Monday, November 21, 2011

On furthering the Capitalist versus Communist conflict

Last night I looked at how compelling the forces working within the dialectical games are. I see steady pushing in the right v left arena. I see the conflict written out in plain English everywhere I go. And, what's really interesting is to see how the synthesis is being more often lumped back in with the sides against capitalism. It's apparent to me now that no matter how much right or left patriot Americans learn about the communitarian synthesis, they usually revert right back to the communist versus capitalist arguments, which do nothing but help push the solution!

In my humble opinion, we would all be much better off in opposing the horrible solution, the political, social and legal framework for regional and international Communitarian Integration. The new planning law, this new spiritual law that in some nations is now part of their revised constitutions, is not called communism or capitalism. If it's called socialism at all, it's called Communitarian Socialism, or in less official documents, Market Socialism.

Americans could so easily find the premise for many new laws in the United States if they stopped using the outdated words communism and socialism AND capitalism. We'd be much better off focusing serious attention on the growing body of regulations that balance individual liberty against the common good. Our people should be looking for the words Communitarian or Community when studying recent, drastic regulatory changes to local, state and national standards and norms. Citizens could find their newly formed agencies enforcing the new communitarian laws, if only they knew the legal term Community is different from the word.

Communitarian Law and Community Law are exactly the same terms and are used interchangeably in the international legal arena. All UN, EU and WTO and Regional Unions are based in the Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause. The real and verifiable name of the emerging global governance bureaucracy is called Communitarianism. The documentation to support this is all over the world now, and new publications such as this one appear online daily:
The European cooperation for development policies: between national interests and communitarian norms

Drd. Victor NEGRESCU1 is currently a PhD candidate at the National School of Political Science and Administration (SNSPA), with an MA in International and European Studies at IEP Grenoble and Pierre Mendes France University, and a member of the teaching staff of the Faculty of Political Science of the Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University. He is a member of FOND – National Federation of the NGOs for Development in Romania and member of several research working groups on development policies.

Abstract: In the context of the growing importance of the cooperation for development in the European Union and the appearance of a common growing public opinion agreement supporting this kind of initiatives, it is necessary to understand if we can talk today about a true common European policy. Still covered on intergovernmental level and considered to be a part of the national foreign policies, EU development aid is still far from reaching the maximum of its efficiency.

In this paper we try to introduce a new evaluation method of the cooperation for development policies and interpretation of the degree of communitarisation of the national policies that will enable us to appreciate the stages that have to be completed by the member countries but also by the EU to realize a completely uniform European assistance strategy and of the activities, so necessary for raising the efficiency of the funds allocated by the EU, but also in the perspective of achieving the Millennium Development Goals

Keywords: Developing countries, world economy, communitarisation, Europeanization, public opinion, international society.

http://stockholm.sgir.eu/uploads/The%20European%20cooperation%20for%20development%20policies%20-%20between%20national%20interests%20and%20communitarian%20norms.pdf

There are stages that have to be achieved before the next level of social evolution can be reached. Everyone who studies Marxism learns the basic formula for helping reluctant, unenlightened people to change like butterflies into the next stage.

The revolutionary process called dialectical materialism is the core foundation for Marxist thinking. Marx modified the Hegelian theory of dialectical idealism. Unlike Hegel's theory of ideals driving history, dialectical materialism is the idea that material conditions drive ideals, and more importantly, can influence human history. Marx proposed mankind embarks on an evolutionary series of MATERIAL conflicts between the classes, and the bloodier the battles, the better. Hegel provided the Big Idea that mankind achieves perfection when the state becomes God, and that the highest form of freedom is only achieved through complete submission to the state as God. Marx and Engels took the conflict further and made it a physical struggle as well.

Dialectical Idealism and Dialectical Materialism are the two main forces driving every 20th century and onward revolution on the planet. The part most conservatives refuse to accept as a possibility, is that without their support for the opposite theory of capitalism, communism could not exist as the force that it became. These theories of economic systems were designed to feed off each other's never ending natural breeding grounds for animosity, and it has the most potential to turn vague senses of wrongdoing into seething anger into violence. Both Hegel and Marx agreed violence is the best scenario for moving humanity toward its destiny.

