Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Our not-so-secret enemy

This is a post I made tonight at

As a political researcher interested in information relevant to recent changes to the structure of the United States government, my work includes studying everything that has anything to do with changing the U.S. from a constitutional, rights based nation into a supranational, responsibilities based colony.

Our ACL website includes all related research topics and over 10,000 exit links to referenced sources, plus we link to many other global researchers. I am also, incredibly (and mainly by default), the leading American voice against Communitarian integration. After eight years of non-stop studying and hoping somebody with influence or authority would pick up the trail, it still strikes me as implausible that so few other American researchers "exposing" globalism bother to put any focus on the actual system.

Why won't they? It should be a no-brainer. It's already been exposed. It can't even be categorized as a conspiracy theory (only our anti-thesis can). There are hundreds of thousands of published, verifiable academic and government documents that describe the developing U.S. and EU communitarian systems in detail. Hundreds of new laws, treaties, agreements, programs and policies have been adopted that incorporate the new principles into American life. So, what gives? If it's such a well-used term, why aren't the American people being told the name of the new political system that's replacing their constitutions?

You may never have heard of it before, it may never have been included in any American history class you ever took, but leading constitutional scholars are claiming the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were written as communitarian documents. I think if we really want to know what's happening to our liberty, we could just listen to the real experts on global integration:

"Akhil Reed Amar, a leading scholar of constitutional law and author of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, explains that the word people is used in a collective sense in the US Constitution. "But the libertarian reading must contend with textual embarrassments of its own. The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.'....The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of 'the people'--in essence, voters--to 'assemble' in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically. The Fourth Amendment is trickier: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Here, the collective 'people' wording is paired with more individualistic language of 'persons.'"(Gun

"Americans are fond of liberty, particularly the liberty of the individual. We have numerous words to describe it: liberty, freedom, autonomy, privacy, and rights, among others. Until very recently, however, we have not placed as much emphasis on the common good or the public welfare. If the horrific events of September 11 are any indication, this may - and arguably must - change. Community and the Constitution: Our relative lack of focus on the common good is actually quite surprising, given that the preamble to our national Constitution is mostly communitarian, rather than individualistic, in orientation." (TERRORISM, LIBERTY, AND COMMUNITY: Why We Need a Stronger Focus On the Common Good By SCOTT IDLEMAN, Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2001 at

"However, when we move to reset the balance between individual rights and the common good, we inevitably step on the slippery slope that we face whenever we reset legal doctrines, religious Do's and Don'ts and moral taboos. We hence need to be careful that we not open the floodgates to gross violations of individual rights-that we not end up on our backside on the lowest end of the slope. Some civil libertarians are so concerned about this danger that they would rather not set foot on the slope at all, and prefer to remain frozen in whatever position they find themselves. However, adjustments are often needed. The secret is to set clear markers for the new place on the slope beyond which we will not slide, a new definition of what is reasonable, a specific new point of balance between rights and the common good." (Amitai Etzioni, Communitarian Newsletter #4, received on the elist, October 17, 2005, also in The National Law Journal Online on September 19, 2005.)

"In emphasizing the effect a broad per se rule could have on governmental efforts to implement comprehensive planning goals through diverse land use regulations, Justice Stevens endorsed the communitarian principles that land is a natural resource to be used and enjoyed by present and future generations, and that individual property rights are naturally limited by the fact that human beings are social persons who belong to communities. Decisions regarding the use of privately owned land are subject to reasonable regulations imposed by the government on behalf of the community." (The Supreme Court Upholds Moratoria Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, No. 00-1167, 535 U. S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002), by Peter W. Salsich, Jr., Saint Louis University School of Law,Co-author, Planning and Control of Land Development: Cases and Materials.)

"The court's decision is a benign communitarian decision. It's endorsing people acting through their representative government. So people should fight like hell in that political arena for one's individual values./ In this case, there's genuine people involved. But in many cases, these are opportunists waiting to hold out. The court said we aren't going to be the engine for that anti-communitarian process." (STEVEN SLOAN, in the Wall Street Journal on 24jun2005, quoting Berkeley land-law professor Antonio Rossmann speaking about the landmark U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision.

"[communitarianism is] a notion that years of celebrating individual freedom have weakened the bonds of community, and that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Inherent in the philosophy is a return to values and morality, which, the school of thought believes, can best be fostered by community organizations." (Robert Putnam of Harvard University and a Bush speechwriter, explaining President Bush's belief in the communitarian philosophy for The Washington Post, 2002)

"The Socialist Alliance programme is the foundation upon which everything else is built, including in time our exact organisational forms and constantly shifting tactics. The programme links our continuous and what should be all-encompassing agitational work with our ultimate aim of a communitarian, or communist, system. Our programme thus establishes the basis for agreed action and is the lodestar, the point of reference, around which the voluntary unity of the Socialist Alliance is built and concretised. Put another way, the programme represents the dialectical unity between theory and practice." (Posted by Towards a common Socialist Alliance programme Weekly Worker 368, January 25 2001. See also: 5. The transition to the communitarian system in the same issue of the American Communist Party's Weekly Worker.)

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." (Frederic Bastiat, 1850)

"Jean Thiriart's doctrinal works of the early eighties and those developed in the same period by the P.C.N., assume this last tendency. For this purpose, this party presents Communitarism as an "ideology of synthesis that wishes to fuse Marxist-Leninist ideologies and national-revolutionary ones into a synthesis of doctrinal offensive: the socialism of the XXI century"" (47). (Marxism-Leninism and National- Bolshevism at

"Critics argued that we should not have been involved in either conflict, or we should have acted unilaterally. But we have learned that by acting in unison with other nations, we avoid being perceived as a global bully. Still, putting our armed forces, even in a limited and temporary way, under a supranational command is a significant step toward a new world order, indeed one that may require amending our Constitution." (319. "When Does Global Good Outweigh Our Own Sovereignty?" by Amitai Etzioni, USA Today, December 8, 1999, page 31A.)

"In a passage that is notable for its vagueness, Azevedo says that the CEBs should be the basis for a new communitarianism that rejects the two "bankrupt" models and systems "that are now polarizing the world," capitalism and Marxist socialism. This communitarianism is to be "a dialectical synthesis, a new creation, superimposing itself on thesis and antithesis rather than retrieving them." The passage illustrates the controversy in Latin American Catholicism between those who continue to endorse the "third-position-ism" (tercerismo) of Catholic social teaching and those (including all liberation theologians that I know of) who believe that only socialism can be in accord with Christian values." (Theology Today-Basic Ecclesial Communities in Brazil: The Challenge of a New Way of Being Church By Marcello deC. Azevedo, S.J.Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1987. 304 Pp.)

"The old ideologies positioned politics as a struggle for ownership, the historic battle between socialism and capitalism. The Third Way, by contrast, sees politics as an exercise in communitarianism: rebuilding the relationships and social capital between people. It aims to put the social back into social justice. This is an important strategy for combating individualism and generating a sense of collective responsibility in society. " (Australian Fabian Society, Re-inventing Collectivism: The new Social Democracy by Mark Latham, Member for Werriwa Third Way Conference, Centre for Applied Economic Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 12 July 2001)

"Commercial immorality indeed. This is the recognizable universe of our own time where the rich, capital, markets, and profit are still all attacked in the fashionable press, academia, and art by people educated in Marxist Sixties radicalism but completely ignorant or uncomprehending of the most elementary principles of free market economics. The full force of Hegel's statism, whether today it is called "communitarianism," the "politics of meaning," or something else, thus descends on property. And when any kind of private action becomes a matter of money, employment, children, weapons, or political activity (in someone's definition), then the state continues on in, police (which may be Hegel's own neologism, by the way), prosecutors, prisons, and all. Hegel, indeed, would be proud." (Dr. Kelly Ross, Ph.d.)

Seminar on "Community Development Law," including "Property Theory: This seminar, taught by Professor Wyman, examines contemporary debates about property using a range of legal, historical, and philosophical materials. The seminar begins by considering four theoretical approaches to property law: the classic utilitarian justification for private property; the Lockean case for property; contemporary rights-based theories of property; and communitarian perspectives. The seminar applies these approaches to live controversies in areas such as environmental and intellectual property law. Drawing on the four theoretical perspectives, the seminar then addresses a range of topics, including property and economic development, the tragedy of the commons, the limits of property rights and markets, social norms, takings, and reparations." (Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, NYU)

