Friday, December 13, 2013

Behind the Green Mask of Rosa Koire

Behind the Green Mask of Rosa Koire
by Niki Raapana with Nordica Friedrich
Anti Communitarian League
Friday, December 13, 2013

Silent coup, holy coup, all are tricked, all are duped,
Round Green Virgin kills mother and child,
Holy infanticide, death with a smile,
Die in heavenly peace, die so the planet can breathe.

Just as Jesus was born on a silent night, Communitarianism was born of a silent coup. But now, after centuries of quiet obscurity, Communitarians are popping up everywhere! They too have risen!

Communitarianism is the miracle ideology! It's the New World Religion. It's the New World Justice. It's the New World Constitution. It's the New World Policing. It's the New Human Rights. It's Big Mother! Everyone loves it. How can we not? Gosh golly, even the Pope said Communitarianism is God's plan.

Communitarianism, according to the Communitarians, is the final, perfect stage of human social evolution. Anyone who does not embrace the Communitarian Goddess is an unevolved heretic.

Thirteen years ago when the Anti Communitarian League was first formed, most people we told about it had never heard the word Communitarianism used once in their lives. It appeared in so few dictionaries or encyclopedias published prior to 1980, some people actually accused us of making the word Communitarian up! It was so obscure it also didn't seem very important to anyone. People figured if it wasn't important enough to be on the news, then why should they even care about it? It may not be recognized by facebook yet, but the word is finally going mainstream. Now it's explaining what the word means and why we oppose it that's the biggest challenge we face, especially the way it's coming out.

We are convinced Communitarianism is an emerging religious law that can have no logical opposition. If it is allowed to continue manifesting without any barriers to its growing power, everyone will soon learn that to deny the perfection of Communitarianism is akin to denying the perfection of God. Our main purpose in gathering so much research and writing so many papers, articles, and our two books over the past ten years, was to expose what we stumbled upon while researching what happened to us when the City of Seattle used our neighborhood as a pilot test for Communitarian Law in 1999.

We identified Communitarianism as the Philosophy behind the new law in March 2000. We found the theory so repugnant we risked life, liberty and happiness to expose the new legal system as a fraud. We endured years of ridicule, semi-starvation and the loss of the love and respect of family and friends. For some stupid reason, we always assumed when it finally came out in the open, we'd be validated.

Today the word is used more and more as if it's always been part of the American language. Did ya know? Jesus Christ was a Communitarian. The American Revolution was a Communitarian Revolution. The U.S. Bill of Rights was written as a Communitarian clause. America is coming together as Communitarians, because Communitarianism has always been a part of everything.

We're hearing the word used frequently, and only as a “good thing” by activists, Catholics, Conservatives, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Pagans and even atheists. We saw the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Zeitgeist and Thrive Movements all come out as Communitarians. Community gardens, neighborhood bbqs, people helping people... it's all now identified as Communitarian.

It's really been amazing to witness it. Writers suddenly throw the word out as if they've always used it and everyone should know it's a “good thing” (some of the same ones who told us we made it up ten years ago!). We're watching Tea Party politicians move to the Communitarian middle (Sen Mike Lee, UT). We're witnessing national constitutions being rewritten as Communitarian (Bolivia, Scotland).

Everything we wrote about Communitarianism since 2000 is happening openly today. But, so far we haven't received one apology from one person we know who mocked us for our research. Our family and friends haven't forgiven us (or themselves). Nobody has nominated us for a PhD or Pulitzer in Investigative Journalism, either (hahahaha, as if). We still haven't been officially recognized for creating an entirely new school of philosophical thought because, under the dialectical theory, there can never BE any scientific argument opposing the final, perfect synthesis of all other theories.

Just in case you were wondering, ours is the only existing reasoned opposition. Why? Not because Communitarianism is so perfect it cannot be scientifically thrashed. It can. That part is almost easy. It is simply forbidden to speak of it as if it isn't a valid, final, dialectical argument against individualism. We broke the silent rule all dysfunctional families know; we identified the elephant in the living room.

Our academic thesis has no proper place in academia. Not even upper academia is allowed to study or explore all sides of Communitarianism. Communitarian controlled academia preaches one side of Communitarianism only. Same thing with politics. There is no Anti Communitarian Party. There has never been one U.S. Political party with the courage to identify Communitarianism as a life threatening ideology. Our antithesis will never become part of the American political debate. There is none.

Communitarianism is spreading like wildfire across the planet, but only a very narrow, controlled view of it is allowed to be discussed. Anti Communitarianism, the way we define it, can never be recognized as valid, even though it is more valid than the theory it opposes. Anti Communitarianism is actually very simple to understand, because it's a clear argument against an unclear declaration of perfection.

We showed, with a properly laid out antithesis, the Communitarian premise of their own perfection is based in nothing. Communitarians cannot prove it to be the superior theory or the superior law. There is no evidence to support Communitarian claims of being chosen by God himself to deliver the message of Communitarian harmony and peace to humanity, so they can never allow for opposition arguments, especially one that proves it to be a total scam (what the Anti Communitarian Manifesto does!).

What we are seeing now is the word being introduced in thousands of places, in hundreds of different ways. It's cunningly introduced as a soft, fuzzy, milky ideology all the way to “basically communism,” or, as in Scotland, as the greatest thing to come down from Heaven since God gave Moses the “law.”

In December 2002, we co-published our now infamous paper called, What is the Hegelian dialectic? In March 2003, we co-published Part II, The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking. We later named both parts The Anti Communitarian Manifesto. Written to college standards, we stated our premise and showed how we arrived at our conclusion that Communitarianism is the final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. We provided solid evidence to support our argument, and we included the guru of the Communitarian movement, the Israeli Dr. Amitai Etzioni, in our antithesis. We devoted years to uncovering Etzioni's major role in the “quiet revolution.” Our research shows ample, verifiable and conclusive evidence of Etzioni's position in the entire global Communitarian coup.

A decade later, Big Mother arises like a Phoenix on the ashes of the 20th century. Yet people around the world are still forbidden to ask any of the important questions about their global governance system. The elephant is so huge it's stomping on everyone, everywhere, and we still can't talk about it!

The ancient, secret, oral, religious, legal theory behind Communitarianism must remain a taboo topic. Talmudic Law mixed with Cabala can never be identified as the eugenicist mystery school driving supranational global Communitarian Law. The truth about the “Tree of Life from Zion” must remain concealed. Opposition to Amitai Etzioni must be ignored, shut down, or co-opted. Shhhhhh.

In places already completely subservient to Etzioni under the Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause, as in the EU, there can be no public discussion of the root philosophy, lies, or false concepts that make up the Communitarian legal theory. Thank goodness we are American writers. In our nation, the Right to Freedom of Speech is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Lies that negatively affect the general welfare of our citizens are not protected by law in our “free” country.

Nothing we wrote is unsubstantiated. Nothing we wrote has even been proved to be unverifiable. We showed exactly how the fake capitalist versus communist dialectic was designed to lead directly to the Communitarian synthesis. We showed the foundation for dialectical solutions comes directly from the Talmud and the Cabala. We showed exactly how we found UN Agenda 21 Programme for Sustainable Development fits under the global governance model called Communitarianism.

