THE EVOLUTION OF AN IDEOLOGY: WORLD HERETIC SITES

SUPPORT THE WORLD HERETIC SITES


In any discussion concerning authority and who yields the power, there is always the inevitable break down of rhetoric into chaos vs. truth and the history of power. Power, in this case, is the final designation of White Sands National Monument as a World Heritage Site and what ‘power’ or authority that brings to the existing power structure and accepted authority already here.
History is an important factor in determining our future, and our children and grandchildren’s future. We need to know exactly who and what we are dealing with here. Where did this ideology come from? Are these agendas similar to anything else that has existed in history? What are the facts concerning this global agenda and who is credible in its defense?
I offer this particular writing to enlighten the truth seekers as well as ‘myth sayers’.
There are accredited quotes from controversial books as well as from books written on history. We seem to be a community in search of facts and truth concerning this issue.
Who will come forth with the facts and who will come forth with emotional irrationalities?


UNESCO

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization was conceived by a group of academics and scientists in 1945, in London. Though the original group of intellectuals who put UNESCO together probably had best intentions of sharing and preserving their knowledge and others great gifts of science and literature, their first director-general was immediately biased against nationalism and religion. A great start for a ‘great’ organization. The original director-general of UNESCO was Sir Julian Huxley, the British scientist.

From THE BEAST ON THE EAST RIVER by Nathan Tabor, on Huxley.

Page 13

“But Sir Julian was also a militant atheist and an ardent evolutionist who rejected all forms of religion and believed that UNESCO’s guiding philosophy should be “a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background.”
Sir Julian unequivocally expressed these secular humanist views in his book, UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND PHILOSOPHY, written in 1948, a copy of which is proudly posted on UNESCO’S website today.
“The world today is in the process of becoming one, and …a major aim of UNESCO must be to help in the speedy and satisfactory realization of the process,” Huxley insisted. He added that “political unification is some sort of world government will be necessary for the definitive attainment” of human evolutionary progress.
But what about Huxley’s basis for his secular humanist moral authority?
“It will be one of the major tasks of the philosophy division of UNESCO to stimulate, in conjunction with the natural and social scientists, the quest for a restatement of morality that shall be in harmony with modern knowledge and adapted to the fresh functions imposed on ethics by the world of today,” Huxley wrote.”[1]

Restatement of morality is an interesting term. I wonder who or what the organization is that is going to “restate morality” in Otero County? The Churches and families of Otero County have done a pretty good job of teaching and practicing Christian morality. Do we need to restate Christian morality? We already have a division of ethnocentric views in our own cultural landscape: those who ‘believe in Christ’ and those ‘who don’t’. There is no manmade law mandating that we all believe in Christ. Would Huxley’s “modern knowledge” and “fresh functions imposed on the ethics by the world of today” replace Christian doctrine and American nationalism and patriotism? Let me remind you, that the original debate in the county was about the World Heritage Site designation out at White Sands. Such a benign designation by such a prestigious world organization has no restraints or implications, only a plague. Yet the first director-general of UNESCO conceived this restatement of morality. I know many of you WHS proponents knew this and probably just glossed over Huxley’s world vision of the future when you called your opponents black helicopter nuts or deceptive petition gatherers.

Huxley sounds like a socialist to me. He’s already given UNESCO its marching orders. Did you know that Huxley was a fan of Marx, and of contemporary Marxists of his day? For those of you still looking for black helicopters, I’m referring to Karl Marx and not any of the Marx Brothers. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles penned the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. We’ve expressed concerns about private property rights in our county if the WHS designation becomes a reality. Let’s see what Marx has to say about private property. Remember, Huxley’s a big fan of Karl Marx.

From the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO:

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done way with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us; therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so, that is just what we intend.”[2]

That’s a nice connection; Sir Julian Huxley, Karl Marx, UNESCO, and the World Heritage Site designation of White Sands. Am I sounding like an alarmist? I’m giving the reader history; real, factual history…you know…stuff that happened in the past.
By the way, this is history the revisionists haven’t gotten to yet.