Capitalism versus Communism is designed to be most effective when there are only two classes left, the poor and the rich. Naturally the American middle class has much to lose in this "final" battle between the top and bottom class. Recent history of Marxist inspired revolutionaries extends beyond Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, it includes capitalist funded imperialist puppets, like the Somoza family in pre-Sandinista Nicaragua. Neither "side" of the Capitalist versus Communist debate can claim perfection over the other. Both economic theories have contributed their share to global poverty and deaths in the millions. The Capitalist versus Communist conflicts are also a bit inconsistent. The United States sided with Stalin and still sides with Israel, a nation founded on an kabbalistic communitarian system called the kibbutz.

Our thesis is global communitarianism is the final stage that balances all of the conflicts. We pose that this is the final, unnamed system planned to unnaturally occur at the end of the dialectical conflicts of opposites game. Some schools still teach that both Marx and Engels were vague about what that final perfect middle between all opposite ideologies would be called, but in the U.S. patriot news communism is usually taught as the ultimate goal of Marxist revolutions.

If you follow the line of Marxist logic, communism cannot be the final synthesis of Ideas. The final perfect solution has to be a combination of the conflict between two previously posed ideas. It cannot be one or the other, because the final solution is totally Balanced and new. Even the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was only a phase toward ultimate harmonization of all people under one set of values and norms which requires no enforcement. Since there is a direct, ongoing dialectical conflict between capitalism and communism/socialism, then none of those ideologies can be the synthesis. Any one of the familiar theories that has existing opposition cannot be the final, perfect solution, according to the forumla for human social evolution.

Each new synthesis has to be identified as something that merged the thesis and the antithesis into a new Idea. Political synthesis can only be something that brings people from both sides to a middle compromise. Up until Communitarianism was introduced, the middle compromise has continued to become a new thesis with an established opposition camp. According to the theorists, the way we would know when we had reached the final stage of human social evolution was when there arose no opposition to the synthesis. Perfection is reached when nobody alive claims the most recent synthesis is imperfect. Communitarianism is the most recent synthesis, and so far, the only organized opposition is us. We are nobody lowborn commoners without titles of nobility or degrees. That basically means there's no opposition.

Our anticommunitarian argument is based on a few basic ideas:

1. Capitalism versus Communism, in a Hegelian/Marxist equation, equals Communitarianism. (Or Individualism versus Collectivism, Right versus Left, Republican versus Democrat, etc.)

Evidence for Communitarianism being the final Marxist/Capitalist solution between the two supposedly opposing "sides" exists in abundance. Our argument has, so far, proved incontrovertible. Our argument, our reasoning, and our version of the evolutionary history of Communitarianism have never once been disputed, nor have any of the documents we cite been proven to be fraudulent. We have, since 2003, openly solicited responses from Dr. Amitai Etzioni and his Network. We have also had our thesis introduced in graduate level classes where we offered to print anything the students wanted to write about it. We have never received any papers disputing us. Our ACL research website has had over a million visits, and over half of them have been to our thesis. If our poll and stats data can be trusted, we've had more than one school review board visit our Hegel page. I still feel this should qualify us for a nice fat grant and admission to a formal anticommunitarian studies program, but that offer is still forthcoming. :)

Back to the argument:

2. Communitarianism, a recent modification of the U.S. legal system, did not arise naturally from the people of the United States, it was never approved or adopted by the U.S. House (of directly elected) Representatives, or any directly elected state legislatures.

3. Anything that changes or modifies the constitutions of any states or the federal constitution, without full disclosure and full consent of the people who legally govern in this nation, is sedition against the authority of the legitimate rulers here, who are the American people. Sedition and treason are criminal offenses under US Code.

International environmental and trade associations, councils, and courts, established under WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, UN Local Agenda 21, and the Earth Charter, have never been officially explained to Amercians, nor have the provisions inserted into the above documents. New terms in American law that adopt the supremacy clause have never been approved by 3/4 majority of the state legislative bodies, as is required to revise the Constitution of the United States. (People call for a new Constitution all the time now, but it was already quietly invalidated by Communitarian supremacy under international agreements over 20 years ago!)

