Try 1 month for 99¢

On Aug. 10, 2012, I met with Napa Mayor Jill Techel in her office in downtown Napa. Mayor Techel made a gesture of goodwill by suggesting that we should visit to talk about my concerns regarding Napa’s “sustainable community.” We discussed the “collectivist” ideology behind the sustainable community.

The sustainable community, as defined by United Nations Agenda 21 (and California), calls for government to manage every aspect of life within the community. A hundred years ago, public officials would have been tarred and feathered for suggesting government has the power to manage our everyday lives.

Americans today, however, accept being totally managed in a sustainable community as normal and necessary. What changed? America has been ideologically transformed into a collectivist nation.

Ideology is “a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation.” Change ideology and you change America.

I showed Mayor Techel an original, hardbound American Historical Association’s “Conclusions and Recommendations — Report of the Commission on Social Studies” (printed 1934). The studies and resulting report were financed and endorsed by the Trustees of the Carnegie Corporation, which still influence public education today.

The report tells how public education was going to ideologically “transition” America from “traditional ideas and values” into “collectivism” to prepare Americans for a future in which “individual economic actions and individual property rights will be altered and abridged.”

I told Mayor Techel I’ve had university political science professors tell me, “There has never been a collectivist education plan for America.” I would show them the report and ask, “Then why did we have a collectivist education plan for America?”

How successful has public education been in the transition of America into collectivist ideology?

Under America’s traditional ideology, Americans understood every individual is born with natural (individual) rights outside the reach of government. Americans understood that our Bill of Rights tells government what rights government can’t touch.

Americans understood that individual rights are protected from whoever we elect and from federal, state and city government policies. Americans understood individual rights are the “freedom” Americans fought and died for.

Opposite of America’s traditional ideology is collectivism in which individual rights don’t exist. Instead, government distributes privileges to citizens, which government calls “rights.” All “rights” (meaning all citizens) are managed by government and must conform to the “common good” policies of society as determined by government.

An example of collectivism is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 29 declares a citizen’s duty is to serve the “community” and all “rights and freedoms” must conform to the “purposes and principles” of the United Nations (totalitarianism).

This is opposite of our Bill of Rights, in which the purposes and principles of government must conform to protecting individual rights (freedom).

I explained to Mayor Techel how every politician since the beginning of time, including Stalin and Hitler, has told citizens, “We’re doing this for the common good.” Individual rights protect every American from a government that will always claim what it does is for the “common good.”

Under communist and Nazi collectivist ideology (like the United Nations) the citizen’s duty is to selflessly sacrifice for the community. Individual rights don’t exist in the community.

All “rights and freedoms” must conform to the “common good” policies of the community. Citizens have no protection from government, which will always claim what it does is for the “common good of the community.”

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Lenin called communism the “perfect community.” One of the Nazi Party planks states, “The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all ... ”

March 21, 2012, I asked Napa County Sheriff John Robertson about the statement in our Napa County General Plan, which calls for the “rights of the individual to be balanced with the rights of the community.” Sheriff Robertson told me, “As you know, you surrender some of your rights to live in the community.”

When asked how individual rights are protected from community policies, Sheriff Robertson told me to “stop thinking outside the system and work from within the system.” I was told I needed to “join a council or committee and work on changing things from within.”

At the July 24 Napa City Council meeting (Mayor Techel was there) I explained what Sheriff Robertson said, and asked how individual rights are protected from “sustainable” policies. Napa’s city attorney said Napa follows the California State Constitution, which he said is based on the “common good.”

Napa government functions under collectivist ideology. What about Napa citizens? Is our duty to sacrifice our “rights and freedoms” for the “common good” policies of Napa’s sustainable community government?

Mayor Techel, thank you for your time.

Eggers lives in Napa.

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Load comments