Communitarianism and a Hidden Agenda 21

by Lex Fisher

On July 3rd, 2012, James Corbett interviewed Niki Raapana for The Corbett Report (ref).  Raapana is an anti-communitarianism activist.  Communitarianism is something Raapana said she discovered after community police knocked at her door many years ago asking to search her home.  The shock from this type of encroachment on her personal privacy motivated Raapana to investigate the workings behind the local government in Seattle.  What Raapana found is a world of information describing the direction the globalists intend to take the world in the future, and the framework they’ve slowly been building toward that end.

Before we get into Raapana’s ideas, I would like to review two widely-held beliefs within the Truth Movement.  The first is the idea that a common practice of those steering the invisible government of our world is to pursue their goals through the manipulation of the public.  For instance, the War on Terror was really a guise to support American imperialism in the Middle East and to enact laws that restrict civil liberties at home.  The idea of spreading freedom and democracy in Iraq was a front for securing America’s place among some of the critical oil pipelines of the Middle East.  There are countless examples of the globalists’ expertise at advancing their agendas under false premises.  Therefore, it’s necessary to develop a scrupulous outlook regarding the purported rationale behind any social or political development you see in the world around you.  In the case of Raapana’s analysis, you will see that whether or not global warming exists, and whether or not resources like oil are running out, these fears are being used to justify moving our government toward a system heavy on what Raapana calls heavy central planning.

The second underlying widely-held belief I would like to review is the invisible agenda some of the most powerful people in the world to impose an authoritarian global government.  I saw this concept as far-fetched when I first encountered it, so I can understand if my readers do as well.  In Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, James Perloff discusses many of the communist and socialist connections of many of the key players in the development of the invisible government.  In an interview with Prison Planet, Author G. Edward Griffin discusses the secret connections between American democratic and republican leaders with the basic tenets of socialism and communism (ref).  Meanwhile, American civil liberties continue to be eroded by legislation such as the Patriot Act, as well as Supreme Court decisions like the 2011 decision allowing the police to enter your home without a warrant.  These types of developments will become more controversial if history one day determines that Middle Eastern terrorists were not in fact behind 9/11 after all.  When the global agenda reaches its end, we may finally see a single world governmental dictatorship realized.  We may even look back and reminisce about the days when the world’s leaders still pretended on the surface to believe in democratic ideals.

Raapana says that in the Spring of 1999, the City of Seattle was in the process of publishing separate neighborhood plans for each of the 39 neighborhoods of the Seattle area.  Raapana says communitarianism came knocking on her door when community police officers randomly rang her door one day wanting to search her home.  She explains, “I was a renter in Seattle coming under public health inspections where they wanted to know everything about us.”

Something about the invasive way in which community police wanted to search her home didn’t sit right with Raapana, so she says she began to do her research.  She says she found out everything there was to know about how municipal, county and state governments work.  Raapana says that about a year into her research, she came across the concept of communitarianism, which was a body of thought that was being weaved into international and local government laws, starting at the top, from the UN.

Raapana says that “communitarianism is just the beautiful front that they’re putting on a global system that just incorporates the worst of central planning that we’ve ever even imagined.”  Communitarianism refers to the theory that is the basis of a host of laws and documents that have been authored and ratified, according to Raapana, since at least 1990.  In documents and laws that are based in communitarianism, there is a cataloguing of the human and physical resources of a local area, and a creative presentation of innovative ways that local governments can enforce their regulations.  There is an incremental encroachment of the place of the government into our personal affairs, into personal matters which Raapana says are “none of their business.”

Also interviewed by James Corbett, UK-based researcher Julie Beal says that the invasive language of these communitarianism laws and documents is laced with terminology about an individual’s responsibility over the collective.  Beal says that while in our current system societal ethics are encouraged, communitarian laws are worded more in terms of forcing people to sacrifice their own good for the good of the collective (ref) .   According to Raapana, this language brings the government deeper into our everyday lives, and according to Beal, it uses language about our responsibility to our community to make this responsibility mandatory.

In our current-day society, we are encouraged but not forced to take measures that protect our environment.  When the day comes that we are forced to take these kinds of measures, it will be easy to force people to carry out hidden agendas under the pretense of saving the environment, which really hides political motives.

Raapana says the underlying legal theory behind communitarianism “is called the Communitarian Supremacy of Law.  It’s the law of the European Union.  It’s the law of the WTO.  NAFTA, CAFTA, all these trade agreements are based in the theory of communitarianism.”  Raapana finds that communitarianism is being weaved into our laws as if it has always been part of our language, when in fact it hasn’t.

The philosophy behind communitarianism is rooted in the theory of 19th century political philosopher Georg Hegel.  Hegel’s works have been extremely influential in communist theory throughout history.  Although Hegel’s writings are very complex and subject to interpretation, Raapana explains Hegel’s fundamental concept of creating history as opposed to writing it.  To write history would be to document historical events in the manner that a journalist would.  To create history, in this theory, is to manipulate how the public behaves through a series of well-planned orchestrations.

