My E-mail Discussion With Henry Lamb
E-mail from Bobby Garner to subscriber list
September 8, 2008
Looking at the high profile anti-New World Order authors, publishers, talk show hosts and activists, it soon becomes clear that they are all pretty well connected with a support group of some kind. They never work alone independently as individual investigators/researchers. Their credibility based on the evidence they present is impeccable. The evidence they offer usually holds up under the closest scrutiny. So why can we not just be grateful for their effort, accept their findings and let it go, and be thankful that someone is on the front lines doing the necessary work?
Its because a few truly independent investigators such as myself and my friend Niki Raapana have discovered large gaping holes in their presentations. Holes large enough to sail an ocean cruiser through. The holes are invariably, errors of omission. Literal gaping holes of missing information.
Its really hard to find fault with something which doesn't exist, and the crucial information which is omitted from their presentations, either doesn't exist, or is irrelevant, according to them. Recall the definition of subterfuge: "deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, escape, or evade". Concealment and evasion become obvious when studying their methods, and escape surely must be their most cherished hope.
We have identified numerous methods and process, all of which together lead to the objectives for global governance. Many of them were outlined in the UN Agenda 21 document which was agreed to and signed by all UN member nations in 1992.
The following E-mail exchange with Henry Lamb discusses one of the projects of Sovereignty International, the core issue of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development.
The discussion Follows:
———
From: Bobby Garner
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 5:33 PM
To: Henry Lamb
Subject: Re: Progress Report
Dear Mr. Lamb,
I have admired your work for some time. I have quoted you in my articles, and posted links to some of yours. I have addressed you in email, and I am on your mailing list. I have admired your insights and criticized what I perceive to be omissions. Yet I have never received a reply, and that makes me very curious. I know you are very busy with this project and perhaps other things. We all have a full plate of activities, but we find time to take care of business.
Of my greatest concern which I would like to address is the fact that my own independent research has led to the verifiable fact that the topic of our mutual interest, as well as the primary interest of numerous other researchers, which is sustainable development, is implemented through a system of governance which you have recognized and explained in considerable detail, but yet (to my knowledge) have never called by its name. That system of governance was identified and given a name by a student of Zionist Martin Buber, and Professor of Sociology at George Washington University. "In the early 1990's sociologist Amitai Etzioni along with other American social scientists popularized the term Communitarianism which is hostile to the philosophies of liberalism and libertarianism, and in fact formalizes the philosophies of the Third Way as a new system of Law which has indeed supplanted constitutional law in every UN member nation, and by which Agenda 21 rules and regulations are implemented and enforced locally. This is not the "third organization of society", but rather the established "new order", the "drastically different" and "transitory phase" of the dialectic." - my comments from an E-mail sent to my list.
I find it extremely puzzling that a site search of sovereignty.net returns no results for communitarianism or "Amitai Etzioni", and only one article mentions the Third Way, but characterizes it as just another term for socialism. My research shows that it is much more, and I should think that would be of immense interest to you. Just previous to the above quote, I wrote:
The beginning of the New Age can be located in the 1980 publication of Marilyn Ferguson's book The Aquarian Conspiracy. This book redefined the counter-culture and portrayed its adherents as the nucleus of the New Age Movement. The Third Way, defined in this book as the consensus method of achieving a "higher truth", very nearly coincided with Newt Gingrich's introduction of his "Contract With America", and is consistent with Al Gore's "Reinventing Government". So we can see that the Third Way consensus is the method of problem resolution which has been functioning across the entire social spectrum since the early 1980's in an "establishment of a new order" which is "drastically different from the society which it superseded".
I was mistaken on the timing. Contract With America was not issued until 1994, but I stand by the balance of the statement, and the context is correct.
I watched the preview of Sustainable Development and would consider purchasing a copy for my local library, but I cannot in good conscience promote your work in the presence of these unanswered questions. I find it very annoying that we have a name for this bogus but very real system of governance, and yet yourself and many others I could name avoid using it, and I would sure love to know why.
I am addressing my list (Bcc) of concerned people who share my interest in these questions. We would certainly appreciate your reply.
Your's Respectfully,
Bobby Garner
———
Henry Lamb wrote:
Hi Bobby, thanks for your note. I apologize for not replying to any previous email you may have sent. I try to respond to all my email, but am not always able to do so.
As to your question about why I do not use the term “Communitarianism:” the answer is, It has never occurred to me. As you know, much, if not most, of what I write about is the essence of communitarianism. I call it “sustainable development” and define sustainable development by policies I identify. Were I writing for a different audience, I’m sure the term communitarianism would pop up.
Your note has triggered some curiosity. Thanks again for taking the time.
———
Henry,
Thanks for your reply. I know you are busy and I don't wish to beleaguer the point, but isn't “sustainable development” something which we should all support? The World Commission of Environment and Development defined the term sustainable development as: "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Why should they define it in those specific terms if not to place their opposition in a quiet unreasonable and indefensible position? No one in their right mind would knowingly compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs in order to satisfy their own. It is unreasonable to expect that we can be effective on a large scale by arguing against sustainable development, and I suspect thats why they chose to cast the argument that way. Its the same trick employed against farmers back in the 1930's to lure them into supporting New Deal conservation and farm policies, which led directly into the environmentalist agenda. The New Deal however was not really interested in conservation nor the environment. So, there is another agenda afoot, and its the same one now as then. < br>
What is the real agenda?
