10 Oct “Globally-Acceptable Truth” and the Crime of Thinking – Part 1
By Tom DeWeese
Do you feel it? It’s everywhere. On television. In the newspaper. At any public gathering. In any discussion – even among friends. It’s a feeling of mistrust. Nervousness. Suspicion. Even rage. Mostly, it’s just under the surface. But more and more it’s bubbling to the top. Political debate is breaking into outright war. Just say the words, “I don’t believe government should do that…” and the war is on. Take a side. Feel the heat. Tolerance is a thing of the past.
There is an all out, vicious attack on anyone who doesn’t respond properly. Ridicule. Intimidation. Public shunning. Destruction of careers. Removal from public meetings. All await those who express thoughts outside the politically-correct box.
Climate change skeptics are scientists who have gone beyond the hype and conducted their own research, and made their own findings. It’s what scientists do.
For their efforts they have been fired – discarded – blocked from receiving grants – banned from publications – and threatened. They’ve been compared to holocaust deniers – called nuts, crazy, and dangerous. Al Gore himself has called for violence against them. Others have called for Nuremberg-style trials – government show trials – to present them as enemies of humanity – simply because they disagree with official government reports – reports that are proving more and more to be wrong in the first place.
In other examples, property owners seeking to ask questions at city council meetings about a new regulation that may affect their land are denied the microphone – sometimes even bodily removed from meetings by armed guards.
A pickup truck in Shreveport, Louisiana, is pulled over by a cop. When asked why, the cop simply points to the bumper sticker on the back of the truck that says “Member of the NRA.”
And then there is the beauty queen, Miss California, USA, who was asked about her views on gay marriage – by the openly gay blogger and activist Perez Hilton. Her answer – very honest and very middle of the road.
She said, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”
For that answer she was attacked in headlines across the nation, calling her a bigot, a dumb bitch, and sarcastically and mockingly calling her “biblically correct.”
And then, just last week, at a town hall meeting to discuss the health care plan with his congressman, a black man, Kenneth Gladney was beaten by union goons and sent to the hospital for disagreeing with the Obama plan.
Why? Why the hatred? Why the venom? Why the intolerance to what used to be called a “personal opinion” or political debate?
The fact is we are witnessing an all-out drive to impose thought control that seeks to ban the ability – the right- to think or speak for one’s self. Thinking is becoming a crime.
Today, there is one acceptable idea – government is the answer. Stray from that premise – even a little, as did Miss California, — and there will be no mercy for you. Your life will be destroyed.
There are forces in this nation who want total power to dictate their agenda and they will stop at nothing to achieve it. For them there is no compromise or polite discussion or differences of opinion. The wants, needs, desires of your life, your family, your home, are not to be considered.
Some describe their efforts as a conspiracy. If so, it isn’t very secret. The goal has been outlined in detail many times.
In the UN’s report on Global Governance; in Agenda 21; in various programs of UNESCO, like its International Baccalaureate program, which teaches global citizenship in a global village; it was in the Biodiversity Treaty; the Kyoto global warming accord; and it’s in the Cap and Trade initiative. It is most certainly in Obama’s health care bill.
All of these policies are blatant in their intent. Top down control; no sovereign, independent nations; no individual thought; no private property; no self defense; no morality; no personal pride of achievement; no questions. Anything that goes against the plan, anything that would cause anyone to hesitate in moving toward the agenda, must be eliminated or neutralized. .
Educate, indoctrinate, intimidate. Above all, destroy reason and control the ability to think.
The real question for which we must all learn the answer is how they are doing it. How have they taken a nation created on the ideals of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets, and gotten us to accept the opposite?
Globally Acceptable Truth in the Land of Eden
A few years ago, I found the answer and I wrote about it, believing I was now arming our movement with the ammunition we needed to fight back. But that article was met with a resounding thud. Too intellectual, perhaps? Too academic? People want red meat. They want names and numbers of the culprits. They want to keep it simple.
Well, now that we have moved so much closer to fulfillment of their agenda – now that tyranny can be more clearly found in almost every aspect of our lives – perhaps now is the time to try again.
Ask yourselves this question: when did the ability to think rational thought become replaced with Zombie-like programmed responses? Where do these ideas come from?
Believe it or not, there is an organization, part of the UN, of course, whose purpose is to define what we are allowed to think. Its process is called “globally-acceptable truth.”
The organization is called the Eden Foundation and the head of it is a man named Donald Sagar. He is a representative to the United Nations’ Association for World Education.
He is dangerous to you and me because he has written the blue print on thought control and is now enlisting the self-proclaimed leaders of the world to enforce it.
Mr. Sagar sent me an e-mail one quiet Sunday afternoon to disagree with some of my articles dealing with global warming. His first line told me everything I needed to know about Mr. Sagar’s value system. The e-mail began, “Science aside…” Obviously Mr. Sagar didn’t want to be bothered by mere science when he had loftier goals in mind.
But he went on to say, “it is inherently illogical and otherwise irresponsible to suggest that human activity does not posses the potential to alter the Earth’s climate.”
What he’s saying is, no matter what science tells us, I “FEEL” that man is damaging the Earth, therefore I insist that it be true.
