but they praise God every day for what they have. Irene recently ran in both the 800m and the 1500m races and won gold medals in both. Apparently her time in the 1500m was 4:48, and the current world record for 15-year-olds is 4:00, so she is doing well.
Apparently Irene attends a Special Ed school, due to the trauma she has experienced in her life. She is interviewed in the video above. Please bear in mind that her home language is Afrikaans, so she tends to falter a little with her English. To continue with her running, and to escape poverty, Irene needs sponsors. Apparently the South African government provides nothing, not even school assistance….”
If you would like to help Irene and many of the other unfortunate Whites destitute, homeless and hungry, confined to the squalor of these White squatter camps in South Africa, the Church of Jesus Christ Christian and the South Africa Project has created the “Living Waters Foundation”. Please Help by sending your tax deductible monetary donations to the address below. Monica Stone will take personal responsibility in seeing to it that your donations reach the needy hands of our White kindred in South Africa.
Text of Address by
at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,
Thursday, June 8, 1978
I am sincerely happy to be here with you on this occasion and to become personally acquainted with this old and most prestigious University. My congratulations and very best wishes to all of today’s graduates.
Harvard’s motto is “Veritas.” Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech today, too. But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend.
Three years ago in the United States I said certain things which at that time appeared unacceptable. Today, however, many people agree with what I then said…
A World Split Apart
by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The split in today’s world is perceptible even to a hasty glance. Any of our contemporaries readily identifies two world powers, each of them already capable of entirely destroying the other. However, understanding of the split often is limited to this political conception, to the illusion that danger may be abolished through successful diplomatic negotiations or by achieving a balance of armed forces. The truth is that the split is a much profounder and a more alienating one, that the rifts are more than one can see at first glance. This deep manifold split bears the danger of manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a Kingdom — in this case, our Earth — divided against itself cannot stand.
There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Any ancient deeply rooted autonomous culture, especially if it is spread on a wide part of the earth’s surface, constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this category China, India, the Muslim world and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as compact units. For one thousand years Russia has belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in communist captivity. It may be that in the past years Japan has increasingly become a distant part of the West, I am no judge here; but as to Israel, for instance, it seems to me that it stands apart from the Western world in that its state system is fundamentally linked to religion.
How short a time ago, relatively, the small new European world was easily seizing colonies everywhere, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but also usually despising any possible values in the conquered peoples’ approach to life. On the face of it, it was an overwhelming success, there were no geographic frontiers to it. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden in the twentieth century came the discovery of its fragility and friability. We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious, and this in turn points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests. Relations with the former colonial world now have turned into their opposite and the Western world often goes to extremes of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the total size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West, and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns will be sufficient for the West to foot the bill.
But the blindness of superiority continues in spite of all and upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present day Western systems which in theory are the best and in practice the most attractive. There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crises or by their own barbarity or incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy and from adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet’s development is quite different.
Anguish about our divided world gave birth to the theory of convergence between leading Western countries and the Soviet Union. It is a soothing theory which overlooks the fact that these worlds are not at all developing into similarity; neither one can be transformed into the other without the use of violence. Besides, convergence inevitably means acceptance of the other side’s defects, too, and this is hardly desirable.
If I were today addressing an audience in my country, examining the overall pattern of the world’s rifts I would have concentrated on the East’s calamities. But since my forced exile in the West has now lasted four years and since my audience is a Western one, I think it may be of greater interest to concentrate on certain aspects of the West in our days, such as I see them.
A Decline in Courage [. . .]
may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.
Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?
When the modern Western States were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration). Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades. In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development. The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one’s nation must be defended in a distant country?
Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.
Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.
I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.
And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.
The Direction of Freedom
In today’s Western society, the inequality has been revealed of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; there are thousands of hasty and irresponsible critics around him, parliament and the press keep rebuffing him. As he moves ahead, he has to prove that every single step of his is well-founded and absolutely flawless. Actually an outstanding and particularly gifted person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind hardly gets a chance to assert himself; from the very beginning, dozens of traps will be set out for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy.
It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and, in fact, it has been drastically weakened in all Western countries. The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people’s right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists’ civil rights. There are many such cases.
Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners in our camps which are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state resorting to means outside of a legal framework).
The Direction of the Press
The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?
Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.
Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one’s nation’s defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: “everyone is entitled to know everything.” But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.
Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.
Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?
There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.
