Agenda 21, Secular Humanism, and the Animalization of Americans

Conservative Underground ^ | 15-Sep-2009 | Linda Kimball

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The murderous secular humanist religions of Communism and Nazism were spawned by the anti-God/utopian tradition of Revolutionary France. The Black Book of Communism, an 800- page compendium of the crimes of Communist regimes worldwide, graphically details the terror, torture, man-made famine, mass deportations, starvation, and massacres undertaken on behalf of revolutionary utopian ideals. The reality of Communism, which claimed to be an emissary of the Enlightenment, of universal brotherhood, and of happiness for all as envisioned by Gracchus Babeuf, turned out to be not only a sadistic engine for unimaginable evil but also the creator of hells on earth.

The book’s authors point to Communism’s “biological and zoological strain of thinking” as the engine of evil that proved itself to be a most effective means of denying the humanity of Communism’s millions of victims. “This strain of thinking,” explained Stephane Courtois, “is why so many of the crimes of Communism were crimes against humanity, and how Marxist-Leninist ideology managed to justify these crimes to its followers.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 751)

Biocentrism: the Biological/Zoological Strain of Thinking

Biocentrism or ecocentrism, terms synonymous with today’s sustainable development/global warming crowd, is the “biological and zoological strain of thinking” in disguise. Biocentrism is antithetical to America ’s Judeo-Christian worldview in that it not only reduces man to a soulless ape, but makes his life less valuable than cockroaches, earthworms, spotted owls, trash fish, grizzlies, alligators, and wolves. Those who trace the genesis of ideas, such as Donald Worster, point to Charles Darwin as the most important spokesman for the biocentrism attitude. In short, Darwin ’s theory of evolution, the malignant heart of biocentrism, leads to contempt and even hatred towards humanity.

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” (Earth First! Journal editor, John Daily)

“To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” (Yale professor Lamont Cole)

Biocentrism and its morally-warped system of philosophy and morality thrive right here in America . Communism (multiculturalism/ Cultural Marxism) and its diabolical mother, Secular Humanism, plus its twisted sisters, Postmodernism and Cosmic Humanism (New Age global warming crowd) are now the predominant way of thinking in most of America’s power centers. At the heart of each of these systems beats the black heart of Darwinian biocentrism.

Dr. James Dobson notes, “The Secular Humanist system....has outstripped Judeo- Christian precepts in the universities.... judiciary.... federal bureaucracy, in business, medicine, law, psychology, sociology....arts, in many public schools, and to be sure, in the halls of Congress.” (Understanding the Times, David A. Noebel, p. 7)

Every day in our public schools, America’s children are “animalized” through the teaching of Darwinian evolutionary propaganda. Though some are able to resist this dehumanizing spiritual attack, many more are not. Of those who cannot, some will go on to join the ranks of anti-God, anti-America, anti-human revolutionaries, thereby becoming accomplices in the destruction of the nation that nourishes and protects them. Others will become practical atheists who, having no faith in God, will not fight for a nation founded on Judeo-Christian precepts. From a secular humanist point of view, these are desired outcomes because:

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.” (Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund)

These things are occurring because for nearly two centuries Secular Humanists and revolutionary fellow travelers - having infiltrated and taken control of this nation’s education establishment - incrementally replaced our nation’s founding Judeo-Christian moral and philosophical worldview and history with a revolutionary catechism. The effect of this has been to not only undermine and delegitimize our nation’s traditional ideas and institutions but to also reverse and upend the natural order, all of which is leading to the destruction of our civilization.

“To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

Teaching to this nation’s future leaders, jurists, lawmakers, government workers, teachers, etc., the ideas and philosophies of men and women such as Comte, Marx, Malthus, de Sade, Rousseau, Reich, Freud, Darwin, Nietzsche, Lenin, Stalin, Heidegger, Adorno, Lukacs, Gramsci, Sanger, Marcuse, Dewey, Kinsey, Derrida, and Foucault, for example, has unleashed a devastating wave of corruption, debauchery, political correctness, chaos, pathologies, crime, narcissism, raw powergrabbing, and abandonment of allegiance towards these United States of America, all of which paves the way for the rise of a socialistic, sustainably developed New World Order.