People will reasonably support sustainable development. Communitarianism on the other hand is a form of government which has been and is being introduced under the radar, by stealth. It intentionally subverts our constitution, and knowingly robs us of our constitutional rights. They refer to it as a balancing act. Communitarianism is socialism wrapped in a Platonic form of Republic, completely void of democratic process. I doubt that it would gain very much support if these facts were widely known.
Why don't we publish these facts concerning the real definition of Global Governance?
The argument against sustainable development is not sustainable. We should confront the issue on the basis of how it is to be achieved. I submit that the American way of open and free public participation in innovative technological development under true capitalism is a proven concept. The excesses which argue against it were the abuses of the very same people (by practicing a false capitalism) who intend to abuse us still further under Global Governance. They initiated a self fulfilling prophecy inspired by demons. (Revelation 16:13)
———
Henry Lamb wrote:
There is no question that the SD initiative has been framed so as to put opposition in a negative position. This is an important part of the consensus process. In a university community, a discussion about the relative virtues and woes of communitarianism is quite appropriate. In a local community where zoning and comprehensive plans are promoted as sustainable development, it would make little sense to oppose communitarianism. Folks who have been fighting these battles at the local courthouse and at the state legislature are fighting at property-rights vs. government mandate level. At this level, I think the introduction of communitarianism as the opponent would be confusing and distracting.
I do think that there should be a broader understanding of what communitarianism is and that it is the philosophy which underlies sustainable development. I guess most of my work is directed to the people in the field who are either victims of excessive bureaucratically-imposed regulation.
As I said, your question raises some interesting ideas. Perhaps I do need to expand my educational horizons. There are others, however, who are probably better equipped to relate sustainable development to communitarianism.
———
Henry,
The reason people are loosing in the courts is precisely because they do not understand that the courts are imposing Communitarian decisions, while the plaintiffs argue constitutional Law. They are not working from the same script. Communitarian Law is practiced in the local communities under a color of law, and the courts are complicit. Local leaders are elected to their positions, but their power to impose communitarian law does not come from the electorate, but from cooperation with neighboring cities and states in order to pool resources to qualify for money grants from federal agencies. Communitarian Law is unconstitutional because it 'balances' constitutional rights against the common good, and they define common good.
What is really confusing to their opponents is that they don't understand any of the above. Apparently, those of us who may be "better equipped to relate sustainable development to communitarianism", get almost no support. There is nothing unconstitutional about sustainable development. The problem is the pseudo law used to enforce it.
———
Henry Lamb wrote:
We certainly agree that the problem is in the process through which policy is made – a process that effectively bypasses elected representatives and is therefore, beyond accountability to the electorate. The question then becomes, how to educate people about the relative advantages of the democratic process compared to the communitarian process. This is not a part of the public school curriculum, and – it’s been a long time since I was in college – I think today’s universities work overtime to see that communitarianism is taught as the norm.
———
Sunday, September 07, 2008 12:29 PM
To: Henry Lamb
How to educate people is the right question, but the answer seems to be most illusive. My friend Niki Raapana along with her daughter Nordica of the Anti-Communitarian League has made what I consider to be a most noble effort, but with very little to show for it. We are aware of several people such a yourself who have achieved a certain respectability for their work in exposing the so called New World Order. Many of them like you, do very scholarly work, and the information is quiet accurate. Most others are sensationalists acting like carnival barkers, and they generally have a large devoted following, but they never get to the underlying causes, and their message never seems to change. However, across the entire spectrum of writers, authors, radio hosts, et al is this single observable lack of interest in or knowledge of Communitarian Law.
I see the problem as one of very widespread (almost universal really) inability to understand the very subtle differences between the truth and the liar, or even see the need to distinguish between those who are the liars and those who may be trying to present the truth. Everyone apparently is looking for something which they can believe, and that is no accident, its what we have been sold through advertising, the news media and family tradition. The standard criterion for belief in any new idea, concept or practice is whether or not it agrees with the already accepted belief of the individual. It seems that only something of the nature of a catastrophic event is able to introduce sufficient doubt in an existing belief to prompt a question about its validity. My Website congregator.net is devoted to exposing the fallacies of waiting for that catastrophe before examining our beliefs.
I just posted a new introductory note yesterday:
Justifying or accommodating contradictions in order to preserve a perspective (belief), and thereby ignoring the prompts to resolve them, along with failure to adopt the indicated new frame of reference (belief) which would become apparent if they were resolved, is the characteristic of classical tragedy as the only remaining possible outcome.
And, that is where belief truly and finally meets with reality.
Proper education seeks to divert that otherwise certain catastrophic confrontation with reality. So thats the broad scope of the problem.
Concerning the democratic process vs the communitarian process, it would be nice to be able to break through the barriers surrounding the universities, but the effect of that eventuality will take years even after its accomplished. Even if that were possible, I wonder if we have that much time.
