Monday, February 1, 2010

The unmentionable facts of Obama's Communitarian mentors

Is there a punishment for using the word communitarianism in articles critical of Obama?

World Net Daily published an article about "mystery man" John McKnight's role in mentoring Obama and never once mentioned McKnight's endorsement of the Communitarian Platform.

This WND article completely ignores McKnight's association with Dr. Amitai Etzioni.

It doesn't tell us about McKnight's other mentor and guru, the one still living, the live one who could answer all kinds of probing questions about Obama's philosophy for building community.

WND neglects to tell us McKnight founded the Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) program at Northwestern University. This report doesn't even mention
how closely ABCD ties into the other programs Etzioni suggested for retraining Americans for global citizenship, like Community Policing, Service, Amercorps, GIS mapping and the American Community Survey.

Why does WND tell us is McKnight is a socialist? Why not call him what he is, what he claims to be, in this exclusive report about the most influential communitarian in Obama's rise to power? How is it possible to write an exclusive report about a communitarian and never once use the word? It's not as if Joseph Farah is unfamiliar with the term or the gamers - here's an article he wrote about it in 2001:

The answer to my questions is the American alternative press in a nutshell.

Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard, Mystery man in senator's memoir now revealed as disciple of socialist agitator
September 24, 2008, WorldNetDaily,


thomas said...

Why does WND tell us is McKnight is a socialist? Why not call him what he is, what he claims to be, in this exclusive report about the most influential communitarian in Obama's rise to power?

maybe i am misreading, but socialism is the progressive, democratic form of communitarianism.

Anonymous said...

I don't trust Farah as far as I could throw him.

the tent lady said...

Socialism is based almost entirely on Marxist Dialectical Materialism. Marx's interpretation of the dialectic was a planned stage of the overall dialectic, created a long time ago. It's been taking the world through the steps it has to take before everyone can claim enlightenment.

The latest manifestation in our forced social evolution is
Communitarianism. For many it is the ultimate synthesis in the dialectic. It incorporates every political, religious, social and economic theory in the history of the world, and socialism is just a minor theory contributing to the whole.

To continue to define McKnight as a socialist when he signed the Communitarian Platform leads the reader away from the actual political and economic system McKnight taught to Obama.

It's very possible the dialectic will continue to push people into another synthesis; some think communitarianism will become the thesis in another dialectic.

We based our thesis on the fact that Etzioni and his followers claim communitarianism is the final synthesis in the dialectic, the final stage of human social evolution that Marx refused to identify.

We posed that if our antithesis was credible enough to dispute Etzioni's perfect synthesis, then communitarianism cannot claim to be without opposition and therefore it cannot be the final perfect synthesis.

I know that's confusing... but the point really is that this new form of policial system is much, much more than socialism or communism or capitalism or non-secularism. If people don't know it exists they remain stuck in a phase of the dialectic that is already past. Even if transcendence is the next phase (as both the Pope and Bobby Garner suggest), the current evolutionary phase is called communitarianism and that is the term used by international courts.

I still think the plan is to introduce communitarianism as a global system so perfect it gives rise to no antithesis, and Bill Clinton is going around the world proving my point right now.

Anonymous said...

I think it's strange how, after reading exposes for nearly twenty years by exposers of Marxism and Communism and all the rest...and then finding your site and seeing how you've put things together...and I know the others are aware of your writings...but they still never use the WORD. They still call what's going on communism, socialism, Marxism, etc. but never use COMMUNITARIANISM. Is it because they didn't write about it first? Is there a jealousy in this? They can't all be liars can they? I've forwarded your articles and blogging to others I consider astute but they do nothing. I don't get it. But Will Grigg was inside the John Birch Society and saw first-hand how that bunch would lie and slit throats.

the tent lady said...

I can't imagine it has anything to do with jealousy, I was not the first to identify it, as far as I know it was Jeri Lynn Ball and she wrote 4 large books with massive sources I've never found or used. But of course she always called it "communitarianism (communism)" as if that was the only way to understand it. I always wanted to talk to her but she dropped out as soon as I got started.

The only conclusion I've been able to make is that communitarianism was never supposed to have any real opposition. An article here or there was supposed to be all there ever was. Like Clinton, Howard Dean and Huvel are saying, America has been communitarian since it's birth. We are being told this is what we already are, even if we've never heard of it.

Funny how I used to think any day now a "real" writer would jump on this and take it over and I could step back and let professionals write about it. I too wrote many of them and offered to share all my research. I was always relieved when somebody really studied it, like Nancy, Darren and Bobby did. But they were just regular folks like me and their articles, like mine, only reached a very small segment of the population. We really needed one of the bigger publishers with a solid rep to open it up to a wider audience. Devvy Kidd is probably the most "famous" writer to mention it, and she does, all the time.

But as for the rest of the truthers and alternative press, the right and the left seem to be in complete agreement that this is a taboo topic.

So do I think they're all liars? I think it's got to be hard as hell to admit everything you've believed is a lie, in fact I know it is. I think it's more an issue of comfort than duplicity. It IS getting a little unbelievable now though, with Clinton saying it in every speech and nobody's noticing?