All dissent against the insane expansion of government power over private lives and national economies is funnelled into groups that play a role in the conflict or the pre-prepared solution. I have found more and more people from every side of the political and religious spectrum clamoring for a communitarian solution to the global economic crisis. From the Occupy movement to the Pope, to the leaders of many nations and major NGOs, they all repeat the same three things: Elimination of 1.Degradation of the environment, 2. Poverty, and 3. Social Equity.

Many agreements to reach these goals by specific dates already exist. Agenda 21 and sustainable development are just the tip of the iceberg. Related agreements like The Millennium Goals, and their significance to the radical legal and structural changes now happening to existing national systems, cannot be overemphasized. Remember what Victor said about the Millenium goals in his paper about Communitarian norms? Didn't he say, "In this paper we try to introduce a new evaluation method of the cooperation for development policies and interpretation of the degree of communitarisation of the national policies that will enable us to appreciate the stages that have to be completed by the member countries but also by the EU to realize a completely uniform European assistance strategy and of the activities, so necessary for raising the efficiency of the funds allocated by the EU, but also in the perspective of achieving the Millennium Development Goals"?

We're so lucky, because Victor told us the method.
He provided the link between sustainable development, human development, and communitarian norms. Notice Victor didn't write a paper about communist or socialist norms that would help in the perspective of acheiving the Millennium Goals.

What's Going On?

Environmental problems threaten human development progress, UN report says
<span class= The annual UNDP Human Development Report was released on 2 November. In the lead-up to Rio+20, the upcoming UN conference on sustainable development, this year’s edition entitled Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All focuses on the link between human development and environmental sustainability. The report calls for urgent action to slow climate change, prevent further degradation and reduce inequalities as environmental deterioration threatens to reverse recent progress in human development for the world’s poorest.

The emerging supranational system of global governance, or the New World Order (NWO) as many of our esteemed leaders prefer to call it, is based on a philosophy of law called communitarianism. It's basic, most simple concept is explained as the "balance" between too much liberty and too much servitude. It's a balance between unfettered anarcho capitalism with limited government intrusion, and state controlled collectivism with total government intrusion. It's the perfect middle, and it is being presented as the most reasonable compromise between all the forces gathering to fight the dialectical battles in the streets of America.

The global system has already been built that will replace all national governments. In Russia, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Africa, Israel and the EU, the ideology for the new system is well understood by officials. In South America and portions of Africa and the Middle East it's been used to rally the Indigenous people's support for global enforcement of protections of Human Rights and the Environment. Sustainable Development, one of the programs under Communitarianism, has been adopted not only by global to local governments but by most businesses as well.

Bolivia, leading the call for full Human rights for Mother Earth, modified their national constitution to openly embrace a new form of socialism called Communitarianism. The social evolution of humanity as planned is well into the advanced stages.

Many Americans say they are ready to fight, but armed struggle is a two edged sword for Americans. An armed rebellion or conflict within our national boundaries would be disastrous for anyone clinging to any sense of freedom. There are many new law enforcement agencies dedicated to preserving global communitarianism, and not only have our forces become militarized peacekeepers, the datagathering capabilities and interdepartmental sharing between Community Police around the globe continues to grow.

I still say we all need to ask for our COPS' "file."


We, as a nation, remain totally out of the loop when it comes to Communitarian integration of standards and norms, even as our nation adopts the laws that solidify our collective status in the international courts. So, why do so many people steer concerned citizens away from knowing what system the UN will activate after they "save the day?" All evidence suggest the UN expects us to beg for them to help change the world we live in. I didn't think we would. I was wrong.

Twelve years ago when I started my rants against communitarianism, nobody had heard of the term. Today more than some of our people are saying communitarianism is a much better way to live. The "masses" still believe in the dialectical lies, much the same way 20th century Russians and Germans did,. My studies have shown that historically, as well as today, the masses aren't always the 99%, until membership in the ruling party becomes mandatory.

Every former nation in the world has been subdued and forced to committing to the same efforts. The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't just about oil pipelines or poppies, it can't only be that, not when the primary result is their adoption of the global system for a sustainable planet.
21 November 2011 – The General Assembly called today on countries to reiterate and scale up their support for Afghanistan during its transition period, and outlined six major areas the country should focus on to ensure its long-term stability and progress.