A fictional example of how to create history would be to inject into a controversial issue into the realm of public debate, for example some new idea on changing immigration law in some way.  The controllers of this sequence would know in advance that the spotlighting of this single issue will cause some of the people to take one stance, and the rest of the people to take the opposite stance, and some ideological compromise would then take place which fits perfectly into the plans of those who created the idea to begin with.

A more violent example of the idea of creating history would be for the covert operations agents to go into a country where two groups are in conflict, and stage an attack against one of the sides in the conflict.  Those who were attacked will automatically believe that their enemies are to blame, and will strike back.  The outcome of the escalation of violence between the two groups would be some pre-planned sequence of events that would benefit the government whose covert operations carried out the attack.

Recently, this type of creation of history has become more overt in light of the global public’s inability to mount meaningful objections to these types of operations in the past.  Last year, Egypt’s leader was removed.  This year, American political leaders suddenly began a seemingly random campaign oust Syria’s leadership and shed light on atrocities within Syria.  For instance, an article in The Telegraph explains that UK’s Foreign Secretary William Hague has announced increased support for Syrian opposition groups (ref) .  In an op-ed piece in The Christian Science Monitor, Bilal Y. Saab discusses Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Turkey to meet with leaders of the opposition to Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad (ref) .  Without discussing the reasons for removing Asad aside from calling the situation a crisis, Saab says, “She must impress on them the urgent need to unite their fractious ranks.”  Saab goes on to presumptively discuss what Syria must do after al-Assad is removed.  Granted, it was an op-ed piece, but Saab echoes the manner in which Syria unfolded – very minimal attention to the alleged atrocities that justify al-Assad’s removal, followed by public discussion of how to remove him.

Why don’t we just call it like it is: The US is carrying on a pre-planned script to remove al-Assad without doing crossing the line of alarming the American public to the fact that we’re behind it.  Then we’ll move on to the next Middle Eastern country.  The obvious reason: strategic control of oil pipelines in order to maintain our global supremacy over Russia and China.

Having described the manner in which the idea of creating history is fundamental to Hegelian and therefore communist thought and the ways it’s being used, the a certain quote largely attributed to Karl Rove becomes particularly suspicious.   Journalist Ron Suskind was traveling with George W. Bush when he collected this quote, which was published in The New York Times:

”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Suskind attributed the quote to ‘a senior Bush aide,’ but readers widely interpreted that he meant Karl Rove.  Did Rove and the other criminals within George W. Bush’s presidency literally see themselves as carriers of the communist torch?  Were they so drunk with power that they brazenly mixed in communist rhetoric with their everyday language?  Without more information, one can only speculate.

Raapana says that the Hegelian dialectic which is fundamental to communitarian theory involves setting people up to argue over one ideological conflict after another.  Each of these conflicts changes society in a fundamental way that brings us closer and closer to having one single ideology.  Raapana says that any academic familiar with Hegel will agree on the Hegelian process: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  For example, if the issue of abortion is brought into public debate, people will coalesce around the views that are pro-abortion and the views that are anti-abortion.  This public debate will continue for a certain time, and at some point the two views will be reconciled by some over-arching view, and the two groups will be ideologically fused into one single group.  Raapana says this process has been a couple of hundred years in the making, dating back to the debates between socialism and capitalism.  Over and over again the cycle continues, and more middle grounds are achieved, until in the final stage we achieve what Raapana calls a radical middle, “a new theory of law to appeal to everyone and to appeal to no one in particular.”

Raapana explains,

“So we’ve just sort of been led, socially-engineered, into fighting these conflicts that lead to the communitarian finale, which is global governance, under one system of law, one religion, and, we see pieces of it, in their social equity theories, what’s happening at Rio plus 20, if you look out there, you can see that we’re being pushed towards change and we’re all being told that we have to change our behaviors, it’s our behaviors that are changing the world for a bad place.  So, certain lifestyles have been attacked, particularly the ones that have any American ideology left at all, okay, any independent thinking, any … business people, are all being targeted in these programs, and the reason is, is because in the communitarian system, there’s just central planning based on China, the Soviets, and all the rest of the communist bloc that you cannot allow independent thinking, it doesn’t work in these collectives that they’re building.”

Raapana says that communitarianism is being kept from the public, because it’s being integrated into society mostly at the academic level.  She says, “It’s not being presented to the people as an argument in any of the countries where this is happening to them.”  Still, communitarianism is by no means irrelevant to our everyday lives.  Our ideological beliefs are slowly being fused into one just as our national sovereignties are slowly being melded together.

Raapana talks about Agenda 21 as one of the most critical places where communitarianism is being weaved into laws that will soon affect our lives.  Wikipedia defines Agenda 21 as “a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development” (ref) .  Wikipedia traces the development and  evolution of the Agenda 21 as having started at the UN’s Rio +5 conference in 1997 and continued through the Rio +10 conference in 2001 (which resulted in a policy document entitled Agenda 21 for Culture) and the Rio +20 conference in 2012 (which resulted in an outcome document entitled The Future We Want).  The final document begs the question of who, exactly, the document refers to by the word we, because most Americans don’t even know what Agenda 21 is.  Raapana says that as early as 1990, the states were already telling municipalities to write plans relating to sustainability.

