22 May DAWN OF THE ERA OF COMMON-ISM
May 22, 2007
By Tom DeWeese
The lines used to be so clear. On one side were free markets, free societies and openly elected representative governments, normally defined as democracy. On the other, was the force of totalitarianism choking off individual initiative, private ownership of property, cynically providing a ballot box with but one choice, normally defined as Communism. In the end, the “Evil Empire” disintegrated under the weight of its own ignorance of human nature. Or did it?
Conservatives hailed the victory, dispatching Communism to the “ash-heap of history.” Many Conservative leaders have put forth the idea that we are living in a “Conservative era,” using as proof the Republican takeover of Congress and the worldwide movement toward democracy and free trade. The demise of Communism, some say, now allows a spirit of cooperation among nations that will bring on the benefits of worldwide prosperity and a universal increase in the standard of living.
Yet many Americans are concerned that the same leaders who proclaim American ideals are spreading across the globe have failed to protect constitutionally guaranteed liberties here at home. The assaults on property rights and personal privacy along with the transformation of local schools under federal programs, and above all, the seeming lack of concern for national sovereignty and protection of the nation’s borders are the obvious contradictions to the proposition that Conservative ideas now reign supreme.
Other goals seem to be taking center stage. The rule of law in our Republic, designed to insure individual rights from intrusive government, is being replaced by a new ideology; one that tends to allow the concerns of interest groups to supersede the inherent rights of the individual. Further, the interests of the United States of America now seem to take a back seat to something called the “Global Commons.” National identities and individual religions appear to be morphing into non-descript and indistinguishable arrangements to some unidentified whole. Science has been reduced to little more than a convenient political tool to promote agendas. Self-determination is being replaced with group-think.
What is happening to our way of life and to our nation, as it once was? Communism is dead. Capitalism is fading. We have begun a new era called Common-ism.
A NEW THREAT FOR A NEW CENTURY
When the walls of Soviet Communism fell over a decade ago, the world changed. Once-proud nations, that had been swallowed up by the Soviet empire, emerged as a new “democracy movement.” Western forces were expected to rush forward and promote their ideology and bring Communism’s formerly oppressed victims into the fold of free markets and freely elected representative government. But it didn’t happened.
Instead, international Communists refused to hang their heads in defeat and leave the world stage. In fact, with the “death” of Communism, they were now freed from its negative baggage. They could begin a new movement able to reach across national boundaries – even into the West. As long as the title “Communist” was not hung around their neck to raise Western fears, the ideas of international Socialism could move forward unhindered. The world has responded in almost thunderous support. Thus, Common-ism was born.
The distinctive feature of Commonism is its intention to transform private intellectual property and nationally controlled natural resources into common property in the name of the “common heritage of mankind.” The ideology of Commonism is based on political concepts and spiritual values, such as global commons, global village, global spirituality, equalitarianism, democratism, disarmament, environmentalism, interdependence, interconnectedness, and participation in world peace.
Commonism is a political ideology containing both a doctrine and a device for its expansion. Commonism advances on the idea that problems cross national and local boundaries. In that way, natural and political boundaries are conveniently traversed through treaties, legislation and policy statements, all under the excuse that it is necessary for improvement of the common good.
President Bill Clinton boldly announced a new initiative to “reinvent government.” That reinvention was Commonism. Under Clinton’s direction, the Federal Government began implementing Commonism policy. The promise of the reinvention was that “certain tools, approaches, and strategies…could result in more environmental protection, less economic cost, and … greater opportunity for the poor and disadvantaged.” The core program of the reinvention, publicly presented as a way to protect the environment, also mysteriously involved itself in racial, economic and equality issues.
This is no accident. It is a tactic of Commonism to meld together a seemingly unconnected array of issues into one cause. It allows the formation of partnerships among a long list of interested parties.