One of the main reasons I wanted this discussion was to explore some of the possibilities. I can name probably a dozen people in positions such as your's who together may be able to do something constructive toward achieving a significant impact. The question there is whether they will be receptive to the idea. My experience to date is not encouraging. I am going to Cc Niki, and we'll see if she has some ideas to offer.
———
Henry Lamb wrote:
I too, will give some thought the challenge. Thanks for this discussion.
———
Sunday, September 7, 2008 1:41 PM
To: Henry Lamb
I truly appreciate your time Henry. Your comments have been very
helpful. I neglected to ask whether you have knowledge of Intellectual Technology.
Another one of my friends who is very serious about solving problems,
Doug Buchanan has this great free online resource which in my opinion
does a terrific job of defining the true nature of the problem, as well
as a solution. Simply stated, our problems are the expected result of
power damaged minds when they go unchallenged and unimpeded. Its a
function of the human mind which we all possess the ability to
comprehend, understand and defeat.
———
From: Henry Lamb
Saturday, September 13, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: Communitarianism
You will want to see my WND article today.
Henry
———
From: Bobby Garner
Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Henry Lamb
Subject: Re: Communitarianism
Henry,
An unseen enemy of freedom is a fine statement of your capability as a writer. The completeness of your coverage of the subject is excellent. You have obviously made a great effort to assimilate all of this information in so short a time, and its very encouraging to see it in print on a Website such as WorldNetDaily. However, I do have some anxieties about the conclusions to be drawn by the average WND reader.
There is no question that freedom is the core issue, and this article makes that very clear, but I wonder how the reader will interpret statements like, "The goals of communitarianism and of sustainable development are quite laudable."
Sovereignty International does a great job of proving that the goals of sustainable development are not quiet so laudable. The apparent confusion is rather typical of the experience of discovering or embracing new knowledge, and the challenge is invariably to resolve the contradictions which it imposes upon the assumptions of your previous work.
What changes if any, do you foresee in your opposition to sustainable development at sovereignty.net in view of this new knowledge?
One of the problems is to make a distinction between the stated and unstated goals of both sustainable development and communitarianism.
The stated goals of sustainable development are of course outlined in UN Agenda 21, while the unstated goal is to rob us of our rights. UN Agenda 21 was news in 1992, and no one talks about it much anymore. Nevertheless, all member nations have agreed to implement it. In the U.S. large portions of it are officially ignored, but thats where the Third Way takes over and does it anyway by stealth through government agencies, NGO's and Public Private Partnerships. This is Third Way politics (also old news) and they adopted communitarianism as the means to the objective.
The stated goals of communitarianism, are well documented by Amitai Etzioni and his followers, and they are very clear on the intent to rob us of our rights, but the bitter pill is sweetened by enormous money grants which play into the greed of our public officials for more power. To insure that they take the bait, the economy is controlled through free trade practices to guarantee ever tighter budgets and escalating costs in state and local governments. The people support it on the basis of glowing promises of prosperity, while never being made aware of its stated goals to balance their rights.
While sustainable development is quiet laudable, communitarianism offers absolutely nothing but fiat money (which can be taken away at any time), magnified power to community leaders, and false misleading promises to the people.
There is a hugh disconnect between both stated and unstated goals of communitarianism and what its proponents at the local level are telling the people. The goals of communitarianism, both stated and unstated, and sustainable development as being implemented by them, are insincere to the extreme, and they are definitely NOT "needed", and if the truth were known, they absolutely would NOT be wanted.
Yet sustainable development is a good idea. The problem lies in the way its being done, the authority by which its being done, and the evil agenda behind it all.
I was somewhat disappointed that you didn't provide a link to the Anti-Communitarian League which truly does oppose communitarianism, but you did link to your site which as far as I can see doesn't even mention the word.
Bobby
———
From: Henry Lamb
Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: Communitarianism
Two issues: “The goals are laudable…” As you pointed out, who can oppose “sustaining” resources for the future? My goal is to focus on the SD/Communitarianism cost of the method used to sustain the resources. Perhaps that was not as clear as it might have been. This is a constant, ongoing objective.
I did, in fact, provide a link to both the Anti-communitarianism site, and to the American Policy Center, as well as to Dr. Amitai Etzioni. The WND editor chose to delete these links for some reason. This article will also appear in Canada Free Press, GOPUSA, and several other publications next week. These links are likely to appear in these publications.
———
From: Bobby Garner
Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:45 AM
To: Henry Lamb
Subject: Re: Communitarianism
Henry,
The titles they have chosen, "communitarianism" and "sustainable development", and the glowing terms which they use to promote them are laudable, but those titles do not define the goals, and the glowing words are bald faced lies. They are designed to misrepresent and mislead a gullible population. The real goals do not and indeed cannot sustain anything whatsoever, except the power behind the agenda.
If you provided the links as you said, and I believe you did, then it is no mystery why WND removed them. They want to preserve their readership by feeding them so many political opinions and viewpoint that they will continue believing in the power of their own opinions, keep up the letter writing campaigns to congress, and to keep them starved for any real truth.
Bobby
— The End.
< Previous — E-mail Index — Next >
none
