Thursday, March 28, 2013

Claiming ownership of our original thesis on Agenda 21 & Communitarianism

Keep finding new places that are citing our antithesis as if it's just "common knowledge" now. This is a major breakthough and we're very pleased to see how far and wide it's gone. After ten years of being the only people pushing an original Anti Communitarian thesis into the mainstream arena, it's a very good feeling to witness how many people have finally learned to pronounce it! 

The downside for us is, the world is so communitarian now that our copyright on our published thesis and our original idea has been violated on a scale we never imagined. We are seeing our names removed, portions reproduced as if the author was someone else, or flat out plagiarization of everything. Worst of all, some writers are twisting it around and adding their own conclusion to our thesis without bothering to show where in the hell they came up with their idea! Academia has always been plagued with robbers who steal papers from fellow students. I wonder how often it's happened outside academia. We may not only have one of the most widely read original theses in modern times, but we may also own the most plagiarized thesis by non-academics in modern times.

Our original research, thoughts, lines, articles, and thesis is in other people's books 

Sustainable Development Handbook

It's in videos of other people

ROSA KOIRE: Shut down Agenda 21 and communitarian Fascism.

Community by Coercion Communitarianism New American May 31, 2004


It's in letters written by other people

Our original idea has been reproduced so many times many people may assume Rosa Koire, the John Birch Society or Debra Rae are the ones who showed conclusively the role of Communitarianism in Agenda 21. They did not. The JBS barely mentioned it in the past 20 years, and only lately began using the term in their Anti Agenda 21 meetings. Debra Rae went so far as to take entire sections out of 2020: Our Common Destiny as well as TACM, and while she mentions she took most of her article from us at her website, she apparently forgot where she got it when she gained a larger audience at News With Views. Rosa Koire did not do any original research that led her to a Communitarian conclusion either. Rosa read both our books before she put her final argument together. But she never cites us in her public speaking engagments anymore (not since her Tea Party video in 2011), and she actually removed Nordica's name from TACM. The upside is that Rosa never removed the reference and link to the Anti Communitarian League at DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21. We're still in her book somewhere (haven't seen it yet). 

I have no problem saying Rosa Koire has done a tremendous amount of research on her own. She has been a major force in bringing Agenda 21 in front of the Tea Party and the Religious Right. We do not disparage the valuable contributions she's made to exposing the plan in her traveling book promotions. But Rosa did not make the connections between Communitarianism and Agenda 21, she knows she didn't, and it's dishonest of her to make it appear like she did. 

Now I'm fully aware that communitarian America doesn't care what we sacrificed to provide this thesis to them. I've heard the Christian collectivists whining more than the leftists about how it doesn't matter where the information comes from, it's so important the rules do not even apply. I've been told I'm jealous of Rosa's success. I've been told I need to "share more." Total BS. I defend property rights for everyone else, why wouldn't I give myself and my co-author the same consideration? I do know zero value is placed on intellectual property on the internet, but it's just hilarious that other people so worried about their property rights think it's okay to steal ours!  We haven't gone around asking everyone who reposts our website/works to take it down. As long as there is proper attribution, it's educational and not for profit, it's allowed. Remove the attribution, pretend it's your original thoughts and words, or make money off it, and it's not allowed. 

There is only one antithesis that shows Communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. There is only one antithesis that shows Agenda 21 is Communitarianism. There is only one book in the world that shows evidence for the connection between Agenda 21 and Communitariansim, Communitarian Law, Asset Based Community Development and Community Oriented Policing. Those are chapter titles in 2020: Our Common Destiny & The Anti Communitarian Manifesto.


Anonymous said...

You are taking a world-wide move of consciousness to far on your side of that consciousness I need to add.

Whatever you want to call it--no US politician will ever call it that until the bitter end, however.
The bigger agenda beyond 21 is what happen if we are to survive as a humans, if not a living world.
Call it simply smart thing or call it an ultimatum from alien overlords, the time for petty squabbling is over and the argument moot.

Niki Raapana said...

I allowed this comment because it shows the "logic" and the stupidity used to justify stealing. Property rights advocates who steal intellectual property are no different than the Communitarians who steal private land and lives. US law is still clear on what constitutes theft.

But I should call it everything except what it is, eh? Okay Etzioni follower. No wonder your post is anonymous.

Chris Katko said...

The "Truth Movement" is full of liars, thieves, charlatans, and folks just too lazy to do their own homework. I am amazed at what a bunch of clique forming little weasels they are, most of them selling high priced survival wares through terror ads.
When I want to know anything about Agenda 21 and communitarianism, I hit this site, the UN official site, and no others.
Just the facts, ma'am.
You know how to deliver them without all the PAYtriotard sideshow. said...

Niki, I just stopped by here to check out what you're up to and I see that you're calling me dishonest. What? Frankly I am amazed that you would do such a thing. I name you in my book, I have you on my websites, and I invited you to be the keynote speaker at my conference in 2011.

After you didn't show up and kept the money ($1250) that I had sent you to make the trip, I dropped you from my board. Now, I think you ought to stop attacking me on your blog. If you have the guts to leave this up on your site people can get a look at the games you're playing.

Get over having to be 'the one', Niki. Everyone who has information in the public realm sees it being used by everyone else. That is the point, isn't it? We want to spread awareness.