In a resolution adopted unanimously this morning, the Assembly called for increased efforts in the areas of security, justice and governance, social and economic development, reconciliation and integration, regional cooperation and strategic partnerships. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40472&Cr=afghanistan&Cr1=

The only thing that leads us to finding Communitarian Law is a familiarity with the term communitarianism. There exists no confirmable source for "communist law" or "socialist law" in any of the important global governance documents (although it does exist in some national documents that cede communitarian law is supreme). The name of the law of integration, and of the principles for which it stands, is Communitarian Law, also known as Community Law.

The principles for supremacy are defined as Communitarian. Capitalism, communism, socialism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, anarchism, fascism etc are not nor have they ever been globally supreme. They were all only stages in the dialectic. Much like the movie Alien with Sigorney Weaver, our familiar political and economic systems are all brothers and sisters working to protect and eventually crown their Big Mother Sucker, Communitarianism.

If we can't see the most powerful enemy to ever invade our lands and our homes, how can we possibly come up with ways to kill (or at least table) it? We don't even know what we're up against. It's so confusing, we need lawyers to study the laws from a constitutional perspective. We need local politicans who are aware and on the lookout for the terms inserted into proposed legislation. But the term Community isn't being taught alongside Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 by the leaders of the pro freedom opposition. Locals aren't being taught the one thing that could be the basis for the biggest class action lawsuit in the history of American civil courts.

Many of the communitarians operate in our neighborhoods as both concerned citizens and government paid agents. This is a glitch in the system, according to my unlawyerly observations, and even though we failed miserably in our Dawson lawsuit, I still think it's an avenue worth pursuing if you go after the actual terms inserted in legal documents. I was once told by a Washington State Supreme Court Justice that he could not rule on anything that didn't come before his court. Dawson never made it to the State Appelate Court, it was bumped up to federal because we cited federal statutes, and a Clinton appointee ruled in favor of the federal community police. Maybe if we'd only cite state laws in our filings we could keep the cases at the level where we have the most power to pack the courtrooms with our neighbors and our local media, and in some states, take our cases before justices who are directly elected by us.

Citizens across America have been subjected to communitarian laws, penalized for violating communitarian laws, and lost their property under communitarian takings. The basis for all these new laws that "balance individual rights against the rights of the community," or the collective, the Common Good or Mother Earth, is the Communitarian philosophy of law. And yes, the neo global ideology has a soft side and a more muscular side.

As our most revered Communitarian guru wrote on his blog in on January 08, 2010:

Now: Muscular Communitarianism

The time for muscular communitarianism has come. In his second year, President Obama best reveal that his communitarianism is not powerless, but indeed has muscles of its own, although these have so far been rarely exercised.

The president has gone the extra mile to show that he is willing to talk, consult, and collaborate with allies and foes alike -- foreign and domestic. Nor has this form of kumbaya communitarianism been without results. Russia and China are supporting sanctions against Iran. The fever of anti-Americanism overseas has subsided some.

But, all said and done, Obama's soft communitarianism has yielded relatively little. Iran continues to thumb its nose at his solicitations; the GOP is mocking it; and the business elites are paying out their bonuses using taxpayer dollars, as if Obama never railed against them. Obama can maintain his positive posture, continue to refuse to hector nations whose regimes are different from ours, and even keep extending an olive branch to the business elites. But he would be much more effective if he would show that communities whose norms and leaders are ignored can twist the arms of, even give a kick in the pants to, those who refuse to collaborate. http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2010/01/now-muscular-communitarianism.html
One more time, because it's well worth repeatng:
.. he [Obama] would be much more effective if he would show that communities whose norms and leaders are ignored can twist the arms of, even give a kick in the pants to, those who refuse to collaborate.
To a communitarian thinker, especially an Israeli commando who fought as a terorist for Israeli independence, nuking Iranian civilians may be little more than a swift kick in the pants. To the rest of the thinking world, it's more like an explosion that blows uncollaborating pants into tiny pieces. Remember, in Orwellian doublespeak, war means peace. And nobody speaks doublespeak better than Amitai Etzioni, the Tree of Knowledge from Zion.

A well known intellectual on social policy who first rose to prominence in the 1970s, Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at George Washington University and founding director of the Institute for Communitarian Studies.[1]

Although best known for his work and theories on sociology and domestic policy, Etzioni has, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, become an increasingly strident—if often idiosyncratic—proponent of military solutions to U.S. foreign policy problems, in particular those dealing with Israeli security. (For more on Etzioni’s history and ideas, see Marsha B. Cohen, “Muscular Nonrationality: Amitai Etzioni and War with Iran,” Right Web, July 21, 2010.)

An illustrative example of Etzioni’s militarist views is his May 2010 article for the U.S. Army’s Military Review titled “Can a Nuclear-Armed Iran Be Deterred?” In the article, Etzioni claims that once armed with nuclear weapons Iran will be impervious to nuclear deterrence and thus, the United States should bomb the country to derail its nuclear program. He contends that a concerted bombing campaign targeting civilian infrastructure—including “bridges, railroad stations, and other such assets, just the way the U.S. did in Germany and Japan in World War II”—is the only way to dissuade Iran from attempting to develop nuclear weapons.[2]

Because the objective of such attacks on non-nuclear targets would be causing pain to the entire Iranian population, “it matters not if one misses some,” Etzioni said. He even proposes that the strikes be carried out at night, and with “proper warning,” in order to minimize civilian casualties.[3]

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/etzioni_amitai

Etzioni didn't found the Communist Network. He didn't found the Socialist Network. Etzioni founded the Communitarian Network, an advisory organization that came to the United States to "shore up the moral, social and political environment." Our laws against premeditated murder of civillians is considered an immoral barrier to global communitarian wars. Our laws may be the only thing left on the planet that can stop the final horror in its tracks. We'll never know for sure unless we try. There just have to be other ideas that haven't been thought of yet.

But first we'd have to stop fighting each other and turn our wrath toward our common enemy. We'd have to stop furthering the phony dialectical conflict between rich and poor and not allow ourselves to be swayed anymore into helping to hasten our own defeat. We'd have to put all America first to find a way to come together to ward off the creeping invasion. We'd have to find a way to respect our many differences, because it's that lack of honor among men that's costing us our freedom, our lives and the lives of countless innocents around the globe. The more hate we promote toward our countrymen and other nations and religions, the more we fuel the communitarian bonfire. Our nation is one big spark ready to blow. I'm gonna pray for rain.

9 comments:

Sean said...

Niki,

I've said for years:

The only way to prevent World War III is to refuse to fight.

But we rarely refuse to fight. We disagree. We cling to our long-founded beliefs. We are sure we are right... And we argue to the point of exhaustion and anger to convince the 'other guy' just how wrong and stupid he is.


I love this article. It is a highly refined version of what you've been saying all along. It's concise. It's referenced with solid links.

And few if any will read it because they don't know to care.

They might care... But no one has told them why they should care.

In your article you give proof and a reason why. A reason why we should care. A reason why we should stop supporting the old paradigm. A reason why we should attempt class action civil suits and keep them at a state(s) level.

You are a beautiful voice in the wilderness: quite literally.

A forlorn song. But a heartfelt ballad nonetheless.

Tools For English said...

Cool there is actually some good points on this post some of my friends might find this relevant, will send them a link, many thanks...

tools for english

Anonymous said...

The best way of defeating the Communist agenda is by pointing out that the Capitalism that we now live under is an aberration and nothing like what the Founders wanted for us.

Several of the Founding Fathers specifically warned us about that which we now face! Why struggle to invent a new game plan when they already had it all worked out? Unless y'all think you're smarter than the Founders...? ;)

Destroy the Federal Reserve (and tell the owners to go fuck themselves on the odious debt that they've tried to bury us under!) and nationalize the entire banking industry...exactly as the Founders intended it to be. Eliminate usury and the citizenry will prosper beyond anything they've ever known in the past 200 years!

No big mystery here...just take the advice of the geniuses who founded this nation and every thing will be set right.

Kittii Doherty said...

I just wanted to share some links that are connected with this subject and I saw your name posted in one of them. I guess one link will lead to another and somehow I stumbled on to yours.

http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/What-is-the-church-growth-movement.html

http://fanaticforjesus.blogspot.com/2011/11/common-purpose-third-way.html

http://news4themasses.wordpress.com/purpose-driven-warning-signs/#comment-963

http://www.henrymakow.com/global_tyranny_moving_forward.html

http://www.henrymakow.com/occupy_wall_street_is_cointelp.html

Anonymous said...

Niki,
I'm thinking of you today on this 12th anniversary of the WTO. Love you,
Sue

Markoff said...

Hi, Nikki. :)

Loved the Alien analogy!


Ripley: "Communitarianism? I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."


Thought I would draw your attention to this, if you haven't seen it already:

The State of the World’s Volunteerism Report

The very first State of the World’s Volunteerism Report (SWVR) by the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme will be launched on 5 December 2011 in many countries around the world.

The Report is expected to enhance recognition, facilitation, networking and promotion of volunteerism worldwide. It will also increase recognition of the critical role of UNV as an organization that sets standards in peace and development, as well as in volunteerism, in the United Nations system.

The SWVR promotes a better understanding of volunteerism. It demonstrates the universality, scope and reach of volunteerism along with new trends in the twenty-first century. The report examines important contributions in diverse fields such as sustainable livelihoods, social inclusion, social cohesion, disaster risk reduction, governance and political participation. By suggesting how volunteerism can be taken forward, the SWVR also provides an alternative vision of a better society. The State of the World’s Volunteerism Report shows that, in most societies around the world, volunteers make significant contributions to economic and social development. Through their voluntary actions, millions of people are contributing to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

http://www.unv.org/en/swvr2011.html


Tootle pip! Keep writing. Stay warm.

Anonymous said...

To implement Communitarianism in the United States, the protections to our individual liberties that are enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights had to be weakened. The terrorist attacks of 9-11 were organized as a deliberate false flag operation for this very purpose.

Mark Miller said...

I have liked Britain's former prime minister Tony Blair, who I understand believes in communitarianism, mainly because he's articulate, and appeared to have a clear vision, though I've heard plenty of complaints from Brits about him being wishy-washy. I learned about his communitarianism from reading an article in The Atlantic about him. If I remember correctly, he wanted to encourage development internationally to prevent islamists from finding safe havens. I like the idea of weakening islamists, and it's my understanding that their terrorist networks need safe havens in failed/weakened states to develop and strike against its enemies. So I think Blair has a point. However, reading what you say about communitarianism has given me a great deal of pause, for I do not want to lose our constitutional republic.

I don't yet understand, though, why you say capitalism is a catalyst in this transformation towards communitarianism. I am coming to understand that communitarianism is a fusion between capitalism and socialism. If we leave aside that fusion, to me, capitalism is someone wanting to start an enterprise with investors in a for-profit business. That's it. I don't see how that in itself is part of the problem. It's how we've achieved our standard of living. You've said that we do not want to continue the dialectic of capitalism vs. socialism/communism. Capitalism is the only economic philosophy that most freedom lovers know. If that should not be encouraged, then what philosophy should our economy operate under?

I'm curious to hear your response.

Mark Miller said...

After thinking about what you've said, and reading more of your writing, the idea that's forming in my mind is that communitarianism has some elements that are familiar to fascism. The exceptions are that rather than individual rights being subsumed to the nation state, they are subsumed to the "community"--a local authority. It also has some trappings of democratic participation, which are fake, but it seems it's used to "calm the natives," removing resistance by convincing them that they've been included in the decision making about the rules that will be imposed upon them.

In what I've read of what you've said so far, you seem to say that communitarianism is "the final synthesis." I don't get that sense about it. Based on your description, I think the Affordable Care Act of 2010 could be described as a communitarian version of health insurance "reform." I live in a progressive city, and the people here were calling for single-payer in 2010. They didn't complain that loudly about the ACA here, but I heard about progressives elsewhere who grumbled about it. Rep. Obey told a crowd that it was a "starter home" on health care reform. It's not what they wanted. My sense of it is they're going to press for single-payer again eventually. According to some conservatives, the ACA is designed to fail eventually, at which point the progressives will offer single-payer as the only solution, which from what I understand of it won't be communitarian, but socialistic, at least in the insurance realm, which will in effect act as a fascist force on the medical profession.

Secondly, I hear about how many Democrats are disappointed in Obama because he didn't press their agenda hard enough. So it sounds to me there are quite a few people who are still complaining. So by the dialectic model you describe, "We're not done yet."