An alternative power structure necessary for deconstructing our Constitutional Republic has been created. This “shadow government” of interlocking relationships and mutually reinforcing agendas consists of, for example, the New Left, the Democratic machine, environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and The Wildlife Federation; big money foundations, such as Heinz, Mott, Blue Moon, Turner, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; federal and state fish and wildlife departments, and of course, the United Nations. In hot pursuit of their North American Union project, the power and money hungry Transnational Right aids and abets the destructive process.

With the exception of the dissident voices of “intolerant, racist/haters” like Christians and other true Conservatives, the majority of Americans have passively acquiesced to being told that they are mindless, soulless apes. They also allow their children to be animalized and even told that as apes, they share a common heritage with earthworms. In light of this, the following question bears asking: Why should anyone, let alone the narcissists who are busily deconstructing our nation, respect and serve such a people?

If Antonio Gramsci were alive, he would be gratified by how well his plan for the slow and gradual destruction of America from the inside is working.

Agenda 21: The Utopian Fantasy

Agenda 21 was adopted at the 1992 UN Conference in Rio de Janeiro. This 300-page document contains 40 chapters loaded with recommendations to micro-manage virtually every facet of human existence. Agenda 21 is not a treaty but a “soft-law” policy document that does not require Senate ratification. Some of the key players involved in its production and adoption are Al Gore, Ted Turner, and Maurice Strong. President George H.W. Bush signed it and President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 12852, which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

In his, “Sustainable Development: Transforming America,” Henry Lamb provides us with a vignette of the emerging utopia. Speaking only of America, he says:

“Half the land area of the entire country will be designated ‘wilderness areas’ where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas will be interconnected by ‘corridors of wilderness’ to allow migration of wildlife… Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia and Pennsylvania as they are now in Idaho and Montana . Panthers and alligators will roam freely from the Everglades to the Okefenokee and beyond.... Transportation between sustainable communities (islands of human habitation)....will be primarily by light rail systems....highways that remain will be super transport corridors, such as the “Trans- Texas Corridor” now being designed....” (Ecologic Special Report, Dec. 1, 2005)

Property Acquisition Schemes

“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”(John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, Ed., Vol. VI, p.9)

The Wildlands Project, written by Dr. Reed Noss, who is under contract with The Nature Conservancy, is one such scheme. It has never been debated or voted on by elected officials. Nevertheless, it is being implemented through backdoor initiatives. Through its use thus far, 106.5 million acres have been acquired by being designated as wilderness since 1964.

Henry Lamb reports that not only is eminent domain a key “land-taking” strategy but:

“In the West, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are driving ranchers off the land by reducing grazing allotments…people who have recreational cabins on federal land, are discovering that their permits are not being renewed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forcing people off their land through designations of “wetlands,” and “critical habitat”....” (Lamb, op. cit.)

The biocentric Endangered Species Act makes use of spotted owls, plants, trash fish, alligators, grizzlies, wolves, and more to run people off their land. Within the space of one week in 2006, three young Florida women were attacked by so-called “managed” alligators. All three women died gruesome deaths. “Managed” wolves are likewise useful for terrorizing landowners, especially when said owners have been criminally deprived of the basic right of self defense.

An article entitled, “Wolf Management Program Actions Show Children are Expendable,” in the Wolfcrossing blog speaks of the outrage, despair, and sense of helplessness felt by landowners handcuffed by politically correct Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations that elevate the welfare of wolves over that of people, thus leaving them helpless in the face of marauding wolves.