Niki Raapana said...

Gosh Rosa, just stopping by huh?

We too have been stunned by your inexplicable behavior, starting with your dismissive attitude towards Nordica in 2011. I knew you'd use the ticket money you sent against me, especially after you refused to allow Nordica to speak at the Green Mask Conference when I was too sick to travel. After you told her "bummer" and "don't bother" when we decided Nordica was going in my place and I realized you dropped Nordica's name as co-author of the book and as co-founder of the ACL, and after you started calling me a scammer, I rejected any place on your board.

Get over yourself and face the FACT that there's MORE than ONE author here. I never needed to be the "one". I have never been alone in this either. I'm part of a team. While I may not be the best team player, Nordica's loyalty, dedication and hard work is the only reason you know anything about Communitarianism today.

The source for your knowledge about communitarianism is not only me, it's Nordica Friedrich, and why couldn't that have been okay 2 years ago, and why isn't it okay now?

Oh btw, our copyrighted books and research articles are not in the public domain, they're not wikipedia snippets. When you rattle off the titles to the chapters in our book on Alex Jones to make yourself appear more knowledgeable, without sourcing us or the research that began in Seattle, it cheapens the awareness you spread.

and another thing- Why the hell are you telling people Agenda 21 has only been in the inventory stage for the past 20 years, when the entire point of our book was the police enforcement that was in full swing in the 90s?

Niki Raapana said...

Thanks Chris! Haven't seen much of you lately. Good to know you're still around. Send me any art you're doing, we're getting the ACL site back up.

Rosa, I looked up the terms "public realm" because of the way you used it in your close:

"Everyone who has information in the public realm sees it being used by everyone else."

Here's one definition I found:

"The public realm is organized into four categories: parks, streetscapes, coastal areas and public places. Definitions for these categories are as follows:
Parks - Public open spaces within a community for recreational use. Parks may include natural areas such as mountain ridges and wadi systems.
Streetscapes - The visual elements of a street including the road, sidewalk, street furniture, trees and open spaces that combine to form the street’s character.
Coastal Areas - All land areas along the water’s edge.
Public Places - All open areas within a community visible to the public or for public gathering or assembly."

And at Blackwell Reference Online:
"While widely used in the contemporary discourse of such diverse fields as philosophy, political theory, sociology, art, media studies, architecture and urban planning, and gender studies, as well as in everyday speech, the concept of public realm has no consensual definition and definitions that are proffered are often both imprecise and enigmatic. What all the diverse usages do agree upon is that their referent is some sort of non-private arena of social life and most judge that arena to be both critically beneficial and unappreciated; what they disagree about is its exact character. To add to the confusion, the non-private arena may also be discussed under other names such as public sphere, public order, public domain, public world, and civic space. Arendt's (1958) usage is at once among the most enigmatic, evocative, and, perhaps, influential. She traces the term back to the Aristotelian and Roman distinctions between the private world of the household and the public world of the bios politikos (for the Greeks) or the polis (for the Romans). And although the meanings attached to each realm shift somewhat through time, the dyadic distinction remains and is, for her, of considerable philosophic import. The public realm is that arena where “everything that appears … can be seen and heard by everybody and has the widest possible publicity … [and] appearance – something that is ... " Public Realm, Lyn H.

Are you saying that because we made our copyrighted works available to the public and "everyone" has started plagiarizing "everyone", that means we lost all claim to our legitimate copyright to our original copyrighted materials? said...

Niki, this is really going too far. You cancelled the night before my conference and Nordica said she could come but she didn't have any money for an airline ticket. This was after I had given you every penny I could scrape up to bring you down here, set up a dentist to fix your teeth, offered you my home for months if you needed to stay, and showcased you at my conference.
Niki, this is a shame. Your behavior is out of line and I truly feel sorry for you.
Rosa said...

There are only so many words in the vocabulary of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. I am not using your chapter headings. I am not using your copyrighted material.

Let's get to the point, Niki. You are libeling me in print. The fact is that you essentially stole $1250 from me and somehow in some twisted Communitarian way you think the world owes you that money. I don't know what has happened to you but I am sure that you'll find some way to twist this to fit your worldview. I am genuinely sorry for you, Niki.

Niki Raapana said...

Go read page 31 of your book Rosa. The 2 graphs on Communitarianism and the Third Way is our original thoughts and research, yet you present it as if it's your own.

You accuse me of stealing from you as if that somehow justifies your stealing from us. The only time you acknowledge Nordica exists is to lie and say she asked you for a ticket. Total BS. You think it's important enough to mention, yet still not a word from you about why you took her name off our Anti Communitarian Manifesto. Oh I get it! Let's just accuse her of being a scammer trying to get a ticket and maybe the reader wil forget all about the bottom line! Right?

You label our legitimate, legal claim to our work as my having twisted communitarian expectations. How many times have you been paid to speak as an "expert" about our original research on communitarianism?

How many books have you sold that includes our original thoughts and research on communitarianism, your book which has no attribution attached to what should be direct quotes of our original works?

Your first excuse for plagiarizing our copyrighted materials was our works are in the public realm. Your next best excuse is there are only so many words in the LA21 vocabulary. Then, running out of excuses, you accuse me of libel.

What I say about you isn't libel. A libelous statement is false. said...

Goodbye and good luck.