Incredibly he then argued, with obvious horror that, “energy usage worldwide is increasing at an alarming rate of speed as 3rd world countries continue to modernize.”
One must not miss the completely astonishing rationale of his statement. My first thought is that he is one of those who advocate that people who live in third world countries are simply animals who should always live in mud huts, walk five miles a day for their filthy water and cook over the quaint campfire in the center of the village. Because, you see, that is good for the environment.
And he certainly does believe that. But his reasoning is astounding. He says, Because of advances in technology, everyone in the world is now at similar risk – rich and poor alike.” He believes that science is only a force for destruction.
And that’s why Mr. Sagar advocates that all technological advances must be first approved by a higher authority – safely out of the hands of individuals.
Too Much Knowledge
But fear not, Sagar’s Eden Project, he says, can define our problems on Earth and fix them. And here is how Donald Sager defines that problem: “Because of the relentless increase in the quantity and complexity of knowledge in the world, we are experiencing a clash between cultures that prevents all but the most capable of surviving with any meaningful identity in tact.”
Did you catch that? The reason we have wars, poverty and misery is because there is too much knowledge. Based on that premise, Sagar then set out to create the blue print to define acceptable ideas and thoughts – those that would bring harmony to the world.
That leaves no room for new ideas or innovation. Because new ideas bring change, causing confusion, shifts in living conditions and unemployment as old industries die to make way for the new.
So, instead, we must set up a system of thought control. Certain ideas are the only ones safe to think. Globallyacceptable truth. And there must be a top-down control to assure bad thoughts are controlled or obliterated.
For it to work, the rest of us must be convinced or forced to stop thinking or using our own experiences, along with academic and scientific absolutes, to draw our own conclusion.
Once that is established, it is easy to reject morality, and then only a short step to accepting the idea that people of third world nations should live out their days in total poverty – just for the common good. And by way, eventually it would be good for all of us to live that way too.
It is then just as short journey to accepting euthanasia as a means to rid us of the elderly who are no longer useful for the village. And then, it’s an even shorter step to accepting the final solution of forced abortion for population control.
Gathering the Power of the World Elite
Once Sagar put this idea together, he began to contact world leaders to convince them of his plan. For success, he needed them to be the enforcement hammer. You’ll find on his website a series of letters from world leaders, as they praise and endorse the plan.
One is a letter from none other than Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General of the UN, and affectionately known as the “philosopher” of the UN.
Said Muller in his letter: I am referring to the need to establish a body of objective, globally acceptable information to serve as a foundation for global education…”
Other supporters include K.B. Mathur, Director General of UNESCO, the man in charge of implementing global education policy in our public schools. There is also Dale Ott, of the World Council of Churches, and many more heads of global and international organizations – the infamous Nongovernmental organizations that are responsible for writing policies and treaties that seep out of the UN and into national law.
Most telling was a quote from a man named Keith Smiley, president of a UN consultant group who said “The planet and its people have been experiencing an information explosion. The uncontrolled expansion of information is dangerous since it tends to diffuse meaning and purpose.”
And then there is this endorsement from Alexander King – the founder of the Club of Rome: King writes to Sagar, “ One aspect of your letter… struck me forcibly – it was when you said, ‘it is actually our thought process that is responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in.’ Concluded King, “I couldn’t agree with you more. Unless we find the means to change our thinking I can see little hope in solving the supreme problem for humanity – its impending extinction.”
These powerful people are telling us that humans, armed with knowledge are dangerous to the new order of peace and harmony they intend to establish for us.
Zombies and the End of Human Progress
No matter what you call it, this is thought control – globally acceptable truth. It is the only way you will be permitted to think. Imagine the consequences such thought control will have on the human race.
Thomas Edison wouldn’t have been allowed to even think about such radical changes as alternatives to candle wax in our well-ordered society. The Wright Brothers would have been hanged as heretics to suggest man could fly.
This is the process by which your children are being deliberately “dumbed down” in government schools. The premise of “globally-acceptable truth” is the very root of today’s public school curriculum.
And the process is working like a well-oiled machine. Americans have been giving up their liberty and way of life with barely a blink of an eye – for decades.
Misleading sound bites are replacing reasoned thought. Just say “Go Green,” and the eyes of the masses glaze over and the people comply. Or, “it’s for the children,” and we give up control to the state. Or, “it’s just to keep you safe,” and we openly encourage the creation of a total surveillance society.
The process is so all encompassing, so all pervasive, that most people don’t recognize that it’s being employed.
Enemies from Within
And a lot of people who should know better, who should be in the fight to stop it are actually helping them do it.
For example, in the name of stopping illegal immigration, mainstream conservatives, both in congress and in trusted organizations, are embracing and promoting policies like Real ID and E-Verify.
Both of these programs are major tools in creating an international surveillance society, which will make it easier for control of individuals in the global village. But people many of you trust are telling you to accept these policies, actually saying “I would rather give up some freedom to be safer!”
To promote this argument, they actually use the phrase, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” What they are really saying with that phrase is that the government always gets it right. That phrase also indicates that the Bill of Rights was actually written to protect the guilty. What do we need guarantees for – if benevolent government is there to protect us?