A Fashion in Thinking
Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of petrified armor around people’s minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.
I have mentioned a few trends of Western life which surprise and shock a new arrival to this world. The purpose and scope of this speech will not allow me to continue such a review, to look into the influence of these Western characteristics on important aspects on [the] nation’s life, such as elementary education, advanced education in [?…]
It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.
I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the United States.
Not a Model
But should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present state as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through intense suffering our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just mentioned are extremely saddening.
A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. Life’s complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper and more interesting characters than those produced by standardized Western well-being. Therefore if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by intolerable music.
All this is visible to observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.
There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.
But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?
Very well known representatives of your society, such as George Kennan, say: we cannot apply moral criteria to politics. Thus we mix good and evil, right and wrong and make space for the absolute triumph of absolute Evil in the world. On the contrary, only moral criteria can help the West against communism’s well planned world strategy. There are no other criteria. Practical or occasional considerations of any kind will inevitably be swept away by strategy. After a certain level of the problem has been reached, legalistic thinking induces paralysis; it prevents one from seeing the size and meaning of events.
In spite of the abundance of information, or maybe because of it, the West has difficulties in understanding reality such as it is. There have been naive predictions by some American experts who believed that Angola would become the Soviet Union’s Vietnam or that Cuban expeditions in Africa would best be stopped by special U.S. courtesy to Cuba. Kennan’s advice to his own country — to begin unilateral disarmament — belongs to the same category. If you only knew how the youngest of the Moscow Old Square  officials laugh at your political wizards! As to Fidel Castro, he frankly scorns the United States, sending his troops to distant adventures from his country right next to yours.
However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation’s courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?
I have had occasion already to say that in the 20th century democracy has not won any major war without help and protection from a powerful continental ally whose philosophy and ideology it did not question. In World War II against Hitler, instead of winning that war with its own forces, which would certainly have been sufficient, Western democracy grew and cultivated another enemy who would prove worse and more powerful yet, as Hitler never had so many resources and so many people, nor did he offer any attractive ideas, or have such a large number of supporters in the West — a potential fifth column — as the Soviet Union. At present, some Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days.
Loss of Willpower
And yet — no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. Thus at the shameful Belgrade conference free Western diplomats in their weakness surrendered the line where enslaved members of Helsinki Watchgroups are sacrificing their lives.
Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes. This debilitating dream of a status quo is the symptom of a society which has come to the end of its development. But one must be blind in order not to see that oceans no longer belong to the West, while land under its domination keeps shrinking. The two so-called world wars (they were by far not on a world scale, not yet) have meant internal self-destruction of the small, progressive West which has thus prepared its own end. The next war (which does not have to be an atomic one and I do not believe it will) may well bury Western civilization forever.
Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself?
Humanism and Its Consequences
How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present sickness? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing socially in accordance with its proclaimed intentions, with the help of brilliant technological progress. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.
This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.
The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones.
However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century’s moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century.
An Unexpected Kinship
As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that “communism is naturalized humanism.”
This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism’s meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.
The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism’s crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.
Before the Turn
I am not examining here the case of a world war disaster and the changes which it would produce in society. As long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we have to lead an everyday life. There is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness.
To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.
If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature. It cannot unrestrained enjoyment of everyday life. It cannot be the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then cheerfully get the most out of them. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become an experience of moral growth, so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to review the table of widespread human values. Its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President’s performance be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism.
It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.
Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?
If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.
This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward.
 The Old Square in Moscow (Staraya Ploshchad’) is the place where the [headquarters] of the Central Committee of the CPSU are located; it is the real name of what in the West is conventionally referred to as “the Kremlin.”
Source: Texts of Famous Speeches at Harvard
Re-formatted in HTML by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1997
Joe Neal, South Carolina State Representative explains how “smart growth” embedded within Comprehensive Plans adopted by local government will encumber private property rights. He describes how “urban growth boundaries” are arbitrarily created within plans which limit growth and development to specific areas. They think that is the smart way to develop hence the name “smart growth”. This means that if you own property outside of the “urban growth boundary” you will NOT be allowed to use YOUR land the way you want to. What they also do is change zoning so that uses that were previously allowed will no longer be allowed.
For example, if you have a business located in an area zoned for industry and the zoning for “industry” has now been eliminated in the comprehensive plan, then your ability to use your property (business) the way you like has just been destroyed. Who will buy a business located in an area which is no longer zoned for that specific kind of business? Only an idiot would do that.