Just how would Huxley and Marx achieve their restating morality and the doing away of private property? We have to look no farther than the 1948 UNESCO Eleventh International Conference on Public Education, in Geneva, Switzerland.

From THE BEAST ON THE EAST RIVER by Nathan Tabor.

Page 16

“Based on the results of that conference, UNESCO then published a ten-volume series of instruction manuals for teachers, entitled TOWARD WORLD UNDERSTANDING, Volume One of that series asserted that “…one of the chief aims of education today should be the preparation of children and adolescents to participate consciously and actively in the building of a world society…[and] this preparation should include not only the acquisition of skills, but more particularly, the formation and development of psychological attitudes favorable to the construction, maintenance and advancement of a united world.”

Volume Five of this teacher’s series criticized parents for not being properly “world-minded” and for “infecting” their children with unacceptable attitudes of “nationalism, chauvinism, and sclerosis of the mind.” The teachers’ job would then be to “correct many of the errors of home training” that have produced “attitudes running directly counter to the development of international understanding.”

The manual then warned the teachers “…as long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism.”[3]

Our children will be the instruments of restating morality, doing away with private property and that nasty nationalism those socialists and communists cringe at. Cringe at this; Al Gore’s alarmist documentary “AN INCONVEINANT TRUTH” is required viewing in many middle and high schools in the U.S. I thought the gore (no pun intended) flicks I saw in driver’s education were bad enough. Now we subject ‘the children’ to more Gore flicks? Shouldn’t we challenge the intellect instead of indoctrinating the child? Who are these kids going to consider a role model?
Al Gore?

Let me challenge the intellect with some recent history about Al Gore.

From the POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND ENVIRONMENTALISM by Christopher C. Horner
Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Page 99

“Next up on the “hit’ parade for Al Gore et al, after Gore’s inauguration was to chase Dr. William Happer out of the U.S. Department of Energy. Though at first asked to stay on as director of energy research by the Clinton White House, Happer subsequently made the mistake of disputing Gore. In REASON magazine at the time, journalist Ron Bailey told the tale of Happer’s fall.
Bailey focuses on Happer’s appearance before a House subcommittee, in which he delivered “cautious testimony…at odds with Gore’s alarmist views.” Specifically, Happer uttered this scandalous sentence: “I think that there probably has been some exaggeration of the dangers of ozone and global climate change.”
Possibly Happer was thinking of the part in EARTH IN THE BALANCE where Gore writes about chlorine from Manmade refrigerants called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS), “Like an acid, it burns a hole in the Earth’s protective ozone shield.”
No one but Happer knows. However, following this testimony, Happer says, “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” and that he had made his way onto the ‘enemies list” of Gore aide Katie McGinty.”[4]

Compare Dr. Happer’s experience with Gore and Katie McGinty, to Russian physicists and their dealings with the Marxists under Stalin.

From STALIN AND THE BOMB by David Holloway
Page 21-22

“Physicists came under increasing pressure in the 1930s to show their loyalty to the Party and the State. The intellectual climate of the country changed drastically for the worse at the end of the 1920s. The Academy of Sciences lost the relative intellectual autonomy it had enjoyed in the 1920s and was brought under increasing party and government control. Collaboration with the regime was no longer enough; the Party now demanded political and ideological commitment. Scientific disciplines came under scrutiny from militant party philosophers who wanted to root out any political or philosophical deviations that scientific theories might betray. These philosophers claimed the right to judge whether theories in the natural sciences were really scientific or not. What was at issue in these discussions was the question of authority in science: who had the right to say what constituted a valid scientific theory – the scientists or the Communist Party.”[5]


If you’re thinking throwing Al Gore in the mix, as vice-president during the Clinton years is a stretch, think again. Think about what Al Gore is saying now. Too much of a stretch to even be a coincident? How many ‘coincidents’ do you want in your backyard? For those of you who have a lingering desire to see Al Gore be President someday, and you’re wondering why I mention Al Gore, now in this writing: think the big picture.