The United States is quietly replacing the U.S. Constitution with Communitarian Law. Completely ignored by Western journalists, barely mentioned by political “experts,” and never once appearing openly on a ballot, a complicit, silent media (including the alternative media) ensures the deadly transformation of American jurisprudence is a great success! The only thing left to do now is mop up a few loose ends and eliminate any traces of opposition, mainly the Anti Communitarian Manifesto.

We are the only reasoned line of defense between local free people and global Communitarian Law. Our Anti Communitarian research is so solid no one has seriously attempted to show how we are wrong in our conclusion. The best the opposition could manage in response to our thesis was to sneer, deny, bury, mock, change the subject, and ignore us. But now, after over a million people have read our original antithesis, after thousands of people now know, from us, more about Communitarianism and Zionism than anybody is supposed to know, our enemies resort to a hideous deception.

Behind the Green Mask of Rosa Koire
Leading the latest wave of American opposition to UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is a California Democrat named Rosa Koire. Rosa promotes herself as an expert. Expert in what? UN Agenda 21? Sustainability? Most certainly. She knows as much about the UN Agenda 21 plan as her expert teachers at the John Birch Society do. There's no doubt newcomers learn a lot from her. Rosa knows exactly how the plan works to take American's private property.

Rosa Koire read our original works on Communitarianism in 2010 and emailed me to tell me it was “excellent.” She re-named her 501(c)(4) the Post Sustainability Institute and defined Post-sustainability as “the condition of environmental, political, social, and economic systems after the imposition of Communitarianism.” (Notice it does not say “law”.)

The PSI mission declares the PSI is a “non-partisan, non-governmental think tank established to study the impacts UN Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development and Communitarianism have on liberty, by tracking the progression of the Sustainability movement and forecasting likely outcomes.” The PSI mission says Communitarianism is the “dominant form of world governance.”

At a glance it all sounds great, and even I was kind of okay with the PSI mission, at first. But the truth is, the ACL is the only place in the world that published any scientific, theoretical research about LA21 being part of global Communitarian governance. Besides our long research topic page on Agenda 21 and Communitarianism, first published at the ACL website in 2003, the ACL published the original and only existing reasoned antithesis to Philosophical Communitarianism. Where are the papers produced by Rosa Koire's PSI think tank? They don't exist. The PSI “think tank” has never published one original scientific study on Communitarianism showing it as the foundation for LA21.

Rosa published her book about the plan, Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21, in 2011. The first two lines of her book are “The arm of UN Agenda 21 is long and reaches into every area of the world. The Philosophy of Communitarianism pervades this plan.”

Again, there is no direct citation for Rosa's opening statement about Communitarianism pervading the plan. She states it without ANY attribution or showing how she arrived at this original conclusion. She shows no valid scientific path she took or where she even got her idea. She cannot defend it. She simply announces the Philosophy of Communitarianism is behind Agenda 21 like she decided that was what it is with magic. Rosa cunningly states our copyrighted antithesis to Communitarianism over and over, as if it requires no direct attribution and no clear citation of her source.

I called it robbery when I finally read her book earlier this year. Rosa defended her stealing it on my blog by saying our copyrighted, original antithesis belongs to the “public domain.” As she is a “forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation,” Rosa made her personal fortune off the government's “right” to TAKE private property for the public good. Now she is making money off our intellectual property, our copyrighted, private property, protected by law under the U.S. Constitution, because she decided it was necessary to TAKE it from us for the public good. Rosa seems to think her “twenty-eight year career as an expert witness on land use and property values” gives her some extra special legal insight into what constitutes the value of our intellectual property.

At first I was honored to be recognized by someone of her caliber for all the published work we have put out. After Rosa emailed me it quickly moved to voice, with us chatting it up, sharing stories and gossip. I had the impression we were going to become friends. I told her I was exhausted, sick, losing teeth and steam after our decade of intense research and writing on Anti Communitarianism. I was camping year round in Alaska (still am) and barely scraping by. Sales of our books were slow, not enough to even keep simple food on our table, so I was ready to do whatever she asked of me in hopes it would increase ACL Book sales. When she linked to the ACL and said I was a member of PSI Board of Directors, I really thought the ACL finally had a strong ally. Except... I did notice how she used our original thesis in her PSI mission without attributing it to us anywhere in her mission statement.

So, it shouldn't have been such a shock to finally learn in 2013 that for the first 107 pages of her book she used the term Communitarianism repeatedly to back up her Anti UN Agenda 21 position, without once citing the ACL as her source for the connection between the two. When she finally does mention me, just me and NOT my co-author Nordica Friedrich, it's as if I'm just someone who taught her about the Hegelian dialectic, because I'm the world's “foremost critic” of Communitarianism.

On page 108, Rosa says, “I learned about the Hegelian Dialectic from Niki Raapana, the world's foremost critic of Communitarianism. Her book, 2020: Our Common Destiny, is an excellent analysis of the supranational movement of Sustainable Development. The Hegelian Dialectic is the philosophical basis for Communitarianism. The idea is that true freedom only comes through slavery to the state because then all free will is relinquished to a higher order (government).”

Is it clear to Rosa's readers at this point that, “The Hegelian Dialectic is the philosophical basis for Communitarianism” is our original thesis, or that everything they read about Communitarianism for the last 107 pages of her book was just an unattributed rip off of our original works? I seriously doubt it.

There are two co-founders of the ACL, two authors of What is the Hegelian dialectic?, two contributors to 2020: Our Common Destiny, and, 2020: Our Common Destiny is NOT about the Hegelian dialectic.

Rosa Koire knows how to speak up at meetings and flyer neighborhoods, but she is not capable of writing a whole new philosophical school of thought, as we did with our Anti Communitarian Manifesto. Her misleading and absolutely wrong explanation of communitarianism, using watered down milk, is so unbelievably stupid, I wonder why she bothered to try to “explain” it at all.

Why did Rosa start out in her opening paragraph denying the existence of Communitarian Law, EU Communitarian Case Law and the acquis communitaire, Communitarian Harmonization and Norms, the Earth Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Communitarian Constitution of Bolivia, the International Court's Communitarian case against Pinochet, and other existing legal documents with: “Communitarianism 'balances' the rights of the individual. Because the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution they can change without warning or notice; one's individual rights are balanced against a continuously amorphous rulebook.” We'll come back to this later.

Why didn't Rosa cite us as the source for the additional ABCD research she ads to her personal story of Jim Diers on pages 128 to 132, especially when she says “This is Communitarianism.” on page 130?
She refers to Seattle (where we learned about ABCD in 2000), ties it all to “mapping community assets” (Chapter Three in 2020), and almost verbatim quotes my 2005 One Nation Under Siege video interview where I describe the 11 page ABCD questionnaire. She refers her readers to the copy of it posted at her website and neglects to mention we have an entire chapter devoted to it. She got most of what she writes about ABCD and mapping from us. We exposed the Obama's training in ABCD. We devoted Chapter 4 of 2020 to the GIS and Mandatory Volunteerism. Reading Rosa Koire's book, there is no indication that she “borrowed” so heavily from two author's copyrighted works.