As was mentioned in the video, how much value does your property have if you cannot use it to generate wealth? If you own your home, you hope to be able to sell it for more than you paid for it, it’s supposed to be an “investment” right? If you have a piece of land you’d like to put a business on, you don’t expect the commissioners to change the zoning so you can’t use your land.
If the 3 minute video above does not play correctly in you tube, then click the link below and you can download it to watch it.
I am including a link to the longer video which is well worth taking the time to watch. This video was made 10 years ago.
To request a copy of the longer DVD contact Don Casey, from the group Keep Our Rights www.keepourrights.org at email him: firstname.lastname@example.org.
While America burns the people fiddle. This is just another false flag event designed to destroy freedom and liberty and set up a police state. Marshall Law is on the horizon. More domestic enslavement is headed our way. They’ll be grabbing your crotch and your guns. A man without the ability to defend himself is a slave. Get it? Their goal: enslave the world in their clutches.
How many false flags have happened just in the last century or so? The USS Maine, The Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin and 911. So many people have warned us over the centuries but we refuse to listen and to “see”. Such a deadly choice we make. We will all be slaves to the “money masters” who rule the world. Who controls the money controls the world. It’s really very simple. It isn’t rocket science yet so few people will open their eyes to see as these bastards plunder the world and place all of us in bondage.
Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money…who has it? Money equals power. Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Soon that corruption will be evident for all to see.
In my constant quest for the truth, I like looking at all the websites the hate hustlers for profit such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claim are just hate filled sites full of lies, more lies and damn lies. Hate speech. That’s the label the hate hustlers give to anyone who speaks the truth. Their goal: shut you up! I know when the hate hustlers call people names such as: hater, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, bigot, anti-Semite, White-supremacist, or Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, those are the people that must be telling the truth, which is why the hate hustlers spend so much time trying to get you not to listen to what they have to say.
Remember the old E. F. Hutton ad, when E. F. Hutton speaks people listen? I say when hate hustlers speak, you better listen very carefully to everyone the hate hustlers are condemning. The condemned are the people you need to be listening to. They are telling you the truth. The truth is hate speech to those who hate hearing the truth.
Have you looked to see if YOU made it to the official “hate map” the “Kings of Hate” put on display? Hate speech it’s what the SPLC commies love to bathe in.
I was looking at some comments on a website after an article about crime in Indianapolis and saw a comment about the bike/walking trail that went through the heart of the city. It’s called the Monon Trail.
I figured I’d take a peek so I found this website that is all about trails. http://www.traillink.com/ Lots and lots of trails. Bike trails. I looked at the “reviews” of the Monon trail and was amused at the candor from several reviewers. Here’s one of them: “…Then down around 38th street there is a four or six lane dangerous crossing with heavy traffic and on below that industrial and blighted area that I did not feel comfortable going through. I made it all the way to the interstate which is the southern most end of the trail. There have been problems down this far with robberies and after reading about the need for increased surveilance [sic] and patrols I won’t be going here again without protection…. ” I wonder what this bike rider means by “protection”? Do they think a camera will save them? Fool. Remember when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Maybe they are thinking of bringing a handgun? Or a baseball bat? How about a four legged companion? Some of us know where those forms of protection are headed–outlawed and eventually eliminated because they have a “carbon” footprint. Where are all the “animal” lovers?
And another…”you have two choices: you can ride the north end near Carmel where it is crowded, or you can ride on the other side of town where it is blighted. The closer you go to the city the more streets you cross, the more unsafe you feel, and the less bikers you see…”.
Here’s one more just for the hell of it “…The trail DOES go through the inner-city, but it is all very well lit, and I have never felt unsafe when riding. You just have to be smart, aware, and just as polite as usual. :-)…” Just be polite? Really? Is that all it takes? Howdy folks, just passin’ on through, don’t rob me, or assault me, or kill me. If saying please don’t hurt me helped there would be thousands upon thousands of victims who would not have been a victim. This bicyclist is a classic example of a brainwashed nitwit who thinks all you have to do, when finding yourself riding in an area where even the poor bastards living there don’t feel safe, is to be polite. Political correctness places people in harms way, in fact it kills. He/she is what I call a “Moaner in waiting” . Lots of moaning and groaning or even becoming permanently silenced await fools who don’t recognize the “danger” all around them. What trail are you on?