What is our part of the ‘big picture’? Our future, our commitment to our children, our nation’s security (Holloman AFB and White Sands Missile Ranger), and our ability to control our sovereign nation, the United States of America; not the global experiment started over a century ago that has infected so much of the world.

This is where I send my designation of Al Gore’s Tennessee property as a
World Heretic Site. I’m going with the flow of law here…global modern law to be specific. I’m empowered by the mere fact I’m a global citizen to propose designation of any cultural or natural landscape on the face of the planet.

(Parody follows)

FROM THE WORLD HERETIC SITE COMMITTEE

Dear Mr. Gore:

You will be pleased to know that I have proposed your Tennessee property for designation as a World Heretic Site. Such a designation is benign and only adds an extra layer of bureaucracy and protection. (I think you’ll agree that we’ll skip over the messy controversy of your opulent lifestyle that generates massive carbon footprints that Godzilla could stand in and barely see over the edge…snicker…snicker). One of the global benefits of World Heretic Site is the creation of a wild life corridor right through the middle of your property. This wildlife corridor will allow the natural migration flow of endangered species such as polar bears, the spotted glacier dust mite, the Rocky Mountain Whooping trout, the greenie bellied fuzz gnat, the webbed- foot rock fobe, the unskilled Mexican hominid, and the Tennessee Road Apple.
If you or any local groups representing public lands or private property rights have concerns or just plain opposition to this planned designation; you may send your concerns to…oh darn…where’s that address? I’ll get back to you with that address.
In conclusion, welcome to the community of global citizens. I and my fellow global citizens eagerly await your support and acceptance of this proposed designation of your home (I’m referring to the opulent one…do you ever have yard sales?)…as a World Heretic Site!

Sincerely:

Global Citizen

FROM THE DESK OF AL GORE

Dear World Heretic Site:

Due to concerns of keeping my family out of the public eye, I must protest this intrusion on my families and mine private lives. I can offer suggestions of other sites worthy of your prestigious designation. (This is a nice way of saying ‘back off’…you’re clouding my political expediency issues with your global agenda…GOT IT?...geez).

Sincerely:

Al the Earth Warrior

(Parody ends)

Global agenda is one of those ambiguous terms. Is there a global agenda intent on indoctrinating our children and abolishing private property rights and national sovereignty?

Karl Marx weighs in with this gem from the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO:

“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others b means of such appropriation.

…All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the communism modes of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.”

Wouldn’t loss of ethics in public office, indoctrination of children, restating morality, and a one-world government qualify for ‘loss of culture?

Marx continues:

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeois. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they merely seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relations of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting; the more, by the action of modern industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.”

Marx advocates for destroying the traditional family. How’s the American family fairing today under the assault of gratuitous sex and violence in the media, from video and computer games, rap music and some rock genera, and the influence of this global agenda on curriculum in our schools?

Marx on nationalism:

“The Communists are further reproached with the siring to abolish countries and nationality.
…The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilized countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
…The charges against communism made from a religious, philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint are not deserving of series examination.”

Marx on ‘eternal truths’:

There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

And finally, the Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all the children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Marx’s vision for the future rings familiar with comments I’ve heard of how the United States has changed in the minds of older Americans. Did any of Marx’s ideas sound familiar? Have you seen anything close to Marxism occurring in your community?

The global agenda of UNESCO and its supporters sounds eerily like a rehash of Karl Marx. We’ve covered, together, the beginnings of UNESCO, umbrella organization for the World Heritage Site Committee, comparison of communist ideologies and Al Gore’s methodology (which is my opinion, you make up your mind), intellect vs. indoctrination of ‘the children’, ‘restating morality’, and the challenge to look at the ‘big picture’, which WE ARE A PART OF.






[1] The Beast on the East River by Nathan Tabor

[2] The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
[3] The Beast on the East River by Nathan Tabor
[4] The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner
[5] Stalin and the Bomb by David Holloway