The Clinton Administration explained how these partnerships were to be a first step. “Learning to use new approaches to achieve interrelated goals simultaneously will be an evolutionary process. It needs to build on the strengths and overcome the limitations of current economic and regulatory systems and recognize the interrelationships between economic and environmental policies.” In describing “Intergovernmental Partnerships,” the Administration explained, “Federal, state, and tribal governments need to work together in partnership with local communities to develop place-based strategies that integrate economic development, environmental quality, and social policymaking with broad public involvement.”
In other words, local or state elected officials were no longer considered to be capable of making development decisions for the community. It was now necessary to expand the process through common consensus of an endless number of private organizations with their own political agendas. In this way the boundaries of government are blurred along with the clear definition of the rule of law.
That then was the new invention of government. Top-down control in partnership with private advocacy groups and international corporations.
The doctrine of Commonism is promoted through a restructured education system where old ideas of schools as centers of academic learning are replaced with systems designed to moderate behavior that will accept the aspects of the new Commonism. The very meaning of Outcome-based Education (OBE) is that students will leave school fully indoctrinated with, and sensitive to, the Commonism agenda.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Throughout the doctrine of Commonism one rarely hears use of the words “freedom” or “liberty” as they would pertain to individuals. Instead, one hears much about the need for justice. Economic justice. Environmental justice. Racial justice. Social justice. Rights, too, are important. The rights of the child. The rights of women. The rights of indigenous populations. All of these rights and calls for justice serve a very important purpose; the need for more laws, rules and regulations to enforce them and, since these urgent needs cross international borders, there must be some sort of international power with the ability to keep it all under well-ordered control.
The United Nations’ Millennium Summit held in New York City on 2000, saw the official transfer of the UN from what many perceived as an international organization of sovereign nations to that of a global organization. In the spirit of Commonism, UN power would be switched to an “Assembly of the People,” populated by selected NGO’s, giving international scope and power to partnerships in local communities. The UN Millennium Assembly was the culmination of efforts started in 1974 by a band of international socialists that sought to stress Common-ism rather than revolutionary Communism.
They called the process social and economic democracy. Democracy is a positive term in the West. However, understanding the use of this word by international socialists is the key to understanding Commonism and today’s changed world. To Conservatives, democracy means civil and political decisions made within the framework of a free society and a free market. It means moving from closed elections (or none at all) to free and competitive elections among multiple parties. In the United States, democracy particularly means that defense of individual rights and property is paramount to government dictate.
To the Socialist or Communist, democracy primarily means economic or social equality with or without parliamentary means. To the Socialist, if property, wealth, choice or communication need to be taken from one group in order to create “equality” for another, that is social democracy. In Socialist philosophy, law becomes an instrument to advocate the redistribution and intrusion of rights, riches, privacy and property, under the excuse of economic equality in order to “enforce” a new international economic order.
During the early and middle part of the Twentieth Century, international Socialist David Multrany pioneered the path to Commonism using the common cause approach to find global “common security” and “common future.” His ideas were fully entrenched in international policy through a series of four UN-sponsored international commissions in the early 1980s.
The four international commissions were led by prominent European international socialists and dealt with the interconnection, integration and “democratization” of economic development, disarmament, environment and communications.
In 1980, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt chaired the commission on international development. The Commission report, entitled “North-South: A program for Survival,” said: “World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure…not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equality…The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop global order.”
Also in 1980, Sean MacBride, a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, headed up a commission on international communications, which issued a report entitled, “Many Voices, One World: Towards A New, More Just And More Efficient World Information And Communication Order.” The Commission, which included the head of the Soviet news agency, TASS, believed that a “New World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report was a blueprint for controlling the media, even suggesting that international journalists be licensed.
In 1982, Olof Palme, the man who single-handedly returned socialism to Sweden, served as chairman of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. His report, entitled “Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival,” said: “All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control…” The report went on to call for money that is saved for disarmament to be used to pay for social programs. The Commission proposed a strategic shift from “collective security,” such as the alliances like NATO, to one of “common security” through the United Nations.