“Bike paths” or “walking paths” are all part of
big daddy (Oh, I better be PC, I don’t want to offend all the communitarians who hate men, especially White heterosexual men ) big momma Agenda 21. There will no longer be a safe, convenient, warm or cool car in the future for you, but you can take that path into hell. Eventually, you will note, that bike paths all lead into cities because you won’t have anywhere else to go. You won’t be joy riding in the country. The urban growth boundaries will keep you locked in “green” ghettos incorrectly named “smart growth”. All people in rural areas will be driven off their land. Roads are being erased and access to rural areas will be eliminated for all but a few “chosen” people. And if you do venture out into the “uncharted forest” as Ayn Rand called it in her novel Anthem, one of the reintroduced carnivores awaits to bite your little head off and nibble on your tiny feet. http://www.klamathconservation.org/docs/Carroll_LynxMarten_hi.pdf You won’t be armed to attempt to protect yourself because they will have succeeded in taking all forms of self defense from you. http://www.infowars.com/amazon-disarms-brits-by-banning-self-defense-items/
Millions and millions of tax dollars are being diverted away from repairing our roads and bridges and are used to build bike paths instead. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/transportation-and-infrastructure-policy-more-state-and-less-federal-control http://rootsinalpharetta.com/2011/03/four-ways-to-wreak-havoc-on-north-fulton-traffic/ Search bike path and diverted dollars and you will find all kinds of info. Look around. Bike paths are everywhere.
My question to you: Is this what you want for yourself and your family? I doubt it is, but I also know few will do anything to prevent it. Have you given much thought to how radically inconvenient and hard life will become when your freedom to use the mode of transportation you desire is ripped away from you? Perhaps its time you did. They like to portray what they are doing as a utopian place where we will all join hands and sing songs. How can there be happiness if you don’t have freedom?
Marxists are everywhere. They disguise themselves well. They like to hide within our institutions. “I understand that you love freedom, but in our crowded world you have to pay a tax for freedom. You cannot love freedom for yourselves alone and quietly agree to a situation where the majority of humanity, spread over the greater part of the globe, is subjected to violence and oppression. The Communist ideology is to destroy your social order. This has been their aim for 125 years and it has never changed; only the methods have changed a little….And what is ideological war? It is a concentration of hatred, a continued repetition of the oath to destroy the Western world.” ~Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, from a Speech given in New York City to the AFL-CIO on July 9, 1975
Who were/are the communists? Who was Karl Mark aka Mordechai levy? What is Marxism? Here’s a hint. It’s the same as Communism. Who has been behind the denigration of Christianity? Who is pushing for massive illegal and legal immigration into only Western Nations? Who is it?
The communist manifesto is their handbook. Here is an excerpt:
“…The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation…
SO. . . YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR?
Are you sure? You’re willing to risk your life for. . . what? For whom? Your country needs you? To do what? To massacre innocent, defenseless people? Why? Is your country at risk? Or do you have your country confused with the corporation in Washington, D.C… the U.S. Government, Inc.? Are you willing to forfeit your life and possibly your soul in blind obedience to the government? Are you willing to become a human guinea pig to the Military/ Industrial/ Pharmaceutical complex? You will. . . if you go to war.
This section will examine accounts of the U.S. Government/U.S. Military exploitation of its property: G.I. Joes and Janes (government issue) who wear identification declaring them dogs. . . as in Dog Tags hung by chains around their necks, bearing a name and Social Slavery number. We will also consider acts of senseless violence committed by individuals known as US/UN peacemakers / peacekeepers, “just following orders”.
When we take a look at the atrocities that have been and are still being committed against U.S. soldiers — in all branches of the military — it boggles the mind. A few examples, include:
- biological and chemical agents sprayed on and injected into unwitting ‘participants’;
- the deadly use of depleted uranium (DU) in clothing and other articles;
- Gulf War Illness that has crippled and killed hundreds of thousands of vets, while wreaking havoc on their offspring;
- the deliberate attempt by Israel — with the help of the U.S. military, and the continued cover-up by the U.S. Government, including the Congress — to sink the USS Liberty, killing and wounding hundreds of sailors;
- forced vaccination of troops with anthrax vaccine declared unsafe for the civilian population; and
- an endless list of crimes against and by both draftees and enlisted personnel.
Men – and now women – have been and are being victimized by a government they believe to be ‘their government who loves them’, as in: “My Government would never hurt me! I love My Government! My Government loves me!”