Exactly like we did in our book 2020, Rosa begins her book “teaching” Communitarianism. Then she tells the story of two womens' local resistance to the plan, and how they found UN Agenda 21. Except for our Big Mother's Double Tongued Dictionary and international contributors, Rosa ends her book exactly like we did too! Is it worth noting here that it was Nordica Friedrich who laid out the entire format for TACM and 2020, Nordica who made it a “story of how two women followed a paper trail from their lowly Seattle neighborhood to the elite boardrooms of the United Nations?”

Did removing Nordica's name and private property ownership from ALL our published works make it easier for Rosa to steal it because she wasn't stealing food directly from Nordica's babies' mouths? What WAS the point of her doing that? It just doesn't make any sense. Did she take Nordica's name off everything we published because Talmudic Law requires “two witnesses” to report a crime?

According to Property Rights expert Rosa Koire, Intellectual Property, U.S. copyright claimed by poor authors like us who can show over a decade of original, published work, can't be controlled by the minds that actually created it and copyrighted it. It's simply not ours anymore! Why does Rosa think our intellectual property belongs to her and the public domain? Well, our original, hard work is just so important we don't get to own it. Is that a decision she made based on Talmudic Law?

There is one major difference between our stories. We gave up everything to do our research, we went broke to sue the City of Seattle, to build our massive website with over 10,000 exit links to direct sources, and to write our books. Rosa boasts of her fund raising skills and tells readers about how her neighbors jumped out of their seats to write checks so that she could sue her city. Rosa Koire raised half a million dollars for her lawsuit (and she's doing it again now). We never raised a dime.

We were just defending principles in Dawson v Seattle, not principal, so we had no great outpouring of support. We were not defending our own land, so we had zero interest from other concerned land owners. We were just poor tenants. No business leaders were on our side. We didn't have homeowners on our side. (What about the ACLU? That's another joke on Americans.) Nobody cared then, or cares now, if renters have privacy rights or not. There wasn't one group in the nation willing to help us fight the Israeli Community Policing innovative new home invasion strategies. There still isn't one.

Rosa writes on page 31: “Familiarize yourself with Communitarianism. It's the political philosophy behind all of this. It states the individual's rights are a threat to the global community.” {emphasis added} “It” doesn't state that! Who is “it”? Are we an “it”? We, Nordica Friedrich and Niki Raapana, are human beings. We stated it, yes we did, that is part of our Anti Communitarian legal analysis.

Rosa Koire's rise to the front of the Anti Agenda 21 “movement” was accomplished by promotions of her by Property Rights groups like the Eagle Forum, Tea Party, John Birch Society, Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates, and somebody she calls “Mr. X.” We were never promoted by any of these groups, except for a short time in 2008 when Michael Shaw began citing our work and his wife sent us a few sweet donations. This ended abruptly when Shaw changed his mind and began promoting the “Permanent Revolution” work of Terry Hayfield (JBS), an online wacko who had been stalking Nordica and I in internet forums and emails with a crew that all had names from the Wizard of Oz. Patrick Woods, editor of the August Review, and his son Jason can testify to that bizarre scene.

Michael Shaw dropped the word Communitarianism from his Anti Agenda 21 lectures in 2009. He began calling it “tyranny.” We never got any explanation of why he did that. Tyranny? Rosa told me Michael Shaw's father is the one who designed her vaguely familiar book cover, but who is the real author of the outrageous claim in Rosa's book that Zionism has nothing to do with UN Agenda 21 because Israel is a just a nationalist, tiny country! Not even Rosa Koire is that brazen, is she?

Why would Rosa Koire lie so boldly as if nobody would notice her big lies? The path to answers starts by looking at the missions of leading Right Wing “free enterprise” capitalists. We see they almost all promote a “return” to Biblical Law and Christian values. They don't just mean the Ten Commandments, they mean Talmudic Law. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Bush II insisted the oral, mystical Talmud is the actual basis for the entire American justice system in 2002. The big lie goes unchecked.

The truth is, the deadly, silent global Communitarian coup is almost complete, and the last thing the
Communitarians need is for anyone to understand what Communitarian Law is before it's a done deal.

Why does Zionist Glenn Beck promote Koire's plagiarized, milky version of our work, and not ACL Books? Why does the Tea Party patriot movement promote Rosa Koire's milk and lies alongside the John Birch Society, and not ACL Books? Why do the Libertarians, the Ron/Rand Paul Right, Rockwell, von Mises, Tom Woods etc. continue to ignore or barely name the most important economic topic of the twenty-first century? Ever heard of a Conservative Communitarian? Libertarian Communitarian?

Why, it's such an amazingly perfect synthesis there's even Anarcho Communitarians now. The Third Way synthesis merges all political ideologies and religions under Communitarianism. It's not a murky combination of milk and water as Rosa teaches. It's a murky combination of politics and mysticism. All sides play a role. Rosa has obviously learned her far right Christian Zionist pals play theirs expertly.

Our 2003 ACL mission statement is very clear that we do not endorse any race, religion or culture that claims to be superior to everyone else. Nordica often describes 2020 as “our treatise against racism.”
2020: Our Common Destiny shares our conscript experience alongside evidence of U.S. Community Police training in Israel, called “the Harvard of Anti Terrorism.” The ACL provides an abundance of evidence of Etzioni's commitment to Militant Zionism, and it's all taken from his own published works.

Rosa calls identification of the role of Zionism part of “the dialectic.” This is an utter twisting of our original thesis that the Hegelian dialectical formula leads to Communitarianism. How is it possible to remove the Zionist father of Communitarianism from any expose of dialectical Communitarianism?

The Zionist father of Communitarianism has not only written over 30 books about the need to rebuild America into a Communitarian society, his plan for a More Muscular U.S. Foreign Policy is cited in Daily Pentagon Briefings. In the world of Communitarian deceptions, any outrageous lie is possible.

What is global Communitarianism without Etzioni, Zionism or Talmudic Law? Watered down milk.

Rosa's real reason for stealing all our ACL research and misleading readers into thinking it is all hers is stated clearly by her on the top of page 31, “Calling it a Zionist plot is absurd considering that Zionism is a nationalist movement that is completely opposed to the dissolution of boundaries.”

This reference Rosa made to Zionism was her perfect opportunity to show her readers her commitment to the whole truth, to full disclosure of the global governance plan, by sharing all known facts with her readers. Doesn't she trust her readers with all the facts? Why wasn't it important enough for Rosa to mention at this point, or at any point in her book when she said “Communitarianism,” that a lifelong Zionist, an Israeli soldier adept in Cabala, whose name means he's the “tree from Zion,” introduced the world to Communitarianism, and maybe that's why some people might call it a Zionist plot? But of course Rosa makes sure we get a geography lesson designed to lessen the reality of Israeli influence based on its size: “(Israel is about the size of Vancouver Island and slightly larger than New Jersey.)”

Facts are just facts. It's impossible to deny Zionism is also a spiritual commitment to Israel made by millions of Christians, worldwide, mainly as a result of the new Schofield Reference Bible saying any Christian who doesn't support Israel will go to Hell. Never mind that millions of American non-Zionist taxpayers are forced to support Zionism to the tune of trillions. Zionism is a lot more than a little nationalist movement, and Rosa Koire is very cunningly deceptive when she tries to bury some facts.