Finally, in 1987, came the granddaddy commission of them all, The Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. Headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the commission introduced the concept of “Sustainable Development.” For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report, “Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”
These four commissions laid the groundwork for the Common-ism agenda. A controlled media would dictate the flow of information and ideas and prevent dissent. Control of international development manages and redistributes wealth. Full disarmament puts the power structure into the hands of those with armaments. And tying environmentalism to poverty and economic development brings the entire socialist agenda to the level of an international emergency.
One world, one media, one authority for development, one source of wealth. One international army. The construction of a “just society” with political and social equality rather than a free society with the individual as the sole possessor of rights. It’s all wrapped up in nothing more that Orwellian single-think and double-talk. Exclusive and universal power in the newly reformed United Nations. Welcome to the world of Common-ism.
A NEW AMERICA IN THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER
In the wake of the euphoria following the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, socialists wasted little time implementing their plans. The former Soviet Empire gave birth to a hoard of Socialist democracies. Western Europe fell in line, discarding once-proud sovereign nations, and forming the European Union with its common regulations, common currency and common Socialist agenda.
Today, in the United States the agenda is moving forward faster than any Socialist could ever have hoped. Of course the effort was greatly advanced under President Clinton’s Executive order pen as he began the full implementation of Commonism as official U.S. policy. That brought the United States into much closer compliance with the UN’s Agenda 21 agreement, first signed by former President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
Republicans too, have embraced the agenda, all the while proclaiming the Commonism brand of free trade as the vision of our founding fathers. Even after the Republicans gained control of the Congress, Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich agreed that the lame-duck 103rd Democrat-controlled Congress should reconvene to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Many freedom-loving libertarians have argued that NAFTA is about free enterprise and universal global liberty. Yet a comparison of the NAFTA document show it to be literally indistinguishable from the agenda outlined in the Brandt and Bruntland Commission reports from the 1980’s. Meanwhile, most Republicans continue to dismiss the United Nations and its policies of global governance and Commonism as no threat to U.S. sovereignty.
It seems the soothing positive-sounding double speak of Commonism lulls them to a peaceful sleep. Only a radical, they say, could oppose world-wide democracy and free trade.
However, the noose continues to tighten as three elements are now being promoted for an American union similar to the European Union. First are efforts to harmonize diplomatic relations in the North American countries of Canada, Mexico and the United States. Second are steps to homogenize economic relations into a North American trade agreement. Third is a strategy to dilute traditional concepts of the rule of law, which protect individuals and property. A new system would “humanize” or democratize the Americas, in which such things as property and liberty are not automatically protected, but rather decided by a majority.
The effort to create a North American Union took a huge step forward in March, 2005, when President George Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin signed an agreement to create common policies concerning various economic and security areas among the three nations. The agreement, called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), authorized the creation of twenty tri-national working groups to establish policies leading to a European-style Union.
The blueprint being used to formulate the Union in undeniably a book written by Robert Pastor entitled “Building a North American Community.” Dr. Pastor, one of the architects of the Panama Canal Giveaway in the 1970’s, has argued that “Countries are benefited when they changed these (national sovereignty) polices, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete.”
Once such a union is established and has the full faith and credit backing of the U.S. government and commercial banks, the United States will certainly be less free or independent to act according to its national interests. As the United States forfeits its national sovereignty to the Union, Mexico and Canada will grow more determined to ensure the redistribution of wealth and power between the three nation states, and more within the commonwealth of North America.
The Socialists’ dream of a “Global Commons” is quickly nearing completion. Yet Americans, about to lose their national sovereignty, remain surprisingly ignorant to that fact. The policies are being implemented all around them, by every department of the federal government, but every state government, by every county commission and by every city council in the nation. Yet no alarms are sounding. Politicians never mention it on the campaign trail. Certainly no vote has been taken by the American people.
How is it being done? Step by step, town by town across the country, through the policies of community development, historic preservation, environmental protection, and school restructuring. The root of such policies are not locally created, rather they come from a central plan; a blueprint from an international agreement called Agenda 21. It works under many names including Commonism, the Third Way, and the most widely used – Sustainable Development.