No. The government does not love us. Our Heavenly Father loves us.
A government is a ‘which’, not a ‘who’; the word ‘government’ is a noun, a thing… not a person. Governments do not — cannot — love.
A government is a fiction, made by man, staffed by men and women… most of whom do not love. Love is of Creator. Evil is not of Creator. Evil is not the opposite of love, for what is Real has no opposite. Evil is the absence of love, as darkness is the absence (not the opposite) of light. Man does not — cannot — create outside of, nor apart from his Creator. Governments are made, not created.
The U.S. Government, Inc. (it is in fact a corporation), is not worthy of trust nor love nor allegiance, for those holding and controlling the reins of the U.S. Government, Inc. are obsessed with attaining only one goal: World Dominion. An important aspect of the plan for World Dominion is reduction in the world’s population.
How they intend to accomplish the goal is a slowly, steadily unfolding envelope of past events coming into the light of our awareness. If we know the truth of the past, the present is understandable, and their projected future for us is discernible. The future for us in their overall plan is a system of master and slaves. And they do not treat their slaves well, as we are witnessing.
I’ve spoken with men who described the gut-wrenching pain of discovery when the evidence is too great to continue a lifetime of ignorance and/or denial. Their awakening is often a two-fold experience: along with the grievous acts of evil inflicted upon them, the predominant realization seems to be the lies they have been told that would seduce them into killing and maiming innocent men, women and children in foreign lands that pose no threat to America.
They suddenly understand that there is little difference in the acts of evil committed against them while in the service of their ‘beloved and trusted government’, and the crimes they personally have committed against humanity. Some have killed their fellow Americans ‘in the line of duty’.
Through media mind control and military indoctrination these young men were convinced that they were fighting for ‘their country’; fighting for the freedom and liberty of those they were killing, when in fact they were literally killing and dying in defense of the New World Order.
“It has occurred to me that any time any person in the military kills another person — unless they kill in defense of the nation — it is murder. There is never any other reason to go to war. When I was in Vietnam I became a murderer. A murderer! I committed murder, and I repent of it today. I do not understand how I allowed myself to believe that what I was doing was good and noble.
“And today, we have the U.S. military spread into a hundred-forty or more countries all doing the same thing. . . committing murder.” M.Payne – former marine and Vietnam veteran; Mt. Airy, N. Carolina
One needn’t physically kill to be part of the killing. Every thoughtless individual who supports the current neverendingwar, or who works for the war effort by virtue of his or her vocation, avocation or religion, regardless the perceived separation by distance, is voluntarily taking part.
Our responsibility then, when we know the truth, is to choose rightly. It is always a matter of individual choice, and if that choice leaves us feeling isolated from the masses, or our very dearest friends and family members… so be it.
The dilemma for young people is and has been the forced registration (link coming soon) of the draft. They are warned that:
“Failure to register, or otherwise comply with the Military Selective Service Act is, upon conviction, punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.”
Once they have registered, they are treated as property of the U.S. Government, required ‘by law’ to report their whereabouts until such time as they have passed the draft age. In this section we will look at the ‘laws’ that allegedly leave no choice.
Many poorly educated and jobless young people enlist today, bartering four years of their young lives in return for food, shelter and clothing, along with the enticement of furthering their education with government funding. Even the possibility of being killed in the neverending war is no deterrent because they see no other way out of the poverty at home.
The international bankers’ “planned economy” via the NAFTA (1993) and GATT/WTO (1994) has handily eliminated industry and millions of jobs in America in order to provide their mercenary army with youngsters groping and hoping for some semblance of ‘security’. Lest you believe our present situation has all happened by a natural course of events, consider this:
The July/August, 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, featured an article by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., titled Back To The Womb?, in which the author asserted that:
“In defense of the World Order. . . U.S. Soldiers would have to kill and die.
. . . We are not going to achieve a New Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.”
Be very clear that the blood shed will not be — has never been — the war-makers’ blood. The hapless warrior who kills and dies for the New World Order is the pawn in this deadly game.
Foreign Affairs is the flagship publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. It didn’t occur to Mr. Schlesenger that Americans would refuse to kill and die for the World Order, because plans for our economic demise were being layed as the article was written… the NAFTA was passed through the U.S. House on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate passed it on Saturday, the 20th, during quarter and half-times of a hot football game they were watching in the cloak room.