How is it possible to say such an idiotic thing when she's surrounded and paid very well to speak by so many middle class American Christian Zionists? Besides the Irgun family legacy assigned to Obama, Dr. Amitai Etzioni and other notable “dual” citizens in positions of American power and influence, besides the obvious American Jewish support for Israel, there are millions of Christian Zionists in the USA. There are more Zionists in America than there are in Israel. Rosa Koire doesn't know that?

Rosa writes on page 31, “Another reason why you may not have heard of UN Agenda 21 before is because opposition is often conflated with anti-Semitism.” The accusation of racism against Jews is a familiar tactic used whenever anyone even barely mentions Zionism in a political science paper, but this is the first time I have ever heard this! Opposition to Agenda 21 was always controlled by Zionist Christians who refused to link to our research because they said we were “anti-Semitic.”

We think this slur is entirely unfounded, considering the factual reality that many Jews worldwide are ANTI Zionist, just as we are. Zionism is NOT a race of people. It's not even a religion, it's a political ideology, and there's a lot of traditional, Biblical Jews in the world who not only disagree with it, they vehemently oppose it. Jews who oppose political Zionism are sneered at by the Zionists and called “self-hating Jews.” If we have to be labeled as haters because we oppose Zionism, it would be more appropriate to call us “self-hating Americans.”

I suppose Rosa's readers don't need to know their holy Zionist Communitarian guru Etzioni was financed entirely by another globe trotting Zionist named George Soros, either. Rosa wants her readers in the dark forever. She ridicules any of her readers who may ask pertinent questions about Zionism. Is Rosa Koire a professional Zionist propagandist as well as an expert in public domain takings?

So much for her PSI claim to be “non-partisan!”

The extremely partisan Zionist “resistance” to LA21 has been trying to shut us up for a long time. They tried so many different tactics to get us to stop using the word Communitarianism, maybe someday I'll write them all down. But wow, I gotta say now that having someone steal our work and revise it to fit the politically active Zionist's need for complete impunity... that's a first.

Zionists are not the least bit interested in exposing any facts that point to their influential role in furthering Communitarianism, and will shut down any writer who does. We've been working on the fringe of the Anti Agenda 21 arena for 13 years. I say fringe because our work was outright rejected by the Anti Agenda 21 leaders, because we include the taboo subjects of capitalism, Zionism, Talmudic Law, and Etzioni in our research. All we had to do to be “successful” was to shut up about the law.

I was censored by newswithviews for naming the Judaic Law Institute. We've been stalked online and personally visited by Zionists for 12 years now. It's not always the same method but it always ends at the same place; we get told to back off. Sometimes our visitors are very friendly folks. In 2009, a U.S. Army Pentagon analyst and his wife came all the way to Kenny Lake, Alaska to tell me to, “back off on the Mossad.” I told Sgt Brian Bloomquist to go back to DC and put Etzioni's name in his DoD Known Terrorist database, and then to tell the Pentagon to send me a check for doing their job.

Ten years ago, Etzioni's office staff claimed in an online public forum that we said Communitarianism was a Zionist plot. (One Etzioni assistant, Erin Riska, confirmed some of our Etzioni research that was speculation at the time we wrote it.) So, yes, we have heard ACL research is taboo before, but the first time I heard Agenda 21 called a Zionist plot is when Rosa Koire took her place on the national stage.

Our rights to privacy and self-determination were “balanced” because U.S. COPS are taught in Israel that we have “too many rights in this country.” National opposition to UN Agenda 21 wouldn't even begin until almost a decade after we were the pilot test for Etzioni's SWAT home inspections.

Rosa, who entered the arena almost two decades after UN Agenda 21 was adopted at Rio, mentions all the programs we wrote about. She knows Community Policing was a topic page at the ACL since 2003, it's the title of Chapter Two in 2020, but she never refers to us, our research, or our story, not once when she continually throws out program terms she took directly from ACL research. Leaders of the Agenda 21 resistance never include our grassroots experiences with Zionist Community Policing tactics.

Our current book project, Round Green Virgin, will be finished after we get the funds to complete it. The hardcopy edition of 2020/TACM was such a financial disaster our enemies will say we should quit publishing altogether! Certainly Rosa Koire demanded I quit. Rosa insisted I hand it ALL over, so her and the Shaws could take control of our books. (Michael Shaw is also the same man who quit citing us, quit using the term Communitarianism, and then told me the word Communitarianism would NOT be part of the Anti Agenda 21 “movement” in 2009.) Her reason? People want the books they pre-paid for and I owe her $1000 for the plane ticket to her 2011 Behind the Green Mask conference.

The fact that I was really too sick to fly was not a valid “excuse” for not going. When Nordica was all prepped and set to go in my place, Rosa refused to allow her to come. Nordica Friedrich was not welcome to speak at the first national conference focusing on Communitarianism and Agenda 21! (How's THAT for controlled opposition?) Of course Michael Shaw was the Featured Speaker, and the rest, as they say, is history. As for Nordica's copyright on both our books and her 100% ownership of our website and our ACL Books company... well, let's just pretend she doesn't exist, shall we?

Rosa never once offered to purchase the rights to reprint our copyrighted research. She showed utter contempt for the decade of sacrifices we made to create Anti Communitarianism. Our position as poor, humble, non-affiliated authors always made us look like easy targets. So, why pay for it?

Rosa spends half a page admonishing her readers to drop any valid scientific inquiry (as in What is the Hegelian dialectic?) because identifying religious and political concepts is “not productive, not realistic.” She says naming all the players, religions and economic theories that make up the
Communitarian philosophy “feeds right into the dialectic.” Rosa says we all need “to come together.”

Somebody please explain to Rosa, after she's done singing her Beatles' tune, that a legitimate study of Communitarianism must include all known facts about it, or it is not a scientific study.

The honest scientist is not allowed to remove hard evidence from the table just because they have a financial attachment to hiding that piece. Our work was not non-profit, grant funded, or government controlled. We've never been government employees! We don't censor facts. We include every religion and every political system that contributes to the final synthesis. We examine communism, capitalism, fascism, socialism and Zionism, as they all relate to achieving the final Hegelian dialectical synthesis.

Zionism is a political system based on dialectical religious law, and there is way too much evidence of its influence on Communitarianism (and communism and capitalism) to deny it. Who determined Zionism cannot be exposed along with the theory it supports? Who decided to drop the most important word “law” from any future discussion of Communitarianism? And, why would they?

Rosa says in her acknowledgments at the very end of her book that my books “were invaluable in making sense of the source.” I find that so vague. “Sense of the source?” What source? My co-author Nordica who she removed? And, oh my God, if by I helped her make sense of the source she means Hegel, then that's just over-the-top, because based on her stupid water and milk demonstration, I obviously didn't help her understand our antithesis against Hegel and Communitarianism at all!

Wait! She must mean Dr. Etzioni! He is the true “source” of all modern Communitarianism, is he not?

What does Rosa Koire tell her readers about our Communitarian guru, Amitai Etzioni, Dr. Tree of Life from Zion? What does Rosa Koire write about our Communitarian guru's 60+ years in Israeli military intelligence, his religio-political cult, his Fabian Socialist mentors, his influence on the White House, his KGB global Community Policing network, his global influence on local sustainability projects, his programs for mandatory volunteerism, or the Communitarian Network he founded in DC in 1990?


Amitai Etzioni is hidden from her readers; Rosa Koire never even mentions his name.

And... good grief... she says there is only an “amorphous rulebook.” That's so not true, not even in the U.S. where it's all very quietly done. Communitarianism is not all shapeless soft law, Delphi Technique and shaming. It's not only coming down under UN Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development. It's not only an attack on American's Property Rights! It's not an uncomfortably vague, unformed, unstructured plan or program for development. It's a massive, very structured, organized global justice system.

On her very first page Rosa writes: “the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution.”

Why would she write something so easy to be checked and so easily proven to be untrue? She knows the Bolivians rewrote a Communitarian Constitution in 2009, two years before she published her book. How will she explain the newly revised Communitarian Scottish Constitution? And the next one? Did she miss the part in our book where we cited the blueprint for Global Communitarian Citizenship?

Rosa freely plagiarized our thesis and program research, but she not only avoided our constitutional law and Etzioni research, she purposefully negated it, as if somebody told her it was all taboo.

Rosa knows the 2005 EU Constitution was written with a Communitarian Supremacy of Law clause. She knows the foundation for trade unions under the WTO establishes Communitarian Law. She read it in our book, a book full of direct source citations of laws and constitutional changes, even in the U.S.

Rosa knows the changes to the law in the USA. She read, “In the state of Oregon, an evolving law of search and seizure suggests that communitarian precepts can be translated into workable and coherent State constitutional doctrine.” Taking Law Seriously: Communitarian Search and Seizure, American Criminal Law Volume: 27 Issue 4 Dated (1990) pp 583-617. It's cited in 2020: Our Common Destiny.

What Rosa surely knows is, if we can't look at Zionism, maybe we won't take Talmudic Law seriously,

In 2012, the Communitarian Pachamama cult unveiled their proposal for the Eleven Laws of Nature, described as “Human Rights for Mother Earth.” The proposal calls for a new UN international court with authority to try and convict anyone, anywhere, in any nation, who violates Mother Earth laws.

The Affordable Health Care Act, taking effect right now in the USA, is a Communitarian Law. The “right” to mandate purchase of health care insurance is based entirely in Etzioni's vision for the world. The enforcement arm for this U.S. Communitarian Law is the Internal Revenue Service, which has been proved, in U.S. Courts, time and time again, to have no constitutional authority to exist. The “right” to tax, fine, shoot and jail citizens, to make them to pay for programs that destroy their “right” to life, liberty and happiness, is a Communitarian “right.” This is what Dr. Etzioni means by “balance.”

On January 1, 2013, Pope Benedict declared, “Communitarian Development is God's Plan.” Should we all be preparing for an Inquisition against anyone or any nation who defies development?

What lengths will the Communitarians go to ensure the success of their global coup, besides misleading basically decent, kindhearted Americans? We need look no further than the bombed out ancient civilizations in the Middle East, some very stubborn holdouts against Etzioni's more moral, peaceful Communitarianism.

The phony, circular, go-nowhere dialectical wars between the Americans and the Arab world are absolutely necessary to leading the unwashed refugee Arab masses to accepting sub-nation status under Communitarian Harmonization of Norms. History shows us the Arab nations were strong American allies all the way up until 1948, before Etzioni and his terrorist buddies took over Palestine. The first really successful Communitarian project put the Palestinians behind a “Berlin” wall. The Green Space between national law and Communitarian Supremacy of Law is not a hidden agenda. The only “green mask” over UN Agenda 21 in the Middle East is the one the Zionists use to shield it from Americans.

There have been a few minor glitches to the plan. There are actual human beings involved as pawns, and they are sometimes unpredictable. But, regardless of how the war actually began, and why, the demands the Syrian refugees make now come directly from the old Zionist-communist playbook. Demands for positive Human Rights, very caring people insisting on fake UN rights that lead to final destruction of the world's most ancient Muslim strongholds, these are powerful Communitarian tools.

Communitarian developers are all over the world now; fellow travelers work their activist magic to foment the changes. The difference between cons and locals is simple; real locals fight to win and END the conflicts, whereas destruction of people, cultures, religions and neighborhoods is the Communitarian's first and primary goal. The cons feed off the RE-building too.

They love rivers of local blood and millions of homeless refugees. Their only real job is to ensure the locals argue dialectically until the cows come home or keep shooting 'til there's no more bullets, so they can sink their Communitarian development plan into the veins of the peace talks and settlements, as the only “moral” solution.

Hollywood actress turned UN Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie touched the hearts of millions with her recent plea to help Syrian refugees. The new Communitarian high priestess (miraculously reborn into Mother Teresa II) didn't explain her humanitarian interest in Syria coincides with her family's financial investments in the UN Millennium Development Goals in Cambodia and U.S. Cities.

Pro-Syrian refugee activists insist her monetary motives do not matter. Any help is good help, right?

The authenticity of famous people or experts teaching us “truths” is really not an issue, is it? So what
if our heroes support a few “nice” Communitarian programs, like Rosa's story about how she got involved in fighting UN Agenda 21 because she wanted to volunteer to do some Community Service.

Supranational global governance is based upon Communitarian Law. The Law is a perfectly balanced mystical combination of all the world's philosophies, all the way back to the beginning of human history. The authors of this new age religion, of this complex global law religionalized, are busy as little bees incorporating every religion and legal system on the planet. No religion, no nation is safe.

What about that peculiar U.S. barrier to an Established State Religion at the foundation of American religious tolerance? Oh, you mean the ridiculous American LAW that declares everyone is free to follow their own conscience? Don't ya know? It's outdated and spiritually unevolved. It doesn't apply!

As our sweet little old Israeli Communitarian guru says:

“The First Amendment's Disestablishment clause is not a foreign policy tool, but a peculiarly American conception. Just because the American government is banned from promoting religion within the United States does not mean that the State Department and the Pentagon cannot promote religion overseas and in societies that are undergoing profound societal changes.”

Etzioni continues, “The last point is crucial. Overseas we are participating as a key architect and builder of new institutions; we are in what social scientists call 'the design business.'”

The key U.S. architect rebuilding Arab religious institutions is Etzioni. We're to believe the Arabs hate the U.S. because they “hate our freedoms,” not because we're in the “design business.”

Time for a Happy Holiday drink! Here's a new alcohol free recipe with a punch:

Mix ½ cup Etzioni's vision with ½ cup Bolivian claims that their 500 year old Goddess Pachamama is rooted in their ancient Communitarian traditions. Add 4oz shot of U.S. Senator Mike Lee (UT) and his Mormon Communitarianism. Top it off with the Vatican calling it all “God's plan.” Spice it up with the Islamic Communitarian Imperative by the Futhula Gulen in Turkey and Chiara Lubich Communitarian spirituality. Liberally garnish with American Methodist Communitarian soul. Slide angelic Lucifer enlightenment down the straw. Stir lightly. Now, take a drink and see if you can keep from gagging.

This Christmas season, do something exceptionally meaningful. Please give generously to our Anti Communitarian League research. We're hanging in there with nothing. If the ACL disappears, there will never be any scientific opposition to Etzioni or Communitarianism. Our “last point is crucial” too.

What kind of new theory of global justice needs absolute freedom from logic? Not the good kind.

“Conscience? Ah, that stuff will drive ya nuts.”
Marlon Brando as Terry in On the Waterfront

To order your $17 ebook copy of 2020: Our Common Destiny & the definitive Anti Communitarian Manifesto, go to We're also starting our first newsletter. To sign up for our newslist or to contribute anti communitarian research to our new magazine, please visit the newly updated site soon! The new roster of ACL contributors is fantastic and shows the far-reaching range of people in exotic places who've recognized something “else” was going on that nobody had a name for.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Tea Party Communitarian By JONATHAN COPPAGE • November 19, 2013

There's a very good reason I've never identified with the Conservative Right. Many Conservatives support the ACL because we publish facts they use. They simply respect our quality of work. Many conservatives are put off because I don't identify myself as a Conservative or a Christian. They ask me to. I won't. If I did, I'd have a lot more readers, supporters, and a lot more promotions. If I were anything, even a Lesbian Democrat, I'd be a lot better off than being what I am. In order to appeal to my countrymen I must wear a label. But I don't identify myself as anything but anticommunitarian, and the American people have yet to become aware of what that means. 
Once I identified the thesis and the antithesis leading to the communitarian synthesis, I became aware of the dialectical roles each "side" plays in promoting the communitarian synthesis. After that I could never participate in any "side" that helps the communitarians. Then we showed with our antithesis how the evidence verifies the transformation of all societies into one big blob. Okay, so I never described it as a "blob," but maybe I should have! People know what that word means.
Today the communitarian synthesis (or blob) is manifesting in the Tea Party. I warned Americans this was going to happen in my Open Letter to Local Tea Party members in 2010.
Either I have special powers of divination, God told me what to write, or I'm a damn good journalist. Whatever I am, I am the ONLY writer in the world who saw this coming and warned the public about it years before it happened. Now there's a "Tea Party Communitarian"! Oh yeah.

Tea Party Communitarian Can Sen. Mike Lee get libertarian populists to put family first? 

By JONATHAN COPPAGE • November 19, 2013
Article re-posted in its entirety from The American Conservative website
Mike Lee is an unlikely candidate for conservatism’s most promising policy mind. A Tea Party firebrand since he swept into office in 2010, Lee was the driving force behind efforts to defund Obamacare that led to a 16-day government shutdown this October. Yet the past year has also seen him reveal another side to his populist conservatism: a communitarian agenda for policy reform.
At the American Enterprise Institute in September, Lee set out a tax-reform proposal centered around a per child tax credit that would apply to income and payroll taxes alike. At the unveiling, Lee said: “Now, if you are like me—a conservative with a libertarian streak—you might at first raise an eyebrow at all this. My plan, you might say, may share some features of traditional conservative tax reform but it’s no flat tax. It’s no consumption tax,” two policies long favored by conservative for their economic efficiency or ostensible fairness.
“That’s right,” he continued. “It’s better.”
With the slightest hint of braggadocio that only a humble Utahn can muster, Lee broke with the economic individualism of the conservative establishment to prioritize instead the family, “the first and foremost institution of civil society.” There was a sound economic basis for this, to be sure. Lee drew attention to what he called the “Parent Tax Penalty” whereby parents doubly contribute to entitlement programs through their taxes and the expenses they incur raising future taxpayers. And he insisted, “Here, I am not speaking about the family as a moral or cultural institution, strictly as a social and economic one.” But that in itself is significant: the family, not just the individual, is what economics must be about.
“Conservatives sometimes get criticized for putting too much emphasis on the family in policy debates,” he acknowledged. But “the real problem may be that we don’t think about the family enough. For family is not just one of the major institutions through which people pursue happiness. Is the one upon which all the others depend.”
At the Heritage Foundation in April, Lee delivered a communitarian manifesto of sorts entitled “What Conservatives Are For.” He emphasized “that the true and proper end of political subsidiarity is social solidarity” and explained that his “vision of American freedom is of two separate but mutually reinforcing institutions: a free enterprise economy and a voluntary civil society.”
Lee’s proposals focus on relieving burdens on the institutions that strengthen society in their everyday practice. This outlook goes straight back to his Utah origins. “We’ve always been a state that has had strong institutions of civil society, very strong neighborhoods, very connected neighborhoods where people know each other,” the senator tells me. “Sometimes people are quick to assume that that just refers to people who are members of my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but it’s not just that. There’s a very strong neighborhood dynamic in Utah that perhaps traces back to the way we were settled,” he explains.
“People had traveled great distances, sometimes thousands of miles to get there to what was initially a fairly desolate desert. The Salt Lake Valley was said to only have one or two trees when the first Mormon Pioneers arrived in 1847, and it required people to work together a lot to build these communities, to make the desert blossom like a rose. And that has become part of our culture, and it has thrived.”

{Niki ads this link here: Mormon Communitarianism- Distinct by Eschatology
Communitarian concern for the social fabric and libertarian resistance to big-government interventions fit together naturally for the Utah senator. “Lee has been eager to show that social conservatism and concern for the family doesn’t speak a different language than his kind of constitutionalism and limited government-ism,” says Yuval Levin, editor of the policy quarterly National Affairs. Levin is encouraged by the direction he sees leaders like Lee taking.
“I think there’s been a tendency for a decade or more in conservatism to move away from communitarian talk to a much more individualist talk, and it’s very much in need of counterforce,” he says. “Conservatism needs to be a counterweight to radical individualism, not an enabler of it, and to me to see that being expressed again is really crucial.”
At AEI, Lee opened his proposal by speaking of “a new and unnatural stagnancy” that has trapped the poor and worn down the middle class. There are the beginnings here of a different way of talking about the economy, in contrast to the GOP’s old prosperity gospel for the upwardly mobile. Republicans a year ago proved all too ready to fan the flames of upper-class resentment with talk of the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax. Lee rebukes that mentality, pointing out at AEI that “people who pay no income tax do pay federal taxes—payroll taxes, gas taxes, and various others,” and squarely declaring, “Working families are not free riders.” Web issue image
Lee rails upward instead, against the cronyism that big government and big business together have cultivated at the taxpayer’s expense. “At the top of our society, we find a political and economic elite that—having reached the highest rungs—has pulled up the ladder behind itself, denying others the chance even to climb,” he warned at AEI. At Heritage, he went so far as to say, “The first step in a true conservative reform agenda must be to end this kind of preferential policymaking. Beyond simply being the right thing to do, it is a prerequisite for earning the moral authority and political credibility to do anything else.” How, he asked, could working families take seriously a conservatism that props up and subsidizes big banks and corporate agricultural interests?
For a GOP long seen as the party of entrenched financial interests, populist credibility must be won back, and a deregulation agenda alone won’t cut it. This is where Lee’s rugged communitarianism is especially vital to his cause. In his Heritage speech, he described the conservative vision as “not an Ayn Rand novel. It’s a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a society of ‘plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow, too’. ”
He continued,
In the last few years, we conservatives seem to have abandoned words like ‘together,’ ‘compassion,’ and ‘community’ as if their only possible meanings were as a secret code for statism. This is a mistake. Collective action doesn’t only—or even usually—mean government action. Conservatives cannot surrender the idea of community to the left, when it is the vitality of our communities upon which our entire philosophy depends.
Lee’s understanding of civil society redirects what often seems like a pure populist backlash—a mere reaction—to finding constructive ways in which limited-government constitutionalists can act on James Madison’s notion that government is for “the happiness of the people” and Abraham Lincoln’s idea that it ought “to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all.”
But can Lee sell his communitarian message to his fellow constitutionalists? Levin is hopeful: “He has a shot because to a certain extent he’s filling a vacuum, and that means he really has an opportunity to shape the arena the way he wants to.”
As Lee himself said at AEI: “For a political party too often seen as out of touch, aligned with the rich, indifferent to the less fortunate, and uninterested in solving the problems of working families, Republicans could not ask for a more worthy cause around which to build a new conservative reform agenda.”

Opposition to Common Core by Zandra Bishop

A friend of ours wrote this speech to testify publicly to her opposition to Common Core. Very concise rebuttal that shows the level of comprehension many American parents have. Common Core is an important Communitarian educational program that will serve our children to Pachamama on a silver platter.

Speech to Independent Regulatory Review Commission in opposition to Common Core

Our kids deserve better than to be treated like a hunk of iron passively waiting to be mined, melted, and molded into finely tuned cogs- by the corporate-state, for the corporate-state.  The corporate wing of this beast wants to grind our kids into plug and play parts to install in their widget companies.  The state wing of this beast wants to use our kids as the currency in what amounts to a giant corporate welfare bonanza.  Together, they treat our kids like a commodity to be bought, sold, and harnessed for their benefit.

Common Core is an industrial model that grooms students into compliant servants who won't have the audacity to question, experiment, innovate, and compete against their generous benefactors who cling to their buggy whips, bureaucratic temples, and smoke-filled back rooms.  We can no longer allow our kids to be treated like some form of property to be exploited by this beast.  No one is the property of another to be treated this way and to think otherwise is to accept slavery.

I am commenting for the purpose of stopping the final adoption of Common Core Standards but more than that I am commenting to offer alternative ideas for improving education.  Effective education does not require massive amounts of money and there is certainly evidence to back this up.  (Attachment 1. "How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses"  *Hint- it's not that new.)  America was built on the efforts of individuals with eight grade, one room schoolhouse educations.  Often less!  (Attachment 2. "Advantages of the One-room Schoolhouse Approach to Teaching")  And those individuals were empowered by being taught HOW to learn, instead of just being fed what to learn because it's on "the test".  (Attachment 3. "Trivium 5-page Summary")

I realize it's pretty late in the game since this is the final vote but I truly hope our kids, and our teachers, will be spared this corporate-state conscription.  Our kids are not robots, our teachers are not robots, and none of them deserve to be treated like they are.

Our kids are creative, innovative, bundles of potential.  Teach them how to learn then get out of their way while they create their futures.

If Common Core is given final authorization I predict you'll start feeling serious blow-back from the public. There is already a national movement to opt-out of high-stakes testing. Our family may very well join.

I WILL not allow my kids to be guinea pigs for this latest round of educational experimentation.  I WILL not allow my kids to be herded into corporate-state servitude.

If things become less than tolerable? I would fully support my kids dropping out of school, for the purpose of continuing their education free from the corporate-state. and, I would gladly support others and organize with them to turn that into a movement.

Ps.  I don't want my kids to be "college and career ready", I want my kids to be entrepreneurs who EAT those guys for breakfast!

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Zandra Bishop

Attachment 1-

Attachment 2-

Attachment 3-

Attachment 4-

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Civil society, human rights and Jewish-Israeli communitarians by LIORA SION

Zionist founder of the Communitarian Network, Amitai Etzioni, preaches communitarianism as a universal ideology. The Pope preaches it as a universal spirituality. Yet in practice and principle... it's pure racism.
Civil society, human rights and Jewish-Israeli communitarians
LIORA SION 20 September 2013
In many parts of the world, ordinary people view universal human rights as a “good thing,” something to support and enforce. Many Jewish Israelis will likely say the same, but only for people living elsewhere; Tibet, perhaps, or even Syria. When it comes to the Palestinians, I doubt many Israelis would feel the same way.
I’ve interviewed many United Nations representatives about their work on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and most say Jewish Israelis are not aware of, and do not want to be aware of, the conditions facing Palestinians living just a few miles down the road. For all intents and purposes, as far as most Jewish Israelis are concerned, Palestinians reside on the moon.
As an Israeli citizen, academic, and human rights activist, I have to agree with those assessments.
In openGlobalRights, Jesse Montell, director of the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, argues that the Israeli human rights community can and should expand its support base within Israel. I agree, but am not particularly hopeful. Jewish-Israeli civil society is not strong, and there is a growing gap between the Israeli human rights community, on the one hand, and the majority of Israeli Jews, on the other.
Ashutosh Varshney, a noted scholar of Indian politics, writes that civil societies are often implicated in communal and ethnic conflict. This is very true for Israel. For many years, there was little division between state and civil society in Israel. As a result, what passed for “civil society” in the country was as much a protagonist in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as the Israeli state itself, and the state’s security forces. As scholar Uri Ben Eliezer shows, this is part and parcel of a long-standing tradition, in which the Israeli state enveloped and engulfed civil society, leaving little distinction between rulers and the ruled. Scarred by the horrors of the Holocaust, Israeli state and society were joined at the hip, welded together in an all-encompassing Zionist consensus.
It is true, as Montell says, that a new and more autonomous civil society has begun to emerge in Israel, one whose core logics are post-Zionist, cosmopolitan, and universalist. This new civil society is challenging Zionist communitarianism, calling instead for the inclusion of marginalised groups, such as African foreign workers and refugees living in south Tel Aviv.
Many Jewish Israelis do not welcome this new cosmopolitanism, however, and the Holocaust’s bitter legacy gives the communitarians more influence than the Jewish universalists. As a result, many Jewish Israelis view today’s post-Zionist human rights groups as national traitors, rather than as universalist heroes.
Consider, for example, the campaign against the New Israel Fund (NIF), a Jewish foundation that supports many of Israel’s most cosmopolitan civil society organizations, including Jewish groups fighting against religious coercion, and those supporting women’s liberation and empowerment of the poor.
As a result of this campaign, you have only to mention that “funding was provided by the NIF” for most Jewish Israelis to reject the project or organization outright. This is in part because the NIF also supports groups such as theMossawa Center or Adalah, both of which promote the rights of Israel’s Palestinian Arab citizens. Those groups, along with the NIF, are viewed as enemies, traitors, and anti-Semites.
Ian Lustick argues in openGlobalRights that Israel, like South Africa, is heading toward pariah status. I agree. I do not believe, however, that the international boycott campaign will help convince many Jewish Israelis that Israeli policies, rather than anti-Semitism, lies at the root of their isolation. Instead, a boycott is more likely to convince them even further that the world is against Israel for no good reason, thanks in part to the traitorous behavior of Jewish Israeli human rights organizations serving as Western or anti-Semitic spies.
The international boycott campaign, in other words, plays straight into the hands of the Jewish-Israeli right wing. You cannot threaten a sieged mentality society with a boycott.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Upcoming radio interviews

I'll be a guest on the Deanna Spingola Show on Monday, August 12, 2013, at 8AM Alaska Time. She has a live chat room during her shows too.

I'll be a guest on the Pete Santelli show Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 10AM Alaska Time. Mr Santelli has been in "da news" lately...

I believe both shows take calls.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Community versus Community

Community versus Community
by Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich
copyright June 3, 2013 all rights reserved
Across the globe there is a massive effort underway to transfer land use control away from the local people and hand it over to a different community. When the word community is used in a local land use plan, you can be sure it doesn't mean the local people. There are opposing meanings for the word community.
Most common born locals naturally assume community means all the residents in their neighborhood. But to a communitarian change agent, community means only the spiritually advanced converts seeking to control the neighborhood.
This is why development plans following Local Agenda 21 (LA21) suggestions always claim the community wants the plan. It doesn't matter if 95% of the local population have no idea there is a new plan. It doesn't matter if 90% of the local residents would reject the new plan if they knew anything about it.
LA21 plans rarely claim a majority of registered voters approved the plan. * The planner can honestly say the "community agreed" this is the plan they want, because their definition of community is: we the people who write the plans.
Profits from the transfer of control over the local economy to the community are incalculable. For 20 years LA21 planners bragged how much effort they put into enticing locals to be in their planning process. Where they advertised is key to their success, and some locals were happy to become partners in the global scam.
Trained to follow TV news and kowtow to academic titles of nobility, working class people don't choose to spend their precious few leisure hours talking about how to build a stronger community. Whatever that is, it sounds way too boring. Commoners don't do things they don't enjoy unless they're forced to. If it's not reported on TV or in local papers, it can't be very important, right?
LA21 legislation, usually in the Whereas portion, lists the hilarious ways locals were informed of the planning meetings. If 500 out of 300,000 residents show up and participate, that is considered a very, very good turnout. The City may even get a special award for Community Participation if less than one percent of the population participates in writing the final draft. Even if there is public opposition to it, in most cases it passes the local legislature without one dissenting vote. Elected officials adopt most everything the community asks for.
According to the communitarians who promote the "need" for the new plans, and then lead the planning process from start to finish, uneducated common people cannot understand the lofty purpose for the plans. Only a small group of trained experts are capable of determining the future use of local land and resources. It's a huge sacrifice they've made helping the rest of the world with their superior intelligence. To doubt their motives is akin to doubting God. Pope Benedict declared, "Communitarian development is God's plan" on January 1, 2013. LA 21 plans are long and filled with complicated new regulations. It takes the Bible, the Talmud/Cabala, the Koran and exegesis to comprehend God's secrets. Average people are confused (and bored) by the planning meetings as well as the plans, therefore their exclusion is justifiable.
Few unenlightened souls are found in community oriented groups. It's not hard to keep them out. The community isn't exactly friendly to non-grant funded working class people. This isn't local carpenters, farmers, housewives, bartenders or factory workers planning the future. Even if they have the intuition and courage to speak up, commoners haven't an inkling of the grandiose community purpose, so they never address the bottom line. Auto mechanics can't see any good reason why they should go sit through 100 meetings about bike paths. The ads inviting locals to attend the meetings say many different things, but the ads never even hint at the power the plan with have over the local economy. So, not only do our neighbors not go, they could care less what happens at endless meetings. Why should they care about livability and quality of life (whatever that is)?
The only people who join the LA21 community planning process are people who were pre-trained and are often paid to join it. The committed people controlling both sides, including the fake opposition, either have degrees in the fields created by the communitarians, like urban planning, environmental law/activism, sustainable development and socio-economics, or they are financed by rich communitarians, or they have a business that stands to profit from the plans, like green building/products,  eco-tourism, earth stewardship training, climate change research, etc.
Many LA21 planners who "volunteer" for the new community are government or ex-government employees. In the cities, they work for recently added agencies and departments created by the communitarians. Just a few of them are Department of Neighborhoods, City Manager, Community Police, Community Development and Homeland Security. In the rural areas the community is full of BLM, Department of Forestry/Agriculture, Tribal governments, public school teachers,  Dept of Transportation, and Community Mental Health Services.
Every member of the LA21 planning community has made a commitment to making a profit on sustainable community development principles. Every business member helping LA21 planners write the plans made the same commitment. Anyone who tries to participate without dedicating themselves to the development community will find their participation severely marginalized.
After the plans are adopted into law, and the laws go into effect, it's a done deal. Any local resident who openly objects to the law is criminally disruptive. Concerned about a plan that drastically reduces your ability to thrive? We're oh so sorry, but this is what the community said it wants. Case closed.
Anyone questioning the new junk science that justifies LA21 law is labeled, ridiculed, attacked and discounted. Legitimate questions about the plan are deflected by the Communitarian Left with tirades against the Communitarian Right. Cons on both sides of the political spectrum allow for no scrutiny of the community system. The less we all know about it, the easier it is for the community. Even the authentic local environmentalists who attend LA21 meetings in good faith quickly see that the LA21 planners will not include their suggestions in the final plan, unless it helps to achieve the desired LA21 outcome.
The desired outcome for every land management plan in the world is the same. Creating a global standard of law regulating all human activity on the planet is the communitarian's phase one goal. No matter what the locals living in the local community want, no matter how sustainable they already are, no matter how responsibly they already manage their local resources, the community will still insist they adopt laws that comply with communitarian legal standards.
Locals aren't told LA21 plans justify the community government's new powers to invade and take private property. Locals are never told LA21 plans establish the framework for community governance. Locals are never told Communitarian Supremacy of Law grants the community limitless regulatory control over all local business, resources, and people. Locals are never told anything about Community Law. They don't even hear about it when they are fined and jailed for violating it. Millions have lost businesses, property and freedom to the community, without having a clue as to why or how the transfer took place.
Community Developers write Community Laws that are adopted by Community Councils and enforced by Community Police. In order to stop the LA21 plan, commoners around the globe have got to take back their local communities. Locals could follow the communitarians' advice for Mapping and Mobilizing Community Capacity. ** Commoners can also go house to house, block by block, town to town doing knock-and-talks and survey for assets. Anyone can assess and mobilize local citizens for capacity to resist the communitarian con.
* The 2009 Bolivian Constitution is one rare exception. The French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Constitution in 2005 because of its Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause (it became official under the Lisbon Treaty). The EU Court is the home of the acquis communitaire.
** See Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. This is where the Obamas trained to be community activists.
Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich founded the Anti Communitarian League (ACL) in 2001, changed it to ACL Books in 2006. The ACL is not affiliated with any political, religious or fraternal organization. The ACL has published over a thousand free online articles on LA21 & Communitarianism, many cited in academic papers. ACL research was used in several lawsuits, including Dawson v Seattle (2002). Both women have appeared on numerous radio shows and occasionally do public speaking engagements. They co-wrote two books, "The Anti Communitarian Manifesto" and "2020: Our Common Destiny". Combined and updated in 2012, they are available only at the ACL Books website,