Things More Worrisome than AGW — Communitarianism
Commentary on UK Spectator: Communitarianism is a freedom-hating totalitarian philosophy like any other
by Dennis Ambler
I saw it [the Spectator essay] yesterday, he is absolutely right of course.
I think it’s a cross between Liberal/Social Democracy and Socialism/Communism, probably the still evolving Fabianism which drives much of what we see in the west. It seems to mean different things to different people but the main essence seems to be that the individual is subsumed by the needs of the “community” however that may be defined.
To say that individuals don’t help each other or look out for their local environment, or seek to help people in genuine need, without being organised by “environmentalists” or “focus groups” or community organisers, shows a poor regard for the nature of human beings.It fits the mind set of the UN and its Agenda 21 followers with the mantras of “Our Common Future” and “Sustainable Development” which are code words for more, but not necessarily visible, state control, The State is the enabler and the communities do its bidding without the realisation that they are so doing. It’s a little like in the old Soviet Union, when there would be a party official in residence in each block of flats, to report on any deviant behaviour.
It shows in the progandandising of children on global warming, to hector their parents and make them change their behaviour “for the sake of the planet”. “It’s our future” is a common mantra that emerges.
When you encounter some of the eco-freaks and NGO activists, they simply regurgitate the messages they have been fed for years by the elite, via a compliant media. It is almost a “Stepford Wives” effect.
James Delingpole mentions Nikki Raapana, and here is a flavour of what she has to say:
“Our wisest neighbors join the “new” group or council or committee of “stakeholders,” who always “partner” with UN scientists, major NGOs, banks, employers, corporate stores, and contractors/developers.
They use lovely new language and always appear very smart, official, righteous, and beyond the reach of the little (uneducated) people. Unprepared for the onslaught of expert, slick presentations mixed with a lot of mumbo-jumbo about how important their work really is, and then told how hard these goodhearted people worked on the plan because they “care” so much about the community, most locals give up on arguing and just get stuck going along with the entire show.
Since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, almost every inch of the world has become communitarianized in this way. (But there are a few places where the locals defeated the plans, and I will find time to link to them here!)
The leaders of these community “visions for the future” are trained in exclusive international communitarian programs. Local dissent is often not even allowed by the communitarian faciliatators during these meetings. Their stated goal is always to “include” the locals in creating a “new” vision for their home community. But the truth is, these plans use a method called a “dialogue to consensus,” a newfangled Soviet way of making decisions that eliminates the need for an actual debate, or a vote. It just requires everyone to “agree.” So the only actual locals who get to have any input are the ones who agree to go along with the whole plan.
Dissenting opinions? Anyone with a real stake in the community (homeowners, business people, service providers, etc) who openly challenges the authority of the committee to make such drastic changes to U.S. government policy are ridiculed into shutting up, or labeled as “constitutionalists” for clinging to such a silly, outdated concept as nationalism. Anyone mentioning the more sinister aspects of the policing Agenda are summarily discounted as conspiracy theorists or tin-foil-hats and successfully excluded from speaking when attending any future meetings.”
Sound familiar? I wondered why there were so many “community organisers”.