After you have read the information in this section consider once more the question: “So… you want to go to war?” …
— Jackie —
November 2, 2002
Read more here: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/wantwar/intro.htm
Jackie Patru’s article was written in 2002…how many places are we “at war” with now??? Isn’t it time you asked yourself who the “real” enemy is?
The following guest editorial by Iris Stevens was submitted to the Jonesboro Sun and was published in the Sun today, Feb 20, 2013, with the headline: “Legislating a Government-Created Utopia.” It can be found at this link today: http://www.jonesborosun.com/e-Edition/ Documentation is included in this, her original article sent to the paper.
Why We Believe Our Use of Cars Will Be Restricted
I know many people just can’t believe that any of us could be wacky enough to believe the bizarre accusations we are making about UN Agenda 21 – and actually tying it to our local Jonesboro Vision 2030. Believe me, we understand!
We couldn’t believe it either when we were told by city officials at a Jonesboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting in November, 2010 (before they realized there was opposition) that in the near future not only our children and grandchildren would be riding bikes and walking rather than driving, but even the older adults sitting in the room would be as well. 2
And how believable is it that our federal government has passed legislation requiring every transportation agency to include bikeways and sidewalks in projects that receive any federal aid – and that snow must be removed from sidewalks and bikeways in the same manner as other roadways? That comes straight from the US Department Transportation website signed by Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood. 3
Who walks and rides bikes in the snow except maybe for fun or in an emergency? When did they slip that law through? And why is building bikeways and snow removal so critical – in our dire economic times?
Not long ago President Obama campaigned across the nation for another $447 billion stimulus bill, bewailing our crumbling roads and dangerous bridges. If our bridges are that dangerous, why are we building all these bikeways/walkways on money borrowed from China? Just for recreation? I don’t think so. Truck drivers say they see these bikeways all over the nation, but no one is on them. 4
And why is Obama planning to have high-speed rail available to 80% of the people in the next 25 years, with a $53 billion investment in the next six years, instead of fixing our crumbling roads and dangerous bridges? Either we have lost our senses, or there is a design for this madness. 5
And why is our “local” Jonesboro Vision 2030 just like all the other local plans across the nation? As a teacher, would anyone expect me to believe that the students had really worked independently if they turned in work that similar? I don’t think so. It reminds me of our educational reforms that were always local and developed by us teachers – but were almost identical to the education reforms in every other state.
And then there is the 1996 “Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide” by the international group ICLEI, the key driver of Agenda 21, which outlined Comprehensive plans with the same purpose and principles as in Jonesboro Vision 2030. One was even called Vision 2020! Is that all a coincidence? 6
How does one explain all the articles, or propaganda, that make living without cars seem so appealing? According to a New York Times article, “Residents of this upscale community…have given up their cars…in Europe, and the US as a component of a movement called ‘smart planning’…’When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,’ said Heidrun Walter.” From the British Telegraph comes, “The European Union Will Ban Cars from Cities by 2050.” 7 & 8
In a recent news article, “The Secret fear of the world’s biggest auto companies,” the fear is that people will no longer be buying their cars. Quote: “All around the United States and Canada, people are thinking seriously about giving up their automobiles…Another question has begun to percolate: do I need a car at all?” 9
Then the buffoonish Michael Moore writes, “The things we call cars may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature,” and that the “President must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles.” 10
In Arkansas, well known John Brummet wrote an article, “World Without Cars, Amen,” admitting that when liberals get together they do indeed talk about doing away with our cars, but he salves our fears by implying that the process will take a long time. 11
The radical transportation expert, Dan Burden promotes cities resembling those of 100 years ago, with walkable villages where no cars are needed. Burden says that the best city is one where no car is needed to get around. 12
And who would believe that our Jonesboro City Planning Director, Otis Spriggs, attended Dan Burden’s EPA training and will implement many of Burden’s principles in Vision 2030 such as, “This Future Land Use Plan is very different from prior plans. This Future Land Use Plan has a very strong emphasis on urban design where “people live, work, shop, and play” in a pedestrian-friendly, village-like manner.” 13
Vision 2030 encourages and mentions “village centers,” “pedestrian friendly neighborhoods,” and “walkable communities” many times in Chapter 10 on Physical Development. 14
These are only a few of the many things that cause us to believe there is indeed a push to restrict our use of cars in Jonesboro Vision 2030 based in the principles of UN Agenda 21. For many of us this is about freedom; the freedom that will allow our children and grandchildren to live where and how they want, unencumbered by a nanny-state bureaucracy attempting to legislate a government created utopia.