Raapana defines Agenda 21 as the land-use and resource-based planning arm of the New World Order.  The idea behind it is to catalogue all of our physical natural resources, such as trees, oil, water, plants, etcetera, and to also catalogue the abilities of people in the community.  The implication is that this is the set-up for a mandatory management of these resources down the road.  For instance, if sugar is in short supply, then there can be rules for how to distribute sugar.  And if a certain expertise is in short supply, we can be told which jobs to do to maximize how much we can contribute to the common good.  Perhaps people can be forced to live in certain places in order to capitalize on their specific labor expertise.  What I personally see in Agenda 21 are the underpinnings of technocratic socialism.

Julie Beal points to an example of this categorization in the work of George Soros’ think tank INET, who has done work discussing the concept of measuring social capital.  If human capital is the power of a person to contribute to his society, then social capital is the power that a human being has through their social connections on sites like Facebook.  Theorists are hard at work trying to formulate ways that this social capital can be used to compel people to give up more of their privacy and allow governments and corporations into their daily lives in even more invasive ways than they already do.

Raapana says a big part of the fabric of communitarianism is the language of the placement of social responsibility.  She says, “We’re being pushed towards change and we’re all being told that we have to change our behaviors, it’s our behaviors that are changing the world for a bad place.”  This is an extremely critical area of misinformation that people need to be very clear on.  Language that presupposes, for instance, that the spending of the average Joe resulted in recent economic depressions, or that the average Joe’s insistence on driving to work is the reason behind pollution or the oil crisis, cleverly shifts the responsibility for the global crises we’re experiencing to the public themselves.

In talking about the modern American political system, G. Edward Griffin asserts that the public has been falsely made to feel that they are in control.  If there has in fact been an invisible government controlling the actions of our power-holding politicians, as well as the dissemination of information via the mainstream media outlets, then that reduces the average Joe to just a pawn.  As insulting as that is, it shifts the responsibility for the ills that are happening to our planet to the globalists and the major corporations of the world.  And it reduces the communitarian language behind the international accords to simple propaganda.

Raapana proposes some simple solutions to these disturbing trends.  She says she got rid of her televisions around ten years ago, and that has helped her a bit.  It has prevented her consciousness from being subject to the social engineering of a popular media whose information is controlled by complex and unknown forces.  Raapana implies that she recommends we do the same in order to prevent ourselves from being led along a path toward communitarianism.  She does admit, however, that cutting yourself off from the factories of American culture can leave you feeling disconnected, feeling like you have very little to talk about with regular everyday people.

Raapana also say that if the communitarian process is to continue to present the public with dialectical issues, one of the best things we can do is to opt-out of these discussions.  If the debate over abortion will inevitably result in a compromise by the two groups that gets us steps closer to a Hegelian ideal state, we can stifle this process by refusing to take a stance.  Raapana explains,

“If we don’t get out of it, if we don’t step back from being their little puppet, and this is literally what they’re doing is leading our conversations, they’re leading to fights between family members, are over issues that these phonies have introduced as important.  And they’re not.  All they do is keep us busy fighting each other and not looking at what they’re really doing, with, the new international system of law is communitarian law.”

Raapana says she refuses to take a stance on politicized issues such as abortion and religion.  She says “If you jump off the bandwagon, then you’ll see how much it’s in your face.”

Raapana is fighting for people to open their eyes to what is happening right under their feet.  Measures like Agenda 21 and the infiltration of communitarianism into international agreements flourish primarily because the public has no idea that they’re happening, or what they even are.  If so many of these evils are rooted in public apathy, then being awake, aware, and educated is a simple and effective solution against the plots of the globalists.

What Raapana is talking about is a sequence of legislation being moved along by our leaders which harnesses the public’s interests in the common good and uses it to pursue ulterior motives.  Rappana talks about international accords which have been endorsed in the name of sustainable and eco-friendly practices and frames them in a manner that is slowly building the framework for global governance.  The laws that Raapana discusses are embedded with a language and a political philosophy that is intended to strengthen the control of government has over the everyday lives of regular people.  Whether or not global warming exists, and whether or not we are running out of oil and other resources, these excuses are being used to create an international code of global governance that will move us toward a single world governmental dictatorship.  These plans are no secret.  In David Rockefeller’s own book, Memoirs, he says:

“Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will.If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (ref)

Once this agenda is in its late stages, the framework will already be in place for the globalists to make the claim that this international law supersedes our domestic laws.  It will be very easy to say that this international set of laws is trumps our supposed democracy.  And whether they choose at that point to overtly say it or not, a modern-day dictatorship of the globalists over the human beings of the world will be firmly in place, and we will have no governing body left to protect us against evil.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: