Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Using Bombs to Stave Off War, by BENNY MORRIS, NYT

From Peter Myer's elist:
(2) Using Bombs to Stave Off War, by BENNY MORRIS, NYT July 18, 2008

Using Bombs to Stave Off War


Published: July 18, 2008

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.

But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).

The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.

Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s destruction; Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.

The best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or not — and, given the Tehran regime’s totalitarian grip, it may not be immediately clear how much damage the Israeli assault has caused — would persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program, or at least persuade the Western powers to significantly increase the diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran.

But the more likely result is that the international community will continue to do nothing effective and that Iran will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement).

Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.

Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s demise. But most Iranians probably don’ t.

Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, is the author, most recently, of “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War.”
There was a time when mentioning Israel's nuclear capabilities was considered to be a conspiracy theory. Obviously that's changed. I'm curious to know if Amitai Etzioni's role in the first Arab-Israeli war is mentioned in Morris' book. I've never been able to confirm whether the Etzioni brigade was named for him or for some other soldier named Etzioni.

I'm certainly not a big fan of Muslim fundamentalists, but isn't Israel the seat of Talmudic fundamentalism and the most religiously motivated nation on earth? Why is it okay for the Jewish state to have nukes and to threaten a Muslim neighbor with a nuclear holocaust? Who decided which country was the more moral or responsible of the two nations? American Jews and their dialectical opposites, the Zionists on the fundamentalist Christian Right? My heart goes out to all the commoners in the Middle East who have no say in any of this, as is always the case. My heart grieves for all the American soldiers who are giving their lives for Israel's Lebenraum.

Where did community policing originate?

Policing: Community Policing - Origins And Evolution Of Community Policing

"Community policing as a national reform movement (1990s and beyond). By the 1990s, community policing had become a powerful national movement and part of everyday policing parlance. Encouraged by the federal funds made available through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), police departments across the country shifted their attention toward implementing community policing reforms. Annual conferences on community policing became commonplace, and researchers began to study community-policing programs in cities all over America. Besides the availability of funds and promising research findings, the political appeal of community policing and its close affinity to long-term trends in societal organization contributed to the widespread acceptance of community policing (Skogan and Hartnett)."

"Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information."
Unbiased, factual and accurate. Okay. I am familiar with Kelling's Broken Window Theory since Seattle police quote him in their mission statement ("to prevent full-blown-fear"). What about complete? Why leave out the best parts? Why not mention that President Clinton called community policing "a DLC idea, we've been advocating it for years?" Why not mention Etzioni's communitarian philosophy for rebuilding communities, or the JINSA sponsored training in Israel, or the KGB agent who shares his advice and expertise with American police. My "biased" information includes every aspect of community policing, not just the "official story."

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Creepy 'camera head' project a reaction to Seattle surveillance cameras

Maybe it's time I quit thinking of myself as an "alternative" journalist and replace that with a term I always thought meant a super talented person who creates cool things to look at.

Most artists insist on thinking outside the box, so I'd fit in there. Our culture allows them their odd lifestyles because, well, they're artists. I've never considered myself an artist, nobody ever saw me as one either, and so I was never allowed to be odd in peace. I've spent almost a decade defending my right to pursue my own path. But, I actually thought it was required of me that I approach this research with the utmost seriousness, and I stuck to just the boring facts.

When I tried to alert people in Seattle to the Rooming & Boarding House agenda, the community cop's agenda and the Seattle COMPASS program, I passed out thousands of "news" flyers to everyone from my neighbors to the news desk at the Seattle Times to the Hempfest crowd. As far as I know, not one person in Seattle besides Nancy Rising ever followed up on it. I've written hundreds of articles since then, built a huge research website, and while I know my reporting has helped more than a few people to lift the veil and read between the lines, it's still too weird for most people since they cannot understand the language of the new bureaucrats which is included in everything I write. There are thousands of writers who can reach readers.. but the question always is, how can we reach the people who don't read?

I get a lot of letters from people asking what we can do to alert the "sheeple." Maybe if we didn't think of our neighbors in the same terms the globalists do, we might come up with our own ideas to alert our neighbors and nation to the dangerous new system supplanting our constitutional government. Maybe it's time we looked in our own hearts and minds for our own answers.

America is a visual country, our people are trained to be entertained. Here's what happens when street theater shares the stage with Big Mother:

Constitutional Adjudication in the World Trade Organization

Here's a perfect example of why Americans don't understand the ongoing transfer of their personal power to supranational organizations. When the globalists ask "Could" and "should" it should always be answered with our collective "yes." Bold ideas and new meanings will change the world. Has anyone asked Mr. Obama about the new requirements for global citizenship?

Sungjoon Cho, "Constitutional Adjudication in the World Trade Organization" (JMWP no. 04/08)
Working Paper on the Jean Monnet Center website at
"Although a court, as a judicial organ, usually fulfils its mission by resolving specific disputes brought to it, it occasionally goes beyond this simple dispute-resolving function and more actively engages in building policies which define, and "constitute," the very polity to which the court belongs, as was seen in Brown v. Board of Education. If this "constitutional adjudication" is an integral function of any domestic high court, could (and should) an international tribunal, in particular the World Trade Organization (WTO) tribunal, also play such a distinctive role? This paper contends that the WTO tribunal has in fact assumed such role by having recently struck down a hoary antidumping practice called "zeroing" which tends to inflate dumping margins and thus is a central vehicle for contingent protection embedded in the antidumping mechanism. The paper observes that the recent proliferation of antidumping measures as a new protectionist instrument has motivated the AB's hermeneutical departure from the past interpretation which had endorsed the practice. This, it argues, is a "constitutional" turn of the WTO which a positivist, inter-governmental mode of thinking, as is prevalent in other international organizations such as the United Nations, cannot fully expound. Critically, this turn originates from bold ideas which envision, and thus "constitute," new institutional meaning and possibilities within the WTO. In other words, the AB's exegesis is anchored firmly by a discernible purpose of cabining trade distortive/restrictive consequences from the use of zeroing which have long been left unchecked. Finally, WTO members, the paper maintains, must preserve the anti-zeroing jurisprudence as constitutional norms in the absence of extraordinary circumstances tantamount to a constitutional amendment. In particular, it must not be a subject of political bargaining in the trade negotiation."

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Individual and Society in Marx and Hegel, Beyond the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism

I've been reading a couple forums where my last article was posted and I'm not suprised by the level of incomprehension voiced by the supporters of communitarianism. The negative responses to my work always starts with the assumption that I am against community and cooperation. They talk about community ideals as if they are not based in dialectical lies. The key to understanding communitarianism is the philosophy that preceeds it. For example:

This is the html version of the file

Beyond the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism
Sean Sayers
University of Kent

This paper explains Marx's concepts of individual and society and their roots in Hegel's philosophy. Like recent communitarian philosophers, Marx and Hegel both reject the idea that the individual is an atomic entity which runs through liberal social philosophy and classical economics. Human productive activity is essentially social. However, Marx shows that the liberal concepts of individuality and society are not simply philosophical errors, they are products and expressions of the social alienation of free market conditions. Marx's account begins from Hegel's account of `civil society', and uses a framework of historical development similar to Hegel’s. However, Marx goes on to criticise the Hegelian and liberal conceptions of modern society and to envisage an unalienated form of individuality and community.
Address for correspondence:
Until 30 December 2004:
Department of Philosophy, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075, USA
Tel. 413-538-2367; fax 413-538-2579
After 30 December 2004:
School of European Culture and Languages, Cornwallis Building, University of Kent,
Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, England
Tel. 01227-827513 (direct line); fax 01227-823641
8 December, 2004

Saturday, July 26, 2008

FEMA seeks immunity from trailer fume suits

Here's another reason why disaster victims could be taught how to make their own emergency shelters (Gertees) and encouraged to cover them with materials of their own choosing. I wonder if there are any similar complaints against yurt manufacturers who supplied FEMA with new yurts. The ACL got thousands of hits from people looking for jobs driving these trailers to New Orleans. My research at the time included business reports from trailer manufacturers who jumped to meet the demand. For some reason, this reminds me of the old restaurant saying about how many times you can sell the same chicken.
"NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Federal Emergency Management Agency asked a federal judge Wednesday for immunity from lawsuits over potentially dangerous fumes in government-issued trailers that have housed tens of thousands of Gulf Coast hurricane victims.

"Lawyers for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita accuse FEMA of negligence for sheltering them in trailers with elevated levels of formaldehyde, a preservative used in construction materials that can cause health problems.

Has anyone ever heard anything about what eventually happened to the American "refugees" who were placed under armed guard at U.S. Army Posts, for their own "protection"? I've never learned what happened to the missing cops or the missing children. Did any of them end up being "invited" to Bohemian Grove? This gives population reduction a whole new meaning.

Obama's "change" promises a continued path toward world government

Here's a nice summary of what Obama was talking about in Berlin a couple days ago. He used all the key communitarian phrases and told us flat out our new communitarian legal requirements for global citizenship, "Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more -- not less."

Obama's "change is not a choice, it is the one way, the only way." From Intelstrike,

"“Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.”" Barack Obama, July 24, 2008, Berlin

Here's Tom DeWeese explaining Obama's Global Poverty Act and how it fits in to the Charter for Global Democracy at

500,000 body bags?

I got this link in a forward from a guy I don't know. I don't know who this woman is, but I sure like her style of research and presentation. (I think it's great that she says she does NOT support Alex Jones in her "about me.") She seems smart, but she could be wrong about this, right? Maybe, like they did with the TSA taser wristband story, someone from Homeland Security will come and reassure us they don't have 500,000 plastic body bags stored on a lot in Madison, Georgia.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

No sign of global warming in Alaska!

Global cooling and a new ice age is a lot more believable. Keeping in step with much of the rest of the US, this has been the worst summer anyone here can remember. We've had high winds and rain for almost 2 months solid, and most mornings the temp inside gertee is around 44 degrees f (much like a Seattle winter). I've had to keep a fire going almost every day, not a roaring fire like in winter, but I had anticipated not needing a fire much except on a few cold mornings. I also thought I'd be getting wood stacked and ready for winter when instead I use it as fast as I can haul and cut it. I've heard several people exclaim, "this is the worst winter, I mean summer, I've ever seen!" Last night the clouds looked very strange; there were long, straight lines of breaks between them where the midnight sun could just barely be seen peeking through. I've had to fully insulate the summer gertee in order to keep it livable, and the museum stays so cold I can't be in here for long unless I wear longjohns and a big coat.

The only good part is it's too cold for the hornets and wasps and we've only had a couple short waves of noseeums (tiny, tiny horrible little mosquitos). And I finally got to see how the museum gertee walls react to a huge gust of wind. It sits alone without any trees to break it, and when I heard it coming I cringed and waited with baited breath. It hit the northeast wall and rippled around to the middle, moving the khana like a wave, and then it was gone. Both roof covers have stayed on with just a few extra ropes lashed over the tops and a bunch of extra staples. So if I was unsure about the 20 footer "blowing over" I'm confident now that it won't.

The dipnettters on the Copper River are finally getting fish, 2 months overdue! The wheels are still slow. Most locals think the big floods 2 years ago affected the salmon runs. Crops have been ruined across the state, and with what happened in the midwest, food prices and availablity will certainly become more of an issue. I'm going to have to learn to can fish and hunt this year, we might just need a caribou and a moose to make it through the "real" winter.

Are there plans to start charging us for every website we visit? Here's an interesting Canadian opinion:

Saturday, July 19, 2008

The Evolutionary Third Way: A U.S. Mandate for Change

The Evolutionary Third Way: A U.S. Mandate for Change
by Niki Raapana
July 18, 2008

"My call tonight, is for every American to commit at least two years -- 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime -- to the service of your neighbors and your nation."
(President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002.)

Sometime around 1990, (so the story goes) two college professors figured out how to solve the American left v right divide. Reflecting on the lack of character in Harvard students during lunch one day, they were suddenly struck with how students should be taught the value of giving something back to their communities. The more they talked, the more these sociologists realized that nobody in America was representing their middle view. They agreed that people from the right should give a little leeway. The people on the left should have to give a little too. They decided the country needed a fresh perspective beyond the right-left paradigm. The end result would be a perfect "balance" between these polar opposites.

Professor Amitai Etzioni's new luncheon theory became known to political insiders as communitarianism; in public they mostly called it bipartisan support, or the Third Way.

When Etzioni established the Communitarian Network at George Washington University in DC, he began his new career as the "guru" behind the Third Way. As a senior adviser to U.S. presidents (as far back as Carter) and a former high ranking member of the Israeli military, Etzioni faced no difficulty in finding the funding and strong physical support necessary to further his new ideas. His new Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies immediately began publishing thousands of papers that would help elected American legislators to "shore up the moral, social and poliical environment" in the decaying United States. Within three short years the U.S. Congress had adopted his idea for a new kind of community policing and the Department of Justice financed the hiring of 100,000 new federal COPS in cities and towns across America.

The Third Way agenda is simply a new way to revise the American legal system from within. Third Way founders need a shortcut in order to require more citizen responsibilities without actually going through the lengthy legal process required for amending the U.S. Constitution. U.S. law is based in the contractual agreements between free citizens and their government servants, called constitutions. The Third Way negates all legal and binding contracts. It requires formerly free, state citizens to volunteer to become bonded workers for the community. We've been hearing this from American presidents as far back as Teddy Roosevelt, and it was renewed again by George Bush the 1st:

"Our goal is to engage everyone in volunteering from every walk of life. We also believe that "people in need" should also volunteer as a way to learn how to reconnect themselves to their society and its resources. Ultimately, we want volunteering to become a way of life for every citizen; for people to believe that volunteering isn't just nice to do, but necessary." (1000 Points of Light mission statement, the Bush's favorite charity)

The theory behind Rebuilding Community government was watered down for clueless American officials in the writings of Dr. Amitai Etzioni throughout the last decade of the 20th century. Etzioni's theory of enforcing the Community Good was in perfect harmony with United Nations Local Agenda 21 theory of enforced Earth worship. The Earth Summit in 1992 laid out the national blueprints for rebuilding a communitarian global system of religious governance. Harvard law professor MaryAnn Glendon described the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as communitarian because the theory "kept the declaration from becoming either a highly collectivist or a highly individualistic document."

European discontent and continued national voter rejections of a unifying European constitution is based entirely on their anticommunitarian sensibilities. The Irish people are only the latest voters to insist on retaining their individual and national sovereignty. But in the U.S., deliberately misled voters are never presented with a full disclosure of communitarian legal principles. Etzioni's books have such a nice ring to them, people assume they know what it means just by reading his titles. My Obama swooning sister-in-law replied to my suggestion that she read Etzioni with her gut reaction to the titles of his books (like "Community and Morality in a Democratic Society"), and assured me she liked the sound of it.

"In the my wildest dreams, during eighteen years of championing communitarianism, I did not expect a presidential candidate to be as strongly identified with this political philosophy as Obama is." Amitai Etzioni's blog, May 23, 2008

Building upon an obscure political doctrine called the Hegelian dialectic, Etzioni's communitarianism combined meticulous academic planning with powerful financial backers (including Wall Street financiers and the Rothschild's Bank of England). His fresh ideas for a "new" Democratic movement carried the Clintons all the way into the White House in 1992, and again in 1996. The U.S. government and American colleges jumped on Etzioni's plan as if he were Moses and the commandment to Rebuild America came down from God himself. Nobody really knew what his fresh ideas were, but they obviously thought it sounded pretty good. As Michael D'Antonio explained in "I or We? Mother Jones, May-June 1994:

"This is the Clinton administration's version of 'family values,' something vague and moralistic that everyone supports but no one seems to be able to define," says Professor Walker. "I suspect that what the communitarians, and especially Etzioni, really want is to be influential with the White House. If that's an accomplishment, then they may already be achieving something."

Regardless of what Rabbi Etzioni tells us about his original idea, the theory of communitarianism has been around for at least 2000 years. The most ancient reference this author has found is when the Israeli people were held in captivity in Egypt. Called communitarian-ra, this was the legal code used by the Rabbis to control Jewish slaves assigned to their communities. The term lay mostly dormant until it resurfaced in the mid nineteenth century. Whereas the 1848 London Communist League's Manifesto rejected organized religion as the "opiate of the masses," the man credited with coining the term "communism" established the Communitarian Church in England. As for philosophical arguments defining free citizen's repsonsibilities, many of the terms for helping mankind to evolve to the next level of spirituality (called the World Spirit) originated in the Greek philosophy of democracy.

There is a very long list of philosophers and theologians who furthered the dialectical arguments that led humanity to the ultimate, perfect synthesis of ideas. The list includes some familiar names like Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Sung, but most of the rest are as obscure to average Americans as the topic they wrote about. Communitarian scholars come from every nation, every political background, and every religion in the world. There are expert communitarians who are Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Bahai, Buddist, and Pagan (the Communitarian Church of Vermont practices witchcraft). Zionists, socialists, European kings and queens, African dictators, military juntas and elected representatives from the Western democracies all share the same goals and vision as their fellow communitarians in The People's Republic of China, Cuba, North Korea and the former USSR. Iraq's new form of government is "communitarian in nature" and shows the absolute determination of some nations to hold out against the global government's mercenaries, no matter what the cost. From New Orleans to the Phillipines, communitarian based sustainable development is the business mantra of the day, and it's all called Homeland Security.

If we poke around a little, we find others who shared Etzioni's and Rothschild's amazingly identical idea; a Catholic theologian arrived at the exact same dialectical synthesis in 1987. (The term communitarianism can also be found in secular documents published by Vatican authorities and Pope John Paul.)

"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).

Still others were discussing Etzioni's new idea back in the 1960s, with a slightly different pronounciation:

" Starting in 1960, the doctrine of the movement, "National-European Communitarism" whose social character was affirmed from the beginning, derived from national-communist positions.

"After the definitive elimination of the right-wing sector of the organization in 1964, Thiriart would lead Young Europe in a direction in which two general orientations dominate: on one hand, radical anti-Americanism and, on the other, a progressive approach to national-communist positions. Thiriart sees Communitarism as surpassing communism and not as its opponent, this is a typical national-Bolshevik posture. In 1965, he defined Communitarism as "national-European socialism" and he added that "in the mid century, communism will become, wanting it or not, Communitarism". In this, history has had to agree with him given that before the fall of the Soviet block, the economic reforms that were introduced in Hungary and Romania took communist economy towards Communitarism."

"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". (MARXISM-LENINISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

The arguments posed before American voters never include the synthesis, nor have they ever voted on the theory of rebuilding communitarian communities. Our voters are asked to choose from the polar opposite sides of many issues, but not on the laws or public policies that settle the arguments, once and for all. And as the Third Way takes hold, voters are more often asked to choose candidates who hold opposite views on other important issues. For instance, Republicans who believe themselves to be anti abortion are often stuck in the dilemma of voting for an anti abortion candidate who also supports the global war on terror, regional free trade, and CAFTA (communitarian integration). Pro choice voters and Democrats, on the other hand, are stuck in the dilemma of voting for a candidate who claims to want to rewrite CAFTA and yet also supports Etzioni's criminal ideas for enforcing a new American morality. Of course, it's not a dilemma if Obama's supporters (like the Clintons' and both Bushs') don't know anything about their candidate's principles for "change."

What are the principles for Change?

In England the Third Way political party was introduced by Labour candidate Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair's new British centrist theory emphasized the tired dogma used in the old arguments between capitalism and communism, right and left, and everything inbetween. For some political theorists, communitarianism offered the ultimate evolutionary solution to the never-ending debates between the sides. The British Third Way Party explained:

"A party rather different from the rest, Third Way combines democratic socio-economic reform and inclusive nationalism with co-operative internationalism and ecological awareness; supporting the right to genuine self-determination for peoples throughout the world. The resultant synthesis, still evolving, offers an alternative approach to politics -- a new perspective, in contrast to the failed and outdated dogma of past and present governments...." (

Communitarian socio-economics combines some aspects of the theory of social evolution with free trade capitalism and totalitarian communism. This is the Middle Ground where bipartisan legislation originates. The capitalist camp focuses on the benefits to the free market, while the communist camp focuses on the benefit to the masses, also referred to as the "common good." Both camps allow for various differences between their respective economic philosophies, and they continue to spin the same yarns exploiting their differences. If nobody on TV or newspapers explains the harmonization process to Americans, it's fairly easy to keep the masses ignorant of the actual structure of the emerging global synthesis of ideas. Nobody ever needs to explain to Americans how necessary capitalism and communism are to reaching the final synthesis of ideas. And, as Hegel said, only enlightened, fully evolved humans are capable of understanding how all men will attain freedom after everyone becomes a slave to the central, all-powerful state.

While the Third Way was being introduced to the North Americans as a fresh idea, it simultaneously appeared in the United Kingdom, Israel and all across Europe. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (founder of the Bilderberg meetings) may have actually been the first to introduce the term the Third Way.

Communitarianism is the political and legal foundation for global Free Trade (which explains why the capitalists support it). Communitarianism is the legal foundation for expanding the enforcement power of UN troops and COPS. It is the harmonization framework used by Monnet and Schumann when they engineered the agreements for the emerging European Union. Military trained almost from birth, Etzioni outlined plans for the US-UN global army in his book, "From Empire to Community" (which explains why both Lenninists and PNAC war planners support it). Communitarian environmental case law is on the record with the EU Court as far back as 1957 (which explains why the Trotskyites and greenies love it, and why the Europeans are stuck with it no matter what national voters say). EU communitarian integration requirements are the blueprint for the emerging North American Union (and nothing explains why the most vocal leaders in the American anti-NAU community refuse to even mention communitarian law).

Clinton's "new" Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was was formed by Al From on March 1, 1985, intitialy aided with funds from the Heritage Foundation chief Ed Feulner. According to the Washington Post, " From wants to escape the liberal-conservative tug of war, which the Democrats inevitably lose, and replace it with a brave new world of "information-age politics," "reciprocal obligation," "innovative non-bureaucratic approaches to governing," and a blizzard of equally ineffable buzz-phrases with which to bewilder GOP strategists." Senator Moynihan appears prominintly in DLC start-up operations, as do Lynn Forrester (who later married Sir Evelyn de Rothschild), Elliot Abrams (current chief of Middle East Affairs for NSC), Abram Schulsky, and Gary Schmitt, (later heard of the PNAC). Their think tank, called the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), was created to "define the Utimate Third Way." (Much of this paragraph comes from author/historian Anton Chaitkin)

In 1994, the Violent Crime Act was revised to validate and fund community policing, and Clinton thanked supporters at a DLC gala event with:

"We believe American citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights. And we mean to ask our citizens to give something back to their communities and their country. I believe that, and if you do, we've got a great future."

"Now, this is what I want to say to you: You have to decide what your mission is in this new world, because the truth is, we are already making a difference in the new Democratic Party. In the last two years, despite the atmosphere of contentiousness and all the difficulty, more of the DLC agenda was enacted into law and will make a difference in the lives of the American people than almost any political movement in any similar time period in the history of the United States. And you ought to be proud of that."

Then Clinton called Community Policing, "a DLC idea, we've been advocating for it for years." When Clinton established his Council on Sustainable Development, every U.S. agency followed suit and changed their mission statements to reflect the new idealogy of the Third Way. Every local community development planning team in the U.S. from 1995 onward included a community cop. By 1999, Community COPS were busy revising local noise and land use ordinances and training all city employees to serve inside inspection "warrants."

When Republican candidate George Bush II took the seat of power in 2000, few of his Republican supporters cared or noticed that he supported all the Third Way objectives. The administration of Bush II pushed the entire Third Way agenda into the 21st century.

"Bush's inaugural address," said George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni, a communitarian thinker, "was a communitarian text, full of words like 'civility,' 'responsibility' and 'community.' That's no accident. Bush's advisers consulted on the speech with Putnam." (Washington Post Staff Writer Dana Milbank, February 01, 2001 "Needed: Catchword for Bush Ideology, 'Communitarianism' Finds Favor" )

The world is adapting to the challenges of the information age by reinstating an ancient form of community slavery. Once it's fully implemented, the world will be a safter, healthier place for all living creatures. Once we adjust to the rules for living in Eden and learn to honor our Big Mother, some of us can sit back and enjoy the fruits of other's labors, an easy transition since so many of us are already adjusted to handouts from our progressively generous state. Today it doesn't matter that the U.S. political parties promise the same things as the Russian Communist Platform did in 2002. We are all communitarians now, and whether we know what that means or we never know what that means, our lives have been changed, forever.

"On Sunday, April 25, 1999, President Clinton and the DLC hosted a historic roundtable discussion, The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, with five world leaders including British PM Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch PM Wim Kok, and Italian PM Massimo D'Alema, the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and DLC President Al From... The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of the information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves." (New Democrats Online,

Less than ten years since that historic Third Way roundtable discussion, and we are assured by Obama, Hillary and McCain that all major 3rd way changes will continue as planned.

From Barack Obama's website we can easily find "Barack Obama's Plan for Universal Voluntary Public Service:

“Your own story and the American story are not separate — they are shared. And they will both be enriched if we stand up together, and answer a new call to service to meet the challenges of our new century … I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States. This will not be a call issued in one speech or program; this will be a cause of my presidency.” ( )

So, what happens to the communitarian's plan if Obama somehow manages to lose in November?

"After all, Obama's hardly alone. Sen. John McCain is a passionate supporter of Washington-led (and paid-for) "volunteerism," as is President Bush. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and John Edwards both campaigned for the presidency on compulsory national service." (Jonah Goldberg:Forced servitude in America? LA Times Editorial, July 8, 2008)

Our leaders know changing the U.S. into a completely new political system under international trade and environmental agreements that comply with global communitarian law doesn't need to concern American voters. All American voters need to know is that somehow this lovely new system will empower us to act for ourselves. Just because it sounds bad to some people doesn't mean it's bad, right?


I'm not a supporter of the Ron Paul Revolution because I understand the communitarian purpose for the revolution. The Libertarian's silence on the topic, when they are named as the only opponents of communitarianism (called the Libertarian-Communitarian divide by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post) assures me there will never be any opposition. However, it's interesting to note that Congressman Ron Paul may be the only candidate in the 2008 presidential contest to ever write an opposition opinion of the Third Way policy agenda.

Niki Raapana is an author and co-founder of the Anti Communitarian League, an Alaskan mother-daughter webteam devoted to studying harmonizations in communitarian integration with a focus on the new legal policies and programs. The most recent version of their book condensing their massive body of research and translating it for average readers is called "2020: Our Common Destiny."

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

HREOC ruling, ERA submission, online “hate speech” - Jeremy Jones vs Frederick Toben

I've got several projects going and one of them is a new article explaining how communitarianism has replaced all the opposing political sides. I keep finding articles that say almost the same thing as I'm saying, except they won't tell us exactly what the sides changed into. Here's Arianna Huffington telling us on July 14, 2008 to quit forcing everyone to look at American politics from the tired old left v right divide. She explains why she gave Obama seven tips to

"staying true to the vision and message that took him from longshot 'unlikely candidate' to presidential frontrunner" -- and why the first one was that he should "load up his Kindle with passages from leaders who were looking to fundamentally change the country and following an inner compass, not the latest focus-group results." It's why I reminded him of the words of Dr. King: "There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right."
What was the "vision and the message" that took Obama from longshot to frontrunner? Why can't Arianna tell us why Amitai Etzioni already bought the champagne for his election night celebration? Why can't she tell us that to "fundamentally change the country" means a complete overhaul of U.S. constitutional law and every state constitution (except for Alaska's; passed in 1959, it's already, fundamentally, a communitarian contract). Arianna can only tell us enough to keep us confused and in the dialectic, while her enlightened understanding allows her to see beyond it; she knows why the masses are not ready to know what these changes will bring. She includes Etzioni's blog posts at her site, this proves to me she knows what the synthesis is. The following Etzioni article and the comments show why he is the king of Talmudic arguments:

Etzioni is very, very interested in regulating the internet. I bet he already knows all about the case law established after Australian hate crimes were prosecuted in 2002, as seen in this article from the Australian Peter Myers' elist. I don't know what the Adelaide Institute was, but I recognise it and may have linked to it once from the ACL, along with over 10,000 other exit links. Does the Toben ruling mean I am liable under Australian hate crime laws for everything I quote that was written on all 10,000 exit links I link to? Can the entire ACL website be considered "one document?" How long before I need to concern myself with this nonsense?

Majorie Hines at Kent Law had a few choice words about Etzioni's legal theories in 2004:

(9) HREOC ruling, ERA submission, online “hate speech” - Jeremy Jones vs Frederick Toben

Online Hate Speech and Section 18C of the Australian Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Electronic Frontiers Australia

Submission {to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the court which administers “hate speech” laws}

26 July 2002

This is a submission to HREOC's Background Paper for the Cyber-Racism Symposium 2002.


EFA is a member of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), a worldwide alliance of online civil liberties groups, and our position on this issue is that of a GILC resolution on hate speech:

(1) GILC members deplore racist and hateful speech; but when encountering racist or hateful speech, the best remedy to be applied is generally more speech, not enforced silence.

(2) Liberty's fundamental principle is that governments should be prohibited from prohibiting the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

(3) While the application of existing law to the Internet is still in its infancy, the well-established free speech principles should apply with even greater force to networked speech. The Internet gives it users easy access to public discourse. It affords human rights activists and other opponents of racism with an inexpensive and effective method for responding to racist speech.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

and Article 19 states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act refers to acts "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people". It is our contention that putting material on a web site is not likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate anyone unless they desire to be so offended.

While open web sites are certainly not "private", they are public in a rather different fashion to radio or television broadcasts, since the web is a "pull" medium rather than a "push" one. In particular, they are not intrusive: web sites do not appear on computer screens unbidden; one must choose to view a web site, taking affirmative action to do so. (The delivery of offensive material in unsolicited email - as "spam" - would be a different matter.) Most individual web sites also reach a relatively restricted audience. The best analogy for the web is therefore printed books, not the broadcast media: the Internet can be considered "a constellation of printing presses and bookstores" (Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace, Henry Holt 1997).

The Internet also allows for the easy expression of a great diversity of viewpoints, including corrections to misleading or inaccurate information.

Practical Problems

There has been one ruling by HREOC applying section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) to online hate speech, in the case Jeremy Jones versus Frederick Toben. The problems with this ruling illustrate general problems with the application of "hate speech" laws to the Internet.

Many of the problems with racial vilification legislation extend from traditional media to the Internet. But the Internet also poses new problems.

Content Granularity

Can one sentence on a web site make the entire site "hate speech"?

The manifest problems inherent on treating a whole site as a single document are apparent if we consider Jones v Toben. The plaintiff in that case argued that "the Adelaide Institute website should be considered as a single document" and HREOC accepted that in its ruling, which ordered that the entire Adelaide Institute website be "removed from the world wide web" and made no attempt to distinguish its parts.

The problem with this is that only a fraction of the content on the Adelaide Institute web site could conceivably be considered in breach of the RDA. Among other material, the site includes (or at some point included - see below) copies of articles from leading Australian and international newspapers, press releases and other statements from a range of organisations (including both EFA and HREOC), and statements by opponents. Perhaps more to the point, the site is used by Toben to voice his opinions on matters of all kinds: to take just one example, he has reprinted on it another person's criticisms of the Jubilee 2000 campaign (for debt relief for poor countries).

This is of particular concern because Toben was required by the ruling to promise not to publish "any such material" in the future and to remove from publication "all such material", without elaborating in any way on "such". As a result the HREOC ruling effectively orders Toben to remain silent completely - taking the example above again, it prima facie enjoins him not to express anywhere in public, ever again, opposition to debt relief for poor countries.

The decision to treat the web site as a single document also runs in the face of precedents set with other legislation. The Australian Broadcasting Authority, in its management of the Broadcasting Services Act (Online Services Amendment), treats individual web pages as separate documents. Take-down notices, which serve a similar purpose to the HREOC ruling in ordering the removal of online content, are specific to particular web pages, rather than covering entire sites. ...


Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) resolution on hate speech:

Jeremy Jones versus Frederick Toben

ACLU v. Reno, 1997

Monday, July 14, 2008

Communitarian Ideology in Going Green

"The Alaskan Trailer, common dwelling in the 1960s"
part of the green lifestyles series

As per yesterday's article: I'd like to stress the fact that I did not mean to imply that I don't believe Darren Weeks is telling the truth about Nancy Levant. He did send me a phone number for the farm she was on many months ago, but I've been waiting for her to email me, something we both could always seem to afford to do. I also heard from William Lewis who is sorry I'm having doubts and doesn't want me to drag the Bridgestone Media group into my "fight."

We've been noticing how popular the terms Going Green have become lately. Our Gertee falls easily into the green category and I was curious to see how closely it's associated with communitarianism. A keyword search for "going green" returns about 27 million, one hundred thousand hits. Add the word "communitarian" to the search and it drops to about 110,000.

'Crunchy cons' unite: Moving right by going green
Posted: 03/16/06
"The strain of conservatism to which Dreher adheres is peculiar today, basically a pre-Reagan, even pre-Goldwater outlook.

His views date back to the communitarian school, a midcentury group that includes such thinkers as Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet and Richard Weaver, who concerned themselves with the “little platoons” of society — civic organizations, churches and informal associations of neighbors that provide the glue for order and continuity in society.

“The liberty we enjoy in America today is certainly worth prizing and defending, but it is insufficient to produce virtue, stability or happiness,” Dreher writes.

Dreher’s critics on the right have of late called him a Christian Marxist. That’s unfair.

Rather, it’s a case of Dreher’s devout Catholicism informing his conservatism. Call it traditional Catholic social justice, viewed through the prism of the Laffer Curve and small government."

Here's a Green contractor in DC:

"Chris VanArsdale runs GBO Construction, a DC construction-management firm specializing in “green” building techniques that conserve energy and natural resources. He’s getting lots more questions about energy conservation since fuel prices shot up in 2005. More than half his clients are choosing conservation options even though up-front costs are high. “The rest look at the payback periods and decide to wait,” he says. VanArsdale says many residential clients go green for the environmental benefits alone: “There is a communitarian sense that we shouldn’t be polluting the atmosphere and increasing greenhouse-gas emissions.”"

What the heck is a "communitarian sense?" Most people I read assume it means a committment to the common good, a values based decisionmaking process, and a broader inclusion of the common people in decisions that affect their everyday life. According to the Communitarian Constitution author Beau Breslin, communitarian sense is "responsibility, shared values and accomplishment, along with the more 'liberal' feelings of individual freedom and personal independence." This is some of the best doublespeak they offer. Unless you have a feeling about what this responsiblity is TO, have an inkling of what these shared values ARE, and know what a communitarian accomplishment IS, then you'd naturally quickly skip past that part and focus on the last line, one you recognise, the one that reassures you communitarian "feelings" somehow support your notion of what individual freedom and personal independence translates to in everyday life.

There are businesses filled with the communitarian sense:

After reading this Canadian's blog, I think I know why William Lewis calls anti communitarianism my fight:

Communitarian vs Independence

"As I make my way around the sundry web logs that pop up while searching the word communitarian I am constantly struck by the rancour the word seems to arouse in some sectors. I suppose to the extent that I believe that most people are in fact independent communitarians who want to preserve some measure of their independence while working towards the common good I knew that separating the terms created two solitudes, and that like all solitudes, they breed distrust and distaste of the other.

"I suppose it's no accident that most of the rancour that I find comes from American blogs that keep the terms firmly divided into irreconcilable political camps. I go back to my belief that Americans hate one another so viscerally that they can barely contain their contempt for each other. It's nation so deeply divided that I can't imagine anyone ever uniting it."

I agree our nation is deeply divided. After 150 years of constant and unwavering dialectical conflicts, we are perfectly poised to accept the communitarian synthesis. It doesn't matter that it was UK/Israeli/USSR facilitators who introduced Hegelian conflicts into the USA. It's of no signifigance that the communitarian "ideology" was never a movement that arose naturally out of U.S. society.

I do not agree that we hate each other so viscerally that we can barely contain our contempt for one another. I believe, and my experience tells me, that once we peel away the dialectically driven arguments between us, there is only one "issue" left on the table for ALL Americans. The only real choice we need to make is between communitarian law and our national law, and that is the one choice we will never be asked to make. If there was a legally proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to adopt the Supremacy of Communitarian Law, and it passed by 3/4 of the elected state legislatures, I would accept that as the legitimate law of our land. My point has always been that our people are being duped into adopting a code of law they don't understand. Our citizens are not even aware of their having accepted it already.

Thousands of new websites appear online every day to bring us the "real" news. They tell us in detail that our "rights" are being whittled away and that our government has become a nest of traitors. But how often do they tell you why?

Why do the Americans who oppose the North American Union ignore the supremacy of communirian law clause required in the European Union's failed treaties?

Why do the Americans who oppose the UN ignore the supremacy of communitarian law implicit in all UN Local Agenda 21 suggestions for datagathering and enforcement?

Why do the Americans who oppose the War on Terror, the Fed, the CFR, the TC, the IRS, Sustainable Development and congressional legislation like the Patriot Acts ignore or play down (or completely ignore) the core ideology driving all of these wars, organizations and bills?

Why don't global anti NWO whistleblowers explain that communitarianism is the philosophy, the law, and the religion of the emerging global synthesis?

I'll tell you why. The communitarian synthesis is so perfect it gives rise to NO antithesis. Americans are "allowed" to scream about anything from 9/11 to impeach Bush for war crimes to the "coming police state." Americans can write about the illegal tax structure, the SPP, the PNAC, U.S. government violations of "civil liberty," Chemtrails, the Illuminatti, the Bilderberg, the G-8, etc, etc, etc. But the REASON for the existence of all these things, naw, just forget about it. The dialectical conflicts are so much more digestable than the driving philosophy.

My oldest sister thinks I should concentrate more on my miniatures because they're divine. I love making my minis and encouragement works for me! Thanks Susan!

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Individual Liberty Loses Without a Fight

Individual liberty loses without a fight
by Niki Raapana
July 13, 2008

There's a lot more people in the U.S. using the word communitarian now. When I learned the word in 2000 I found mainly references to it in upper academia, European Union and CAFTA integration papers, and eventually (twice!) in the Washington Post. I looked it up online. I scanned every philosophy and political science text I could find. Not one textbook I've seen included it. It seemed to have appeared in Etzioni's head one day at lunch, just like he said it did. Nobody I knew had ever once heard the word, and some people still accuse me of making it up.

I'm living proof that there has never been any funding for anti communitarian studies in the United States. If it hadn't been for a few generous private doners and people purchasing 2020, I would have starved to death, found slumped over my laptop, still trying to find more evidence to convince Americans communitarianism is a REAL threat to their liberty.

Since April 2000, I've written thousands of letters to academic institutions around the globe asking for assistance with our opposition thesis. When our ACL thesis was included in a sociology class at Vassar College last spring, I thought that would open up the debate to include opposition arguments. As recently as last month I wrote the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the bastion of individualist economic theory. Dead silence is all I ever hear back.

There has been no place in academia for our approach, since our focus is on the way communitarian programs and policies thwart legitimate American law. I don't interpret individualism as an egotism endangering the stability of democracy, I interpret the ancient theory of global communitarianism as high treason against every legitimately created people's government in the world.

This is the usual academic approach to the communitarian versus individual theoretical divide, from an abstract posted by the University of Heidelberg:

Christian Maul (HCA PhD in American Studies Scholarship, Landesgraduiertenförderung): “Henry David Thoreau’s Concept of Individualism in the Light of Communitarian Theory.”

"Emanating from my MA thesis, my PhD project explores the representation of a core value of American identity, individualism, in the works of the influential transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau, who created one of the most consistent concepts of American individualism and the image of an economically and intellectually autonomous self. From the point of view of modern political philosophy, however, Thoreau’s approach to individual autonomy seems to have lost
its value; communitarian philosophers such as Michael Sandel, Michael Walzer, and Charles Taylor argue that individualism interpreted as egotism endangers the stability of democracy as it exposes the self to a process of de-solidarization. In fact, the communitarian movement pleads for a return of the individual into the community through active participation in democratic processes and institutions. Thus, the modern American individual exists in an area of tension between individualism and social commitment. In my current research work, I am developing a model for the interpretation of the relationship between the individual and society and of Thoreau’s concept of individualism from a communitarian perspective. This model is based on major writings of communitarian theorists and depicts the ideal communitarian self by tracing fundamental characteristics of an American self which interacts with the social forces surrounding it. My further research interests include the contemporary American novel, autobiographical literature, and American-German literary interrelations." Primary supervisor: Professor Dr. Dieter Schulz
I've been attacked and ridiculed for years for refusing to shift my focus away from communitarianism. I've been advised more than once to start using a term Americans were more "familiar" with. The Libertarian Party told me they only use terms Americans can understand. The Democrats told me I sound like a Right Wing Property Rights wacko; Nancy Rising wanted me to include Jim Marrs' alien theory in my work. The Nebraska Republicans told Michael Shaw I look like a nutcase because I live in a tent. People who said they wanted to "help"ALWAYS told me told me the word was just too long and too hard to spell, so I should quit using it. Just recently I was asked to shift my educational focus to a bumper sticker with the words, "Sustainable development is a UN coup against Americans."

In the past year I've seen my work plagiarized by Dave Hodges of the Arizona Constitution Party, I've been hounded for not submitting to the Fusionist Borg and the Wizard of Oz characters who followed Terry Catzman666 Hayfield to leftrightunite, and I have serious doubts about the Bridgestone Media Group's purpose for including my interview in One Nation Under Siege.

To top it all off, Nancy Levant, who became a dear friend and a prolific vocal opponent of communitarianism suddenly stopped emailing me last fall. I have only Darren Week's assurance that she is just taking a break because she works as a field laborer all the time now, and there's no internet where she lives.

Now, without any fanfare or apologies from anyone, I can find hundreds of references to communitarianism on all kinds of websites and online magizines. People all over the place are talking about it, almost as if it's been around forever. It's as if everyone should already know what it is. This article in the National Review on June 30, 2008 by Michael Know Beran refers to it hitorically, assuring us it's always been part of American politics:

"The late Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once opined that the United States vacillates between phases of glittering, communitarian "public purpose," associated with appealing patrician showmen like the Roosevelts, and drab, profit-seeking "private interest" periods presided over by presidents so boring no one remembers their names. Amid his many errors, Schlesinger was right in perceiving that the idea of communitarian public purpose has a glamor, a charm, a way of touching the high-minded, generous instincts of the soul, that the ethos of profit-and-loss will never match, golden-egg-laying goose though it be."
Try to access Schlesinger's articles without paying for them, take this search link leading to JSTOR,

* Review: [untitled]
* Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
* Reviewed work(s): Tomorrow A New World: The New Deal Community Program by Paul K. Conkin
* The American Historical Review, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Jul., 1960), pp. 933-934 (review consists of 2 pages)
* Published by: American Historical Association

Note: This article is a review of another work, such as a book, film, musical composition, etc. The original work is not included in the purchase of this review.
So how is it possible that Hegel's "Idea" just popped into Etzioni's head in 1990, if thirty years earlier, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was talking about communitarianism in his review of the New Deal Community Program?

Beran's article continues:

"Americans, with their democratic traditions, have an aversion to the word "aristocracy," but not to the idea of it, which, in its most innocent and natural form, merely acknowledges what everyone knows to be true--that in any one of the various departments of life, some people are vastly superior to others.

"I suspect that many voters might even be persuaded to distinguish between aristocracy's more- and less-salubrious forms. Of the two competing patrician philosophies on the hustings this year, one of them, McCain's, represents the aristocratic ideal in its prime, when the knight aspired to fight the good fight. The other, Obama's, represents the patrician ideal in its decadence, when the novice qualifies for the exercise of public power by dreaming the good
communitarian dream."
What is the "good communitarian dream?" It's a vision of peace, health and happiness for everyone in the world. Visualize Heaven and you still can't imagine how beautiful it will be. Once the state is allowed to achieve its evolutionary role and become our god, anything is possible.

In Barack Obama, Americans have found their Hegelian Messiah. Protecting individual rights, the only legitimate purpose for American governance and law, has been slowly replaced with communitarian values. Obama was named the Wonder Boy for the Third Way back in 1994. Hillary Clinton uses the term communitarian to describe more enlightened voters. Both Democratic candidates for U.S. president are committed communitarians. Yet the Republican candidate McCain and the darling of the Independents, Dr. Ron Paul, both studiously avoid addressing the theory of communitarianism in any of their speeches. IF ONLY ONE of the above candidates had openly explained the new theory of community government, ALL Americans would have had the opportunity to choose between liberty and slavery. But none of them did.

The American conservative right has proved itself to be the perfect thesis to the necessary antithesis, cleverly never alerting their followers to the real deception, keeping loyal patriots behind the times by using outdated terms like caplitalism, communism and socialism to describe communitarianism. As a result of this concerted effort to keep Americans dumbed down, Individual Rights, the basis for the ENTIRE American political system, is what's defined as "outdated."

Watch closely as millions of Americans scramble to catch up with the newspeak. Our free people will never know how many thousands of enlightened Americans are already receiving trillions of grant dollars to fund the emerging communitarian vision, but they will quickly find out that if they object to the mandatory community service theory or refuse to cooperate with the communitarian datagatherers or developers, they will be ridiculed and ostracized by the more spiritual members leading the new American collectives.

The entertaining drama that is called "democracy" in the U.S. is about to drop the final curtain on the authentic American dream. Americans aren't voting for a new president in the national election this fall. They're voting for a new god.

Notes:, "McCain's challenge: how to preempt Barack's communitarian dream," National Review, June 30, 2008 by Michael Knox Beran

Further reading: . About: " is a policy blog and website dedicated to advancing a progressive, long-term vision for a fairer, more inclusive and sustainable world. In February 2007, Inclusion entered into a partnership with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, one of the leading economic and policy research organizations in the United States. Established in 1999 by economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, CEPR promotes democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. About the American Prospect; Liberal Intelligence:" The American Prospect was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics." , Dan's comments:, "We're all communitarians now" by Shawn Fremstad, Gene Koo: "Obama's Message is in the Remix", "Okay Obama, let's talk issues" by Devvy Kidd at, "Obama advisor: U.S. not cooperating with Solana," Tehran Times Political Desk, "Hagel reportedly to join Obama in Iraq" posted by Scott Hellman, Radical Middle Centrist Politicans includes: Chuck Hagel (R-NE) -- Senator from Nebraska; spoke at radical-centrist New America Foundation conference in 2005; author of the misleadingly titled article "A Republican Foreign Policy," Foreign Affairs, July / August 2004

Hagels' sponsored and co-sponsored record in the U.S. Senate: He sure is focused on resolutions honoring everyone and establishing "new" national days. See, National Character Counts Week in 2004, co-sponsored by Senator Evan Bayh, the leader of the Third Way group in the Senate. The co-sponsor list pretty much names the rest of the Third Way Senate group and it includes Lieberman, who may end up as McCain's VP!, highlights on McCain's trip to South America and promotion of free trade, Obamas Balancing Act on Free Trade, Constitutional Drift, Obama Steers Right, Barack's speech at the 2004 Dem convention, Hagel and Javier Solana with commentary on Hagels' ties to EU's high priest., "The United States must continue to press for a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of global trade negotiations. America’s leaders should stand behind our trade agreements and support the pending Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama as well as renewing Trade Promotion Authority for the next President.." and "Like our workforce, our nation’s infrastructure is aging and will require new initiatives like the bill that Senator Chris Dodd and I have introduced to create a National Infrastructure Bank that would allow private investment to finance public infrastructure projects." and "International institutions are more important now than at any time in modern history. Our post-World War Two alliances and partnerships, particularly with the European Union, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Turkey, must be strengthened and recalibrated to recognize that these powers are no longer American Twentieth century surrogate powers" and "We are engaged in a war of ideas and ideologies to win over the youth of this region. Classrooms are the battlefields. This will require a
revolutionary universe of new thinking and policies. The human dynamic always dictates outcomes. " and "President Bush deserves credit for his initiatives to create the Millennium Challenge Account promoting sustainable, long-term economic growth and good governance in the world’s poorest countries. The President’s Emergency Relief Plan for AIDS Relief…or ‘PEPFAR’…which has been the world’s largest international health initiative in modern history to combat HIV/AIDS also deserves great credit. These programs should continue. In addition, we need to understand how some of the developed world’s trade policies harm the world’s poorest countries, and, as I have said, urgently seek a successful conclusion to the Doha Trade negotiations. Public-private partnerships must become a central tenet in our development strategy.", New Group-Third Way Values,, Ed Norton's Earth Friendly Advice... and his family lineage

NAIS -- the Fourth Component (Enforcement)

Thanks to Gisela of Alaskans Against NAIS for forwarding this Press Release from:

Dickinson Cattle Co., Inc.
35500 Muskrat
Barnesville, Ohio 43713 USA
July 10, 2008
Darol Dickinson

NAIS — the Fourth Component
by Darol Dickinson

USDA Investigator

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) has been alleged as a three component program, however now a fourth component facade is starting to reveal itself.

The first step of NAIS is premises enrollment, next animal identification, and then coast to coast 48 hour animal tracing.

USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Bruce I. Knight has promised that the NAIS program is easy to enroll and totally voluntary on the federal level, “if . . . enough livestock owners enroll so it does not have to go mandatory.”

The NAIS program has distributed thousands of “selling” USDA press releases quoting Knight. The constant controversy of NAIS has placed the Knight name among the top ten Internet bureaucrats according to Google, with Bruce Knight or Bruce I. Knight showing up over 17,000,000 times.

The fourth Component is meticulously touched by Knight, “If USDA decides to make all or parts of the NAIS mandatory, APHIS will follow the normal rulemaking process.” With rules, laws, inspections, taxes, regulations, or licensing comes the fourth component......Enforcement.

Enforcement of NAIS is not a happy subject especially when the first component is still not setting well with the majority of producers. However, it is a dead serious issue for animal owners who want to know what new enforcements are involved, and their price tag, before they permanently enroll.

In 2007 the US spent nearly one trillion dollars (from taxes and borrowed funds) in regulation enforcements, policing, investigations, and mandatory compliances. Although this was a huge expense to the citizenry, the fines, collections, penalties, licenses, fees and private property confiscations from all law violations was an equally swelling amount; a number impossible to locate from federal published data.

The current “rule making process” for USDA is found on line at Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, U.S. Code., Title 7 >Chapter 109> 8313. Penalties. #8313

(b) Civil Penalties, (1) In general (A)

    (i) $50,000 in the case of any individual, except that the civil penalty may not exceed $1000 in the case of an initial violation of this chapter by an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain;
    (ii) $250,000 in the case of any other person for each violation; and
    (iii) $500,000 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding.

Penalties appropriate to the violation is a cornerstone fundamental of the US judicial system. Enforcement is totally capricious with USDA. One could be fined in county court $1000 for a 70 mph speed violation through a school zone, yet $50,000 for crossing a state line with one number incorrect on a USDA issued livestock health certificate—for a perfectly healthy child’s pony! Dr. Max Thornsberry, President of R-CALF USA says, “The USDA is a run away agency out of control, with total disregard for U.S. citizens.”

Producers have been mystified by the massive amount of grants and funds (cooperative agreements) doled by USDA to get NAIS closer to full mandatory mode. The nearly $150,000,000 invested to promote enrollment looks large, but ..... it would only take 300 violations of $500,000 each to quickly earn it back.

US leaders watch other government trends closely in creating new laws and taxation. Europe has been a leader in pioneering thought for US policy. Government animal numbering systems have been urged in a few countries prior to the marketing of NAIS in the US. Australia is the only country to have implemented electronic tagging and tracking as is proposed by the USDA. Australia is a prototype for enforcement also.

Stephen Blair, a Director of the Angus Society of Australia was recently fined $17,300. He was prosecuted by Australian Minister McDonald for moving cattle from one of his ranches wearing ear tags from his other ranch to a livestock auction. No diseased or stolen livestock were involved. It was a matter of a government rule violation. This is a small example of the enforcement USDA could wield over US livestock producers if NAIS was exacted mandatory.

Part of the title for Bruce Knight, is “REGULATORY PROGRAMS.” This probably helps explain his tigerish priorities for the income generating fourth component of NAIS—ENFORCEMENTS.

USDA enforcements are now, and will be a coerced obligation of all licensed USDA veterinarians. Vets will be required to report all non compliance of their valued clients or be subject to immediate licensing reviews. The USDA/APHIS policing division is the Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) with headquarters in Raleigh, NC; Fort Collins, CO; and Riverdale, MD. IES boasts of increasing thousands of “clients” with a 51% increase in case load and “more than a threefold increase in the dollar value of civil penalties” in one recent year. To enforce the ever increasing number of regulations, the government seeks to make ordinary citizens into their enforcers. Even today all neighbors, farm employees and friend or foe associates are encouraged on the IES web site to “Report potential violations, please contact IES.” Wisconsin tried to use bulk milk haulers to enforce NAIS against Amish dairy farmers in 2007. The Fourth Component is operational and extremely aggressive.

The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) printed an information flyer to dispel negative NAIS exaggerations. Question: Reports say you’re going to charge $1000 a day for not participating if it is mandatory. Answer: The TAHC is a regulatory agency and has administrative penalty provisions in it’s law as a recourse for persons who refuse to comply.

The Fourth Component is Enforcements It can be disastrously expensive. The majority of US livestock producers don’t like the thought of imprisonment and exorbitant fines.

NAIS, when mandatory, as proposed by USDA, will require 100% computer movement documentation at the full expense of livestock owners. In a three year period the total NAIS computer movement numbers in the USA will more than eclipse the number of all people living on the entire planet earth. The whopping magnitude of this federal numbering burden will require a giant increase in USDA employees, facilities, and, of course IES will explode with new “clients.”

Every livestock producer is encouraged to study the many intricate details of NAIS. The large majority of livestock producers refuse to enroll their premises in NAIS. Oppose NAIS now, rather than when it becomes scurrilously mandatory. There is a small amount of time remaining to politically react. For more information or or

Australian ear tag case:

Cornell Agriculture Law:

APHIS’ Investigative and Enforcement Services

USDA Investigator
Caption: USDA Investigator initiating surveillance on unaware farmer.

High Res Photo:

Friday, July 11, 2008

DHS Science & Technology Spokesman refutes TSA bracelet story as "false"

The other day I made a post about a new DHS technology reported about on a Washington Times blog. To my complete suprise, a DHS comment appeared to call the story, "Shocking but false." I checked around today, and this commentor went to several other blogs that linked to the WT blog and pasted in the exact same thing that was pasted into mine.

Here's the DHS blog about this "shocking but false" story on July 10:

While some commentors ridicule the gullible people who believed such a thing was even possible, others make some astute observations about TSA's expanding powers, like the one who said, "After all, three years ago nobody ever would have believed TSA would ban water."

What I find most interesting about this, is that of ALL the things I write about the emerging communitarian government powers, this is the ONLY time I've ever got a rebuttal from an official government source. I post the UN-U.S. blueprints for sustainable development, I expose global U.S. Communitarian Law and how it's being introduced across the world, and I've even suggested more than once that Amitai Etzioni is either the top Israeli spy in the White House (known to the FBI as "Mega") or he knows who it is, but they've never bothered to comment or make a statement that my allegations were false, not even once. In fact, Etzioni's initial response to our manifesto was to put a link to it on his blog titled, "and now a word from our detractors." He quickly removed the link to the ACL from his blog, but it's remained on the Communitarian Network's Links page since April 2003.

Maybe someday Etzioni will leave a comment and reassure us about any other "shocking but false" things we link to at the ACL.