Sister Flash writes, “Recently a little boy was encircled by Mexican wolves....the Luna pack circled him for more than five minutes.” One month later, wrote Sister Flash, the pack attacked a family dog as it followed its 8-year old owner (a girl) who was going to feed the family's horses. Thirty days later, “the (same) little girl’s beautiful black quarter horse (Six) was trapped in his corral and brutally slaughtered by the same wolves.... (More recently) a small dog named Maggie was attacked protecting her child’s play yard, right off the front porch....” (http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/? p=235)

Not only have the wolves not been removed, but the notorious alpha male - who had been relocated from Arizona to New Mexico for hanging around a schoolyard in Blue, AZ - has been declared “no longer a threat,” by the complicit New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

“In the beginning, God created....” is the core presupposition on which Western civilization advanced for more than two millennia. Its highest expression is in our Declaration of Independence, where it serves as the ultimate source of our unalienable rights. This presupposition is condemned by most western policy makers and by the UN, all of whom prefer the biocentric view:

“Human happiness, and....fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet....until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service)

“....Christianity (has set) humans apart from nature (and) converted the world into a warehouse of commodities for human enjoyment.” (Global Biodiversity Assessment, p. 787)

In a chilling portent of things to come, M. Macnab, a respondent to the Wolfcrossing article, spoke to all Americans when she warned:

“We here in ‘wolf recovery territory’ know all to well what horrible encroachments on our rights can occur when state and federal officials violate their true purpose. Life without basic rights to protecting one’s family and property is not at all pleasant and this careless and lawless disregard for others welfare will, if not checked…become the standard for all.”

[jimt]

And of course, this Creator is the God of Judeo-Christian tradition, itself the major bulwark of natural law theory.

You are right on many points, but not that one.

Jefferson wrote that phrase, and Jefferson was a Deist.

In fact, during the debate over the Declaration, it was moved to insert "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" after "Creator".

It was defeated. So while certainly some Founders were Christian, quite obviously they all weren't, or that amendment would have passed.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

I'm not sure our FRiend could appreciate the relevance of inalienable rights. As I recall OldSpice is not American but British - is that right, OldSpice?

At the root, a right which is inalienable, endowed by our Creator, is not a right the government can take away. It was our legal and moral standing for declaring independence from England.

Should a future government attempt to take away those inalienable rights, the citizens of America would have the same legal and moral standing as they did with the Declaration of Independence to hit the "reset" button.

And as many here will testify, that is the underlying reason for the 2^nd Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms.

[betty boop]

Jefferson wrote that phrase, and Jefferson was a Deist.

You are missing my point. Which is: Even Deists embrace the idea of the Creator God, Who endues all created things with an inviolable, inalienable nature (which the State is forbidden to transgress).

Jefferson — that marvelous "American sphynx" — was almost certainly a Deist. The same is alleged of Franklin. So what??? Both embraced the Creator God which at the very least we can say is an Old Testament concept.

The fact is all the Framers were wholly enculturated into the Judeo-Christian tradition. This despite they were all highly educated men, mainly classically trained, and children of the Enlightenment. Many Christian denominations (except it seems Catholic) were represented in their ranks.

But they did not want in any way to establish a theocracy: No State preference should ever be given to any particular religious denomination, including their own. The language "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" as a modifier of "the Creator" would have offended against the very principle of freedom of religion that they were trying to establish, by seeming to favor one particular type of religious belief over all others.

But to say that the government should not favor any particular religion is not the same as saying that the government should be hostile to religion. Particularly in the case where frankly religious ideas stand at the very foundation of our system of individual liberty under equal laws and justice.

[wintertime]

Every day in our public schools, America’s children are “animalized” through the teaching of Darwinian evolutionary propaganda.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ping for later.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Very well said, dearest sister in Christ!

[OldSpice]

Deism was a politically-correct form of Atheism, for the time.

See the quotes I posted.

It certainly wasn’t Christianity, with the very divinity of Christ being denied.

[OldSpice]

Nowadays?

