Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Defining Communitarianism - Is it law, theory or religion?

“The vast majority of your rights are not constitutional,” he asserted. “Most of them can be taken away. Once upon a time, people would have thought it outrageous to have someone pass his hands over your body, and to have to take your shoes off in order to get on an airplane,” he continued. “As it turned out, that freedom was not below the constitutional minimum. Congress could eliminate it.” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - Justice Challenges Privacy Rights at Talmudic Conference
Is there a way to define communitarianism that makes immediate sense to TV trained Americans? I never really directed my articles toward Star Trek fans or regular viewers of Friends. I was fairly certain they were not interested in anything I wrote, simple or complex, based on the bored and sarcastic reactions I got from my RL family and friends who watch TV every day and get all their news from mainstream media. In the past decade since I found the word communitarianism and began writing about it, I have noticed more and more people using communitarian terms and phrases... yet none of them seem to care what it is they're repeating. I am to the point where I never talk about anything real to the Americans I meet in my daily life.

Most people who mention it in their writings refer their readers to wikipedia for a definition of communitarianism. Then, for some reason, they never mention it again. There are many people writing about LA21 now, but most of the leading "freedom" experts refuse to explain the philosophy and never address the verifiable legal system LA21 is based upon. I do not trust most of the people who put U.S. flags and claim to promote "freedom" all over their websites because these are usually the groups that either ignore communitarianism or, like Dave Hodges at Freedom's Phoenix, just plagiarize my research in order to make themselves the "expert."

Here's the whitewashed definition from answers.com:
http://www.answers.com/topic/communitarianism

I've tried this a hundred times or more already, but okay, here's my latest short definition:

Communitarianism is the global "community" legal system. It strikes a balance between fascism, eugenics, communism, socialism, capitalism, environmentalism, warmongering, democracy, and totalitarian dictatorships with mysticism, Biblical, Talmudic and Sharia moral platforms.

6 comments:

Joseph : Phạm Minh Tâm said...

( Vào đây mà xem - http://sachtroi.blogspot.com )

Angry Cheese said...

I remember my father saying to me as I grew up "Don't use a word if you don't know what it means," encouraging me to learn how to use a dictionary to look up words that were new to me. Of course, many words have several meanings and I am very concerned at how the word "community" is appearing everywhere in the UK now while most people are unaware of what it actually means. They think it means something friendly and neighbourly, and warm and cuddly! However, it has become a swearword to me:
http://theangrycheese.blogspot.com/2010/11/ed-miliband-has-used-c-word-in.html

Niki Raapana said...

Joseph, I still need to translate your last post.

yeah cheese! the "c" word is a great way to show what a bad word it really is... of course in America the "c" word is also the worst thing you can call a woman! so perfect.

Kevin Eggers said...

Niki,

Funny you should use a Scalia quote. Sheriff Mack has been traveling the country talking about his State rights victory in "Printz versus the U.S." 1997. It was Scalia who wrote the majority opinion, stating that America has a system of dual sovereignty and that States and state officers are not subject to federal regulatory schemes.

Anonymous said...

Niki,

I like how answer.com defines communitarianism and directs you to "collectivism". I wrote an editorial on collectivism in the Napa Valley Register the beginning of last year, which had a record number of blog comments. There are a lot of people that have bought into collectivism (as well as positive rights), without realizing what they are really supporting.

robrob said...

I like how you described it as a balance between all these ideologies, the problem is who decides what is balanced? who decide right and wrong? who decides all these matters? surly it is not all of us? so what makes these big shots think they have a right to decide what is right and wrong for everyone else then calling it a consences? hypocrites.

look up words in a legal dictionary not a regular one, I have and it is very enlightening. especially the older editions. these people are just bullies and predators and are preying on ignorance of people to achieve their king/slave agenda. do these people know what will happen once the king doesn't need them anymore to push their agenda for them?

you guessed it, pawns is all they are. they are selling out their soul for a bowl of stew.