As for E-Verify, which demands the use of a social security number for every single American at every age, so the government can grant you the ability to get a job—is it really the position of the freedom movement that every baby born in America should be stamped with a number at birth?
Some who proclaim themselves to be freedom advocates also argue that Public/Private Partnerships are free enterprise and that “free trade” policies will actually help to restore the Republic. I’m really trying to understand how the creation of governmentsanctioned monopolies represents a free market. And how does that concept fall in line with the ideas of the Founding Fathers?
Our Founders believed it was government’s job to protect the ability of business to compete – not to guarantee profits. They certainly didn’t mean for government and business to get into bed together.
And then there is the growing defense in conservative circles of the Social Security system as the vital tool necessary to take care of the elderly. When did that shift take place in our movement? Social Security was part of Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist New Deal.
When you start to defend Social Security, it’s much easier to find yourself defending welfare, Medicare and Obama’s health care scheme. It’s all from the same bone.
See how quickly we begin to accept ideas we would not normally support? That’s the power of Globallyacceptable truth. It’s all around us.
New Truths for a New Order
Global Warming is globally-acceptable truth.
The United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights is globally-acceptable truth.
Universal health care is globally-acceptable truth.
Mandatory purchase of a Prius is globally-acceptable truth
The common good over the individual is globally-acceptable truth.
Independent, sovereign nations as a source of war is a globally-acceptable truth.
Global governance for the future peace of man-kind is a globally-acceptable truth.
Global citizenship is a globally-acceptable truth.
Severe reduction of the population is globally-acceptable truth.
The UN Gets in the Game
And they are steadily putting these “truths” into practice. Just a few weeks ago, the United Nation held the “Conference on the World’s Financial and Economic Crisis.”
UN General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto blatantly moved the conference to denounce the free market system, saying, “Capitalism cannot be reformed…”
He went on to say, “Egotism and greed cannot be corrected …we must go beyond controls and corrections… to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence.”
Those words clearly show that the UN is now moving to implement the Eden Project plan of Globally-acceptable truth into the world economy.
The End of Reason
Sagar’s project is the key to understanding what is being done to our society and how it is being implemented – right before our very eyes. We must learn that we are not facing a scattering of issues that are just wrong headed. Instead, it’s being orchestrated with a specific mindset behind it.
Step by step, we have surrendered the ability to reason and to take responsibility for our own lives – and instead are giving our lives to government to be cradled in its warm and safe cocoon from birth to death.
There is an endless supply of examples to show how the process is destroying our once free society. In fact, what was once a slow process – perhaps moving so slowly that most people didn’t even notice – has become a tsunami.
The public school system is a major example. There are now more psychologists on the payroll of public schools than teachers. The result is an abuse of innocent minds beyond description. Today, dumbed-down children emerge from classrooms like zombies – modern children of the corn, unable to question authority, unable to think for themselves. The perfect citizens of the global village.
The imposition of environmental regulations has become the greatest threat to ownership and control of private property. Our Supreme Court has now declared that there is no private property and that any community is free to take any property it desires for private development – all for the common good of the community.
We have accepted the rise of a horde of powerful non-elected government agencies like planning commissions, transportation commissions, homeowners associations, neighborhood development councils, historic preservation councils, and stake holder councils – and we call them a proper role for government.
Yet, the more non-elected councils making the rules – the less power for the elected representatives chosen by the people – the less say we have about our own lives.
The true purpose of this new government structure is to create and enforce the global village. The policy of choice to make it happen is, of course, Sustainable Development.
Sustainable Development has three components: global land use, global education, and global population control. Sustainable Development is anti-free enterprise; anti- limited government and anti-individual liberty. But most communities and government entities have accepted it as a proper role for government.
Can you name one single elected official – anywhere in the United States – at any level of office – who speaks out against Sustainable Development? Can you name one who has stood up to stop this policy? But there sure are a lot of them who like to get up at political meetings and rouse the faithful about how they are working to restore the Republic and our free society.
A free society protects its property owners and businesses and helps them to go about their lives unencumbered. A free society doesn’t set up spy mechanisms to track the whereabouts of its people through ID cards and biometric databases. A free society doesn’t close down whole industries and towns at the whim of special interest groups using made up excuses like spotted owls. A free society defends its borders and protects its citizens from outside invasion.
But all of these things are being done through the process of Sustainable Development – and the politicians sit on their hands and ignore it.
Like a bad plastic surgery, our society is being transformed into a hideous monster. And it will destroy everything you hold dear in life.
In the name of Sustainable Development, there are now movements to ban over the counter, natural supplements; and fast food; and air conditioning; and recreational vehicles; and the consumption of meat; and cars; and suburban housing; and the family pet; and plastics; and fireplaces, and on and on.The floodgates have been opened. And so many of our fellow Americans don’t even question why. Was it not always so?
Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. These are the sounds of the bombs going off in a war for control. The war against freedom. The one statement that should never be uttered in a free society is “ban it.” A free society cannot exist under this weight.
(End of Part 1)