Iris Stevens, Jonesboro, Arkansas
There is no #1 because I changed some of the info in the first paragraph and didn’t want to have to redo the numbers.
2. Article Jonesboro Promoting Carless Society in Near Future http://www.wpaag.org/Agenda%2021%20Carless%20Soc%20J’boro%20MPO%20Mtg.htm
3. United States Dept. of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle & Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations sign by Ray LaHood, US Secretary of Transportation March 11, 2012. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/overview/policy_accom.cfm
4. Obama Pressures Boehner, McConnell on Jobs Bill With Bridge as ‘Prop’ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/22/republicans-criticize-obama-trip-to-ohio-bridge-years-from-being-shovel-ready/
5. Taxpayer Calculator: High-Speed Rail, Feb 17, 2011 http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/17/taxpayer-calculator-high-speed-rail?test=latestnews6
6. Link to The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide by the international group ICLEI, the key driver of UN Agenda 21 that contains many elements Jonesboro City is now using. Quote from this planning guide: In 1992, the leaders of 179 countries gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the United Nations Earth Summit to finalize a global action plan for sustainable development, called Agenda 21. In this document, they recognized that because “so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives.” Taken from the Introduction by Maurice Strong at above link.
7. Recently, May 17, 09, our Arkansas state paper, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, published an article taken from the New York Times entitled: “Residents of German district adopt car – free lifestyle”
8. EU to Ban Cars From Cities by 1950 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8411336/EU-to-ban-cars-from-cities-by-2050.html
9. The Secret Fear of the World’s Biggest Auto Companies http://autos.yahoo.com/news/the-secret-fear-of-the-world-s-biggest-auto-companies-193338830.html?page=all
and also at this Forbes link http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2013/01/21/the-secret-fear-of-the-worlds-biggest-auto-companies/
10.Michael Moore’s article: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/goodbye-gm-by-michael-moore
11. Brummett Say Amen to World Without Cars http://www.wpaag.org/brummett_says_amen_to__world_wit.htm
12. “Arkansas is Using Extreme Radical Environmentalist as Transportation Expert” – Documentation at end of article.
13. T-Party Presentation: Dan Burden, J’boro and Behind the Green Mask
14. Chapter 10, Jonesboro Vision 2030 Draft)
Chapter 10a Physical Development Element – Land Use page 2, 3, 24 and 34 are a few of the pages. They will be numbered with PDa in front of the numbers.
Here is my suggestion for all who have read the above article. Look at the documents for your area. Are the terms she references above found in your comprehensive plan, transportation plan, land use plan, etc.? I can guarantee they are. Why? Because UN Agenda 21 is global. It is the 21st century plan for the world. If you mobility is limited, your ability to escape is limited. It makes you very easy to control.
Oh Glenn, where are your tears?
“It’s no secret that Glenn Beck is a Communitarian, and his target audience is the asleep at the wheel politically conservative Christian. Since the past several decades of Christians have been raised on heavy doses of God and country (patriotism), his rhetoric all sounds copacetic. But when the trained ear recognizes that Beck is “pushing through the polarities of left and right in an effort to find a third way,” his Communitarian schpeel takes on all new meaning.
Beck is promoting the “Third Way,” and he wants to use the Tea Party to help fulfill a Luciferian global agenda toward world government. Many believe that the Libertarian Party is the Communitarian front for the globalist agenda, which develops a middle ground to the Left-Right paradigm. But now it seems to be spreading to include the Tea Party – which would pave the way for the ecumenical/spiritual aspect of the New World Orders new religious faith and the future Noahide Laws.
In the following video, I’m certain there would be several who would disagree with his perspective of how political parties are viewed from the grand scheme of things, but he still makes an attempt to win his audience over into the middle ground…” read more
And what are the Noahide Laws mentioned in this article? Oh dear, all you sheep of little faith, this is good, really good. Look here to feel the future.
Gun Ban Results in Tragic Deaths
The following story was first printed in the New American magazine and is dated April 20th. The author is unknown.
BOSTON — National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault rifles were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a paramilitary extremist faction. Military and law enforcement officials estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed widespread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons. Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting earlier this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped-off regarding the government’s plan.
During a tense standoff in Lexington’s town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.
Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over-matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government forces. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.
* * *