Let's do a review... and go back to 1834:

"But you are told that our ancestors brought with them the Common Law of England, and that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There are in the books some sayings of the English Judges that Christianity is a part of the Common Law, and one of the most distinguished among those, who have held this doctrine, is the celebrated Sir Matthew Hale. But this Judge is one of those Judges, who have condemned persons for witchcraft, and the ermine of his judicial robes was stained with the blood of the innocent victims of superstition. Sir Matthew Hale would be as good authority to sustain a prosecution for witchcraft, as to sustain the present prosecution against the defendant, by establishing that Christianity is a part of the Common Law of England. Indeed Sir Matthew Hale was the great authority in Massachusetts to sustain the prosecutions for witchcraft which disgraced our early history. What is the Common Law of England ? It is called the customs of immemorial antiquity handed down by tradition, among the English people. Now during the period of the existence of the Common Law, England has had all kinds of religion ? Has the Common Law embraced all those kinds of religion ? Are they parts of the Common Law ? Yet one must be as well as another, or else none of those various kinds of religion are parts of the system. The Common Law is older than Christianity. In the earliest times of British history, the British religion was the dark superstitions of the Druids, the Priests of Mona's isle, who worshipped in the deepest recesses of the woods, and offered up the horrid sacrifice of human victims to the objects of their idolatry. Is this religion a part of the Common Law? When the Romans came they brought with them the Gods of Rome, and Caesar, who found London a great place, and as Shakespeare tells us in Richard the Third, built the Tower, bore with him the God of War and the other Gods of his Country. Did the religion of ancient Rome become a part of the Common Law of England ? When the Saxons invaded Britain, they brought with them their Gods of War, Woden and Thor ? Did the Saxon religion become a part of the Common Law ? Yet two days in the week in England and the United States, Wednesday and Thursday bear the names of their Deities, and have perpetuated the memory of these " fabled Gods " even to the present day. It was not till the reign of Claudius, the successor of Tiberius in whose reign Jesus Christ was crucified, that Christianity was introduced into England, by means of the conversion of a noble Jady, by a missionary from Rome. Up to that period surely, Christianity was no part of the Common Law of England. The religion of England has been often changed, and the dates of the changes, are well known, and some of them are recent affairs. But the Common Law is of immemorial antiquity, and as old as the native Britons, say the English law books, and therefore these various kinds of religion, introduced within legal memory, and can be no part of this system of immemorial antiquity. England, after the introduction of Christianity, embraced the Catholic religion."

 

 

Link

[OldSpice]

Both embraced the Creator God which at the very least we can say is an Old Testament concept.

The Old Testament mythology has its god as an over-dramatic individual, DIRECTLY interfering in human affairs.

Deism is the polar opposite of such a concept- in that its main ideology is that there is no such interference- a mere stepping stone to formal Atheism.

[OldSpice]

Ping to #27 and #28.

[allmendream]

Crazy Creationists cannot seem to decide if acceptance of the theory of evolution makes you a humanist who worships humanity, or an anti-humanist who denigrates mankind.

[allmendream]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I disagree that voting down that provision in any way indicated the religious preference of those that voted. As a Christian I would have voted it down as well, and for exactly the reasons Thomas Jefferson provides - that this should be a nation of religious freedom.

[count-your-change]

Probably of greater immediate interest to most of us than the religious, or lack of religion, views of Hamilton, Paine, or Ayn Rand is the goal of the Agenda 21 and the goals of the Wildlands and Rewilding Projects.

[KC Burke]

One of the distinctions the article misses is the difference between the general period of the enlightenment (which helped spawn classical liberal thought in the old Whigs) and that step child imitation, the French Enlightenment.

Gertrude Himmelfarb does a good job of distinquishing between the three enlightement traditions pointing out the English-Scotish enlightenment which held religion essential to the fostering of moral men was so successful at creating real liberty and prosperous civil society that two other traditions sprange from it with end-goals to improve it but still achieve its benefits.

The first was empirical and took place in America using empirical elements of what worked in the American setting. The second imitation failed as the French, followed by others later, rejected empirical tests and substituted rationalism and metaphysical concepts all stated out with rigid logical constructs.

Hayek agrees in The Constitution of Liberty and spells out that distinction clearly in chapter four.

We can’t seperate all the history while claiming to reference it as this author does.

[metmom]

The Founding Father’s could not have shared Ayn Rand’s because Ayn Rand did not exist before them for them to agree with her. They were not atheists as you are implying.

She may have shared some of their views, but I doubt you could find anyone on the planet who didn’t share the same view as someone else on the planet at some point or other. It proves nothing.

And you can *yawn* all you want, but your posting history contains plenty of evidence that you’d be more suited for posting at DU.

[OldSpice]

Gertrude Himmelfarb does a good job of distinquishing between the three enlightement traditions pointing out the English-Scotish enlightenment which held religion essential to the fostering of moral men was so successful at creating real liberty and prosperous civil society that two other traditions sprange from it with end-goals to improve it but still achieve its benefits.

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day



"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion


 

[Halgr]

....and its a shame that the majority of FReepers still don’t recognize the coming NWO of which Agenda 21 is just a small part.

[betty boop]

At the root, a right which is inalienable, endowed by our Creator, is not a right the government can take away. It was our legal and moral standing for declaring independence from England.... Should a future government attempt to take away those inalienable rights, the citizens of America would have the same legal and moral standing as they did with the Declaration of Independence to hit the "reset" button.

Oh, dearest sister in Christ, I couldn't agree with you more on this question!

Thus you quite correctly note:

And as many here will testify, that is the underlying reason for the 2nd Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms.

Amen to that! There's nothing like logic to "connect the dots"....

Meanwhile, we have the spectacle of Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar or whatever, who not only argues that animals have the "natural" (???) right to sue human beings in court, but that the interpretation of the Framer's meaning of the Second Amendment increasingly in vogue nowadays is increasingly anhistorical the farther out in time we go.

Sunstein's argument goes that the original understanding of the RKBA is inseparable from the idea of a "state" militia. It has nothing to do with such inconsequential things as, say, the individual right of self-defense or protection of property. Only the "common defense" — under State oversight and regulation — was envisioned by the Framers.

Thus according to Sunstein, it was the "common defense" (under State regulation, etc.) that the Framers had in mind when they were crafting the language of the Second Amendment. Where this "bogus" notion of personal self-defense came from — i.e., that the Second Amendment protects the individual rights of life, liberty, and property against all comers individual or corporate — was the hallucination of right-wing-conspiracy-freak groups of fairly recent vintage.

It is these people who are distorting the pristine meaning of the Framers' intentions! And it is simply criminal that such people are slandering the Bill of Rights in that way!!! Thus cynically misleading their own fellow citizens! Shame on them! (So when can we start arresting them?)

Are you as sick as I am, of the total inversion of reality that these idiots are trying to perpetrate on the American people right now?

Sigh....

People, stand in Truth or you WILL be blown away by the tumultuous winds that are coming....

Thank you ever so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

[OldSpice]

Sharing an idea needn’t imply chronological order.

Two people who have never met each other, could share the same ideas.

Example: The concept of the yearly calendar, that was shared by disparate, ancient cultures around the world.

...

I’m sure you are deeply uncomfortable with those quotes by the Founding Fathers that I’ve posted above.

[OldSpice]

If the 2nd Amendment was truly honoured in spirit, civilians should be able to own, maintain and use jet fighters and nuclear weapons.

[Liberty1970]

I’m sure you are deeply uncomfortable with those quotes by the Founding Fathers that I’ve posted above.

The problem is those quotes are not representative, nor have you considered them in context. You can prove a lot of bizarre things by quote mining. It is nonsense to try to portray the Founders as a whole as anti-Christian, yet here you are trying to do it. Consider a more balanced evaluation of their worldview instead of anachronistically trying to force them into an alien mold.