"Pope John Paul's great vision of communitarianism and a New Global Order has yet to receive the recognition it deserves in furthering the understanding that humanity is built on religious values, without which transformations in totalitarian regimes would have been impossible. The essence of communitarianism, as put forth by the Vatican, consists of seeking middle ground between Marxist collectivism and rigid individualism and capitalism. Phillips traces the history of communitarianism through Aristotelian and Judeo-Christian writings, clarifying the proper function of the community in helping individuals help themselves by mobilizing church resources and countering anti-religious movements such as Nazism and communism. Communitarianism presents an encouraging universal notion of freedom, transcending the one-sided stances of Marxism and libertarian capitalism and promoting the vision of a unified human destiny." (Communitarianism, the Vatican, and the New Global Order by Robert L. Phillips, Carnegie )

Okay. Still think I made it up, or it's just not very important? I've just shown you a sample of the extent to which Communitarianism is defined in minute detail. It is verifiably the only theory that's creating the global community. This is the legal philosophy that upholds "balancing" individual and national rights against the global community's rights. There is an entire body of law called communitarian law. There are thousands of academic journals and books explaining the theory. There are hundreds of new government agencies devoted to communitarian integration procedures and requirements (openly called this in the E.U. and inside CAFTA papers). So it doesn't make sense that you haven't been told about it, does it? Here's why you haven't:

"The world needs a new global architecture, additional layers of governance, to deal with issues that neither nations nor traditional forms of intergovernmental organizations can cope with." ("Europe, A Beautiful Idea" by Amitai Etzioni, September 2004 conference at the Hague)

"One must act 'as if' in Europe: as if one wanted only very few things, in order to obtain a great deal. As if nations were to remain sovereign, in order to convince them to surrender their sovereignty. The Commission in Brussels, for example, must act as if it were a technical organism, in order to operate like a government ... and so on, camouflaging and toning down. The sovereignty lost at national level does not pass to any new subject. It is entrusted to a faceless entity: NATO, the UN and eventually the EU. The Union is the vanguard of this changing world:it indicates a future of Princes without sovereignty. The new entity is faceless and those who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected ... That is the way Europe was made too: by creating communitarian organisms without giving the organisms presided over by national governments the impression that they were being subjected to a higher power. That is how the Court of Justice as a supra-national organ was born. It was a sort of unseen atom bomb, which Schuman and Monnet slipped into the negotiations on the Coal and Steel Community. That was what the 'CSC' itself was: a random mixture of national egotisms which became communitarian. I don't think it is a good idea to replace this slow and effective method - which keeps national States free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power - with great institutional leaps - Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble pieces of sovereignty up litle by little, avoiding brusque transitions from national to federal power. That is the way I think we will have to build Europe's common policies..." - (Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, later Vice-President of the EU Constitutional Convention, interview with Barbara Spinelli, La Stampa, 13 July 2000. Posted in a great list of quotes compiled by Free

"The argument advanced here presumes that it is neither necessary nor prudent to attempt to end nationalism by head-on attacks on the legitimacy of the nation-state or by favoring its demise. The vision of replacing the nation-state by regional governments and ultimately by a world government (as UN enthusiasts dream), or envisioning a state that acts as a mere framework for the interactions of groups of people of different cultures but commands no loyalty and involvement of its own, is normatively dubious and unnecessarily threatening. Nationalism can be and is best ended by a much more moderate approach." (On Ending Nationalism* by Amitai Etzioni, Politik und Gesellschaft Online, International Politics and Society 2001)

While there are many smaller theories that make up this whole "philosophy of history," communitarianism is the foundation for every modern assault on national liberty. Several U.S. Presidents were reported in mainstream media as embracing it. It's a real word. Hillary Clinton just used the term last month to describe Iowa (a state which openly calls their plan Local Agenda 21). Yet, and this is the real mystery to me, even the writers who do occasionally refer to it don't seem to ever consider it important enough to explore any further. As a result, we all live in a reinvented communitarian system, we fight communitarian wars, and hardly anyone in America has the first clue what it is. Do you know anyone who does? Is it still too early to tell?

"It is still too early to tell exactly, or even approximately, what the powers and purview of the new Political Advisory Council will be. It does, however, seem safe to say that the new council, when it officially meets in early July, will not be a precursor to the Western version of democracy, an aggressively secular regime embodying a one-person-one-vote principle and strict majority rule. Rather, it appears to be communitarian in make-up, cleverly designed to give each distinct group a voice and each substantial group an effective veto over recommendations or decrees." (Leonard J. Hochberg, Ph.D, and James D. Hard, Jr., Ph.D., "Creating Democracy in Iraq?" NMIR, June 19, 2003.)

No comments: