The higher purpose of mankind - the world federation of the future

Is the future World Federation a Communitarian federation? It's the only political, social, economic, legal and religious theory that fills the entire bill.

It's the only fully integrated political bureaucracy that is replacing internal legal systems in nations around the world, right now. It's the only all encompassing economic system that claims power over every inch of resources on the planet. It's the only social theory taught at the university level, and the academic curriculum rarely includes criticisms. There is no public debate or voting on community development programs that promote sustainable changes in the U.S. It just is.

Nobody's asking the public whether their government has the power to sign treaties that eliminate individual rights and liberties protected under local, state, and national laws. There is no ongoing public debate over subjecting nations to communitarian supremacy of law. This is astonishing when considering the fact that the Supremacy Clause in the European Union contract is a stated, published Communitarian obligation. It's not astonishing when you consider who controls what the general "masses" see and hear.

Regional governance is built on the Community model. Community, when used by the govt or an NGO, is a codeword for communitarian agencies designed specifically to bypass outdated forms of local governance. Community Development is a program for introducing global communitarian standards, norms and laws. It's called Harmonization of Norms.

So here's the second biggest Q we're not supposed to ask: Does mankind have a higher purpose? Many people hold that it does. Even Friedrich List, who we obviously misunderstood when we wrote the Anti Communitarian Manifesto, included the idea in his 1841 book on national political economy. In the opening chapter, List recommended we not militate against the goal of a future world federation. And, he called it our Common Purpose.

"But this endeavor is legitimate and rational insofar as it furthers the economic development of the nation in question and does not militate against the higher purpose of mankind, -- the world federation of the future." Friedrich List 1841, Selected readings in international trade and tariff problems, edited by Frank William Taussig

As the real and verifiable world trade federation forms, I wonder how much of the emerging "rights" agenda was part of what our economic fathers understood to be part of that glorious world federation they dreamed for us. Our founders are often accused of establishing the U.S. as just another instrument for achieving global domination. There is merit to those accusations.

I don't know if this is the right question to ask, but was it also our founders dream for the Big Idea of an Environmental Ten Commandments? Did the Americans, along with the empires who colonized South America and the ME and Asia and the post Vatican II Catholic Priests all promote the same ultimate future for mankind? Do they now?

It was a sad time for me when I realized how many of the Community Development programs were pouring grant money into tribal coffers across the U.S. Already trained in a life of subsistence living (meaning HUD housing and food stamps), Natives were perfectly prepared tunnels for introducing the idea of Rebuilding Community as a legitimate mission. First the U.S. government reduced the tribes to complete dependents, took away their villages, forbade their religions and languages, and today, because the U.S. "evolved," we are making up for all that.

'Mother Earth' to be given same rights as humans under UN plan,
By Catherine Eade 12th April 2011
Niki's comments in brackets, in red

Bolivia is drawing up a draft UN treaty which would give Mother Earth the same rights as humans, including the right to life, to pure water and clean air.

{UN human rights include safe and affordable housing and social equity. Would this concept give Big Mother the right to sue the sun, the moon, rouge planets and falling meteorites in the future Universal Court?}

The South American country wants the UN to recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to 'dominate and exploit'.

{Again, with communitarian "rights" come communitarian responsibilities, so does this mean humans can sue Big Mother for unleashing hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, droughts and other violent acts against humans?}

It aims to establish 11 new rights for nature which include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.

{Communitarian "logic" knows no bounds.}

Bolivia's large indigenous population is ruled by Latin America's first indigenous president Evo Morales, who was elected in 2006.

{Bolivia is an openly Communitarian State: http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/06/for-united-plurinational-communitarian.html}

Morales is an outspoken critic in the UN of countries which are not prepared to limit climate change by holding temperatures to a 1C rise.

{Chastisement is called "soft communitarianism", it seeks to shame the accused to comply. The next natural and globally harmonious step is hard communitarianism.}

Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, Pablo Salon, says his country seeks to achieve harmony with nature, and hinted that mining and other companies would come under greater scrutiny.

{Big Mother is watching you.}

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376244/South-American-countrys-treaty-giving-Mother-Earth-rights-citizens.html

This proposed treaty ties in very nicely with the objectives of the communitarian organizations active in my neck of the world. School of the Earth, WISE, the Copper River Watershed Org, the Wellwood Center, the studies of our watersheds and creeks, all adhere to the ideology of the "Salmon Nation" and eliminating all borders between people who live on salmon rivers! And their parent UN Biosphere regional expert NGO, Eco Trust, has it's hand in every pie out here.

What environmental standards are taught to youth trained to become young stewards of the earth? What perfect harmony is prayed for in public schools on Earth Day? What "god" does your child worship in school? Only the "enlightened" ones among us can comprehend it.

I like the wikipedia page called "World Government". It clarifies between the real information as opposed to the wiki page entitled "The New World Order," which is relegated to conspiracy theory. World Government is real, the New World Order is conspiracy theory. haha

Global map showing some supranational unions

"The only union generally recognized as having achieved the
status of a supranational union is the European Union.^[11]

"The most relevant model for the incremental establishment
of a global federation may be the European Union, "

"Ulysses S. Grant commented, "I believe at some future day, the nations of the earth will agree on some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of the Supreme Court are upon us."^{[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government}

U.S. President Harry Truman commented: "We must make the United Nations continue to work, and to be a going concern, to see that difficulties between nations may be settled just as we settle difficulties between States here in the United States. When Kansas and Colorado fall out over the waters in the Arkansas River, they don't go to war over it, they go to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is settled in a just and honorable way. There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court." -- President Truman's remarks in Omaha, Nebraska on June 5, 1948, at the dedication of the War Memorial ^{[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government}

A quick google search for the keywords World Federation of the Future shows many interesting results. There are think tanks:

The World Futures Studies Federation emerged from the ideas and pioneering work of such persons as Igor Bestuzhev-Lada (Russia), Bertrand de Jouvenel (France, 1903-1987), Johan Galtung (Norway), Robert Jungk (Austria 1913-1994), John McHale (UK/USA, 1922-1978) and others who in the 1960s conceived of the concept of futures studies at the global level. This resulted in the organization of the first International Futures Research Conference in Oslo, Norway, in September 1967, for which Mankind 2000 was responsible in cooperation with the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, and the Institut für Zukunftsfragen. A Continuing Committee was created, with headquarters in Paris.http://www.wfsf.org/

There are regular conferences:

WELCOME TO TAMPERE IN JUNE 2011!

The 13th International Conference organized by Finland Futures Research Centre and Finland Futures Academy at University of Turku will deal with the different dimensions of a sustainable future.

Sustainable development is an important theme in local, regional and global scales and requires multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral cooperation. Environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development can only be achieved by encouraging knowledge sharing and cooperation between various sectors and decision makers. The decision made today shapes our future.

The methods of futures studies include tools for describing possible, probable and desirable variations of the present and drafting possible images of the future. By looking at the variety of different possibilities, we can come closer to shaping the future – rather than predicting it. Future studies offer valuable tools to understand and shape the development of our societies. This conference aims to bring together the best experts from the fields of Futures Studies and Sustainable Development and let the scientific community to interact with policymakers and representatives of companies. By developing images of alternative futures, the goal of the conference is to give new viewpoints and novel ideas to decision-makers to assist them towards more feasible decisions and a sustainable development. http://conference2011.wordpress.com/

And there's more than one religious angle:

‘Work for your life as though you will live forever, and work for the Hereafter as though you will die tomorrow.’ The Holy Prophet (S)

"On the blessed occasion of the Wiladat of Sayyida Fatima (SA), The World Federation of KSIMC is pleased to announce the re-launch of the MULLA ASGHAR FOUNDATION FUND. This gift programme has been named after Marhum Mulla Asgharali M.M. Jaffer as a tribute to his dream which was to see the success of this fund benefitting the vision and mission of The World Federation of KSIMC." http://www.world-federation.org/Secretariat/Articles/Mulla_Asghar_Foundation_Fund_planning_our_future_as_community.htm

It is our non credentialed ACL thesis that communitarianism is the ultimate, final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Another perfectly valid theory has arisen that communitarianism is just another phase, and that Transcendence, as taught by the Master Illuminated ones, is the final objective. (See Bobby Garner's treatment of this subject).

Whatever it ends up being, the final synthesis is supposed to be so "perfect" it will give rise to no opposition. The ACL was used by us to prove communitarianism is not perfect, and the fact that we even objected to it meant their whole dialectically based "conclusion" was flawed. It also, by default, made our work another side in a dialectical argument. Has humanity advanced to the next stage of forced evolution? If we are indeed moving into the next dialectical stage of human social evolution, then it's time to reassess the ACL "mission.' One thing is certain. The Communitarian stage of evolution is here, now. So if there is a next stage, Transcendence is next.

Over a decade has passed since I began attempting to think outside the dialectic. I know there are still parts of me that cling to dialectical tricks, and it's hard to feel very smart when some of them have been right in front of your "critical gaze" for a long time. I've learned so much more about the plan for global governance over the years. I really should do a complete revision and update of the Manifesto, maybe even add a political or social agenda of our own to the mix!

"As the dollar falls...."

Financial news forwards from Peter Myer's elist:

"Two weeks ago Brazil moved to deter speculators from pushing up its currency, doubling the tax on foreign investment in its government bonds. Last week Thailand acted on similar lines by no longer exempting foreign investors from paying a tax on its bonds, with the Thai finance minister warning of more to come. As the dollar falls and developing nations see speculators push up their exchange rates, other countries are also discussing more stringent restrictions. A damaging age of capital controls seems likely.

"Indeed, moves by speculators purchasing assets and taking currency positions in China, Brazil and much of Asia now threaten to make this new era a self-fulfilling prophecy. Such speculative inflows contribute little to capital formation or employment. But they do price exporters out of foreign markets, and can be suddenly reversed if speculators pull out, disrupting trade patterns.

"With the likelihood of further falls in the dollar, central banks in developing countries face a capital loss if they try to stabilise exchange rates by buying dollar-denominated assets – as the Bank of Japan did when it recently bought $60bn of dollar securities to hold down the yen's rise. These modest acts set rates through the open market, but their cost is now threatening to drive these economies towards more formal capital controls. ..." Capital controls will follow the weak dollar, by Michael Hudson – Financial Times, 10/19/2010,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fe549632-db04-11df-a870-00144feabdc0.html

+++

"The dollar will embark on a sharp decline over the next 12 months, Goldman Sachs forecast on Wednesday, as policy makers in Washington look poised to press the trigger on another round of printing money." Dollar set for sharp decline, Goldman forecasts, By Richard Blackden, 07 Oct 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/8047468/Dollar-set-for-sharp-decline-Goldman-forecasts.html

+++

GYEONGJU, South Korea (Kyodo) The United States and South Korea jointly proposed Friday that the Group of 20 leading economies cap their current account surpluses or deficits at 4 percent of gross domestic product as part of efforts to rebalance the global economy, Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda said. Saturday, Oct. 23, 2010, Japan Times, G20 urged to cap deficits, surpluses at 4% of GDP, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20101023a3.html

+++

"(Reuters) - Ultra-loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are throwing the world into "chaos" rather than helping the global economic recovery, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Tuesday." Fed, ECB throwing world into chaos: Stiglitz http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6944M920101005,

+++

"What is reversing trends that seemed irreversible for the past 65 years is the manner in which the United States has dealt with its bad-debt crisis. The Federal Reserve and Treasury are seeking to inflate the economy out of debt with an explosion of bank liquidity and credit – which means yet more debt. This is occurring largely at other countries' expense, in a way that is flooding the global economy with electronic "keyboard" bank credit while the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit widens and U.S. official debt soars beyond any foreseeable means to pay. The dollar's exchange rate is plunging, and U.S. money managers themselves are leading a capital flight out of the domestic economy to buy up foreign currencies and bonds, gold and other raw materials, stocks and entire companies with cheap dollar credit." U.S. "Quantitative Easing" is Fracturing the Global Economy, by Prof Michael Hudson, Global Research, November 1, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21716

Michelle Obama: Mapping Obesity Strategy

The last post I made on this topic was one of the most emotional reactions I've had to a dialectical piece in a while. It touched me on a very personal level and I made it very personal. This war on obesity goes straight to the core of everything I stand for, which is no government has the right to monitor and correct anyone's behaviors unless it's criminal. The US government has absolutely ZERO authority to tell Americans what they can, cannot or should do in their own homes. That communitarians target children in the early stages of all their new building healthy citizens and communities initiatives is even more repulsive to me. Of all the people I've known and loved in my life, it is the largest people who've already suffered the most. To target such a vulnerable segment of the population shows me what cowards the communitarians really are.

Although it sucks to hear how prevalent this new way of thinking is in Germany and beyond, it was comforting to see how many readers agree with me that it's disgustingly wrong to target people for any reason. It does matter to me that so many others experience the same repulsion for these behavior modificators.

There's so much more to this story than meets the eye.

"First Lady Michelle Obama revealed the broad contours of the Obama administration's childhood obesity drive..."http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/02/michelle-obama-mapping-obesity-strategy/

Michelle Obama is using childhood obesity to mark her entry into actual lawmaking.

"Miller said in a statement, "As we work to rewrite our child nutrition laws this year, we must focus on eliminating any barriers to these programs, so that all eligible children have access to healthier foods and nutrition education whether in school, child care, or at home.""

Using the UN LA21 recommendations for changing nations, "Mrs. Obama has said she will forge partnerships with foundations, nonprofits and governmental units."

Do Communities Have a Right to Impose?

I got an email earlier this month from this student in the London Metropolitan University PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economy) program asking me for my opinion on communitarianism. In my response I asked him if his class had been introduced to Friedrich List's National System of Political Economy, and he replied no, he's never heard of List. Oliver is a third year bachelor.

Do communitarians believe the state has a right to impose a form of life on it’s citizens?

By

Oliver Hovorka (07016844)

Introduction to communitarians

Although the label communitarian is attached to certain thinkers most do not regard themselves as such, but combine certain core approaches towards community and the state. In this essay I will point out ideology that combines the communitarians in their thought, especially towards the state and try to draw a perspective on certain consequences. I will also take a critic approach towards the realization of communitarian politics on a national level.

The origins of the communitarian ideology are consisting of a wide spectrum of ideas; arguably the most significant influences arise from Aristotle’s, Hegel’s and Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Charles Taylor argues in the Aristotelian way that “Man is a social animal, indeed a political animal, because he is not self-sufficient alone, and in an important sense is not self-sufficient outside a polis”¹. Hegel’s notion of “Sittlichkeit” applies to the same thought implying “substance of the will” through “community” (family, civil society and state). The last and arguably most important influence to communitarians is Wittgenstein. In his opinion “all human goods derive from a framework of overlapping communal practices and traditions”.²

Communitarianism as it is known today was founded in the late 20^th century by the critical reaction towards liberalism (Rawls and Nozick in particular). Communitarians reject the notion of individualism in the sense that the state should provide economic and social structures that base sole on the idea of a self centered individual. Communitarians argue that there needs to be a balance between individual private interest and the common good. They emphasize that the individual is shaped by his or hers community and therefore not only learn linguistic behavior from birth, but also the way to act and behave and therefore translate this to the world they live in. These structures are built over time and interpretation of the common good can differ between societies, hence there is no overall theory. If the common good is not seen as a prime judgment in that community, but rather an “alienating” liberal individualistic view of rights, than the individual turns self centered which becomes destructive towards the social environment.

Therefore communitarianism is a critique of liberalism and its core value of individualism which when applied “one to one” leads according to Michael Walzer to:”...no consensus, no public meeting of minds, on the nature of the good life, hence the triumph of private caprice...the ideological reflection of everyday capriciousness”³. This means that there are no consequential and developed decisions but rather inconsequent short lived ones without a debate in public space. In its core Communitarianism therefore points out to the interest of communities and societies en bloc over those of the individual and therefore sees a need to balance individual rights towards a consensus. Communitarians see western societies of today as almost fragmentised and lacking a sense of overall purpose which could lead to an endless search for identity.

Communitarians and the State

The communitarian view of the role of the state is again in its main point a strong contrast towards liberal theory. Especially Nozicks conception is a good way to point this out, as he advocates a minimal state and does not see human beings as social entities that have an interest, or are even capable of deciding on the common good and refers to the free rider problem. According to a communitarian this would have the consequence that “their thinking is trapped by their self-imposed moral neutrality”⁴. Communitarianism supposes state legislation should promote, indeed favour, laws that are seen as a clear benefit towards the common good rather than pure individual benefit, which at the end will benefit the individual less. In the communitarian thinking individuals who want to achieve solely their own goals and still believe in liberal market mechanism are leading the state citizens towards exclusion, of participation in economic and cultural questions and therefore undermine the common good. In communitarianism citizens should be engaged in politics as a member of a nation/community in order to advance the common good rather than the private particular interest. Basically communitarians should participate “wherever the issue of power structure arise...in addition to what goes on in state institutions , citizens should be concerned with the impact of activities in the business sector, and in third sector of voluntary organization and community groups”. ⁵

In consequence this means that even at the lowest level of power the community should participate and decide on the common good. If this is not achievable , e.g. in community groups, the state institutions should respond to the issue. This also reflects the more direct approach to democracy as there are different communities such as historical developed or face to face commodities, which should be considered and given certain state privileges (i.e. the decisions if a new shopping mall should be built). In general rules and laws are different in societies as there is no universal or timeless approach but rather a specific community approach with different traditions and values.

An example of communitarian politics is Tony Blair’s “third way”, which combines socialist and conservative policy towards a communitarian like approach. A recent policy is the “Train to Gain” founded in 2006. It offers publicly funded training and education for business and specific training for employees which should benefit the business, economy and the individual skills of each worker. If a firm is willing to demand the “traintogain” depends on the majority of employees participating in it⁶. In theory, the policy benefits not only the individual but also the overall business. Consequently public money has been used to develop and run the scheme with the tax payer investing in the “common good” of training for an economic growth. The labour government has promoted the idea throughout the country and has reached over 143,000 businesses during the last 3years⁷. The government has therefore not imposed the policy on its citizens but promoted it in a manner that business not participating will have disadvantages. This approach is a non-neutrally one as the state promotes certain legislation or offers, based on the community, which according to communitarians holds a better form of life for individuals. Hence the negative rights system which protects the individual from the state is balanced towards the obligation each individual has towards the community.

Consequence and Criticism

The communitarian ideology in general and especially towards the state has made itself open to criticism. Although liberal ideas could be regarded as being promoted in western culture still every individual has the right of free choice.

In Communitarian politics this right is balanced with the obligation towards the community and in consequence restricted by the law in certain points. The general approach therefore raises questions. If the community balances the rights what consequences could occur. In my opinion it could mean that the community “we” expect to behave and obligate in a certain manner and “they” who behave anti social in whatever sense must except to be punished. This could certainly turn into a sort of community justice promoted by the government which splits life inside these communities into “we” and “them” with the state institution delivering certain outcomes in favour of this thinking. Not surprisingly the leader of the influential “Responsive Communitarian Platform”, Amitai Etzioni, a Lecturer at the George Washington University, has his own view of justice. On the question if there should be justice for terrorist, Etzioni defended his view that people who act like “civilians” in society but work against it do not deserve a fair judgment and should be regarded as “traitors” towards society. Or how he puts it “If someone in your own community attacks you it is particular offensive” and therefore should even receive a “harder punishment” without a fair trial. This seems like a community punishment for “traitors”, hence implied self justice.⁸ His ideas of limitations on free speech are very much leaning to community unity and in a recent interview he talked about the limitations he would suggest could not be committed publicly as “there would be a nonstop scandal on my campus”⁹.

The example of Etzionis justice is of course just one and there are numerous other opinions towards this. Still the argument that an individual inherits a feeling for the common good and to apply this nationwide with favouring laws, by the communitarian majority consensus, is in my opinion asking for misuse and Etzionis views can be interpreted in this way. The notion of a certain homogenous community, balanced by moral and cultural bonds acting as a “guard” against individualism seems almost utopian in certain aspects. In a world where everybody knows his place (e.g. case system) this is by no means automatically a balanced and equal society. This may be a western liberal perspective but if western societies have turned into a liberal mechanism it is also doubtful that this will shift if there was ever such a thing as ideal communitarians. One could even say that the great diversity in society and modern day democracy with the liberal spirit of contemporary society, means that a government which aims at realizing the communitarian ideology and harmonize society by balancing rights, needs to imply a certain form of life and behavior to be practical.

This will mean that an educational process needs to be involved which will remove liberal individualistic ideas that“…have infected the body politics, if you will”¹⁰.

Arguably this can easily tend to a “top-down” system outgrowth and leads to injustice towards different minority thoughts, with the argument of the common good and its educational process. The state even under ideal communitarian arguments favors and leads towards a certain moral obligation and behavior in regard to the majority. In addition the pressure to participate in the community at every level is on a large scale for the individual. John Rawls expressed the fear of totalitarian or authoritarian political programs that misuse communal solidarity as “the fact of pluralism”. Another main argument is that the communitarian ideology is not only vague but also empty, especially in universal aspects and such circumstances will most probably undermine the real spirit of communitarian solidarity.

Or how, Niki Rapaana co founder of the anti-communitarian league argues: “Not only is the ideology vague and not clearly structured, it is so full of holes a second grader can find them”¹¹. A government on a national level is more or less invited to misuse it and imposing rather than favoring a form of life if nationwide implied. Etzioni made it clear that justice and freedom are having certain elements that must be “sacrificed” for the communitarian state. He himself grew up in an Israeli kibbutz where a form of communitarianism may have worked but to imply it nationwide seems unrealistic in western societies. In contrast Singapore has a communitarian political system and it has been an economical success. But at the cost of individual freedom (ranked 133 in worldwide list of free speech¹²) and certain policies that have almost perverse implications. The so-called “graduate mother policy” is such an example. Less educated woman are getting paid money to birth just one or two children in order to not “thin the gene pool” for the community.¹³ This strengthens me in the idea that communitarianism is not applicable on a national scale in western societies. Though in my opinion communitarians do think the state has a right to imply a form life on its citizens, in terms of favoring it and therefore promote it acting on the behalf of the common good and consensus, the ideological backbone of communitarianism is just too weak in its structure to exclude massive misinterpretation of this if practically applied.

Or how Beng-Huat Chua puts it.” The conflation of state /society not only legitimizes an interventionist state but also enables the guardians of the state to slip easily into authoritarianism”¹⁴


Bibliography

Tam, H. (1998), Communiterianism, MacMillan Press

Etzioni, A. et al (1995), New Communitarian Thinking, University Press of Virgenia

Paul, E. et al (1996), The Communitarian Challenge to Liberalism, Canbridge University Press

Bell, D. (1993), Communitarianism and its critics, Oxford University Press

Chua, B-H. (1995), Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapor, Routledge

Taylor, C. (1985), Philosophical Arguments, Harvard University Press

Frazer, E. (1999), The Problem of Communitarian Politics, Oxford University Press

Email question by the author of the essay to the co-founder of the Anti-Communitarian League, Niki Raapana

www.youtube.com, Amitai Etzioni on the rights of terrorists, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byrcN1fgPlk&feature=related

www.youtube.com, Amitai Etzioni on free speech, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6IiG2k--dA&feature=related

Reporters Without Borders, Press Freedom Index 2009, http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html

Harvey Shoolman, Lecture Notes Week 9 , Justice, Rights and the State

Communitarian Law of the Land

Communitarian (Community) Law balances the rights of individuals and sovereign states against the global "community." Admission to the European Union requires nation states to modify their national law under the supremacy of communitarian law clause. The EU is the "model" for emerging regional trade unions and has over 50 years of environmental communitarian case law.

I'm also going to have to revise the ACL pages that refer to "communitarian-ra." I found the article that I referenced it from and it's not in it. It's been so long (6 years) since I made the reference I can't imagine where else it may have come from, but where ever it was it sure doesn't exist online anymore.

There's so many new laws and administrative policies that I need to include a few that keep popping up in emails in my law article. I'm going on KAJO, a Grants Pass, Oregon radio show May 20, 2009 and I'd like to have a few of the most current laws at my fingertips and in my brain.
Ill be adding to this over the next week. Please post your comments of any current or proposed communitarian laws you know about, especially local actions. Be interesting to see how many "local" bills are duplicates in different countries and states. I'm sure Gisela can update me on the NAIS and I'll poke around some of my old haunts like Citizenreviewonline where Sue keeps a steady watch on state and national legislation that affects rural communities. I forgot to mention on Devvy's show that Spokane, WA is having a controversy over the sustainable development agenda as I was asked to do. This next show I'll have notes in front of me so if there's anything you'd like me to get on the radio just let me know.

Here's an interesting oldie called Autonomy and Paternalism in Communitarian Society
Journal article by Michael L. Gross; The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 29, 1999

This isn't a new law, it's an organization who swears to uphold only constitutional law. From Old Dog we are reminded not all police will enforce communitarian martial law. I've seen a Canadian version of this also: http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/. Not sure where this group stands on enforcing communitarian land use and behavior laws already passed and implemented.

Greenspan's Epiphany Signals the End of Individualism, by Bobby Garner

Communitarian socio-economics is one of the most obscure aspects of the overall Communitarian agenda. The phrase itself was introduced to the world by SASE partners Dr. Amitai Etzioni and former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev. Many programs across the U.S. and the world designed to address "global poverty" are communitarian based socio-economic "solutions" to the unequal spread of the world's "wealth." Social equity is the most advanced Fabian propaganda, introduced to the modern world by 2 "former" communists.

Missing from the entire debate are the real principles for individual liberty and free enterprise (notice the "issues" all parties agree on, i.e. (some form of) national health care, sustainable development, community revitalization, urban renewal, public-private partnerships, faith-based initiatives, citizen volunteerism, community oriented policing, interventions and treatment, Weed & Seed, etc.)

During my recent radio interview with Henrik Palmgren at Red Ice Creations, he brought up his concern over not being able to "opt out" of the new system. The way the EU is proceeding it looks like even nations who pass resoluitions against inclusion are being "denied" the right to refuse. We know nations cannot "opt out." Is there anyplace in the world where individual participation in these wealth distribution programs is optional? For instance, what about people (like me) who completely reject modern medicine with it's doctors and hospitals as modern witchcraft practiced in houses of death? Will I be required to become a member of a national health care program? I want my gravestone to read "Please don't call 911."

What lengths the communitarians are taking to eliminate the very concept of individual freedom. Bobby's latest article nails their argument at its very core:
Greenspan's Epiphany Signals the End of Individualism, by Bobby Garner

Alan Greenspan's recent declaration that the ongoing financial crisis has exposed a "flaw" in his "free market ideology", was seized upon by socialists of all stripes as proof that Capitalism is fatally flawed and therefore, its chief defender Ayn Rand, is totally discredited. Greenspan says he is "in a state of shocked disbelief" because he "looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity".

What Greenspan either failed to understand or willfully ignores, is the fact that his "free market ideology" is a corruption of the pure Capitalism promoted by his mentor Ayn Rand. There is no such thing as "self-interest of lending institutions". Rand based her Capitalist ideology on a solid foundation of "rational self interest" of the individual man. Greenspan like all socialists knows quiet well that "lending institutions" are lifeless artificial entities with no thought, feeling, or knowledge of any kind, and they cannot possibly conceive of something so abstract as "rational self interest". Rational self interest is the sole domain of the cognitive function of a single individual human mind.

Ayn Rand's ideology of Individualism holds that inalienable rights can apply only to individuals:

'"The inalienable Rights of Men are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Right of Life means that Man cannot be deprived of his life for the benefit of another man nor of any number of other men. The Right of Liberty means Man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative, and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness, and to work for its achievement so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man's existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness." — Textbook of Americanism.

Reverse engineering this economic collapse reveals the real causes, and proves to the rational mind that it was intentional. Nothing can be proven to an irrational mind, because its ability to think clearly has been subverted to a predefined outcome. It has been brainwashed, programmed, deceived and has become complicit in the crime. Alan Greenspan could not possibly be so ignorant of Ayn Rand's ideology as to really believe that institutions are capable of self interest. His ignorance of the necessary function of individualism, and his perversion of self interest, is not delusional. Nor is it an accident of oversight, and he is not in "shocked disbelief". It was deliberately calculated to achieve precisely what is being achieved (as evident in the media spin), which is to totally discredit Capitalism and along with it, "rational self interest" and individualism.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, is said to be the "guru of deregulation", but this is an Orwellian contradiction where deregulation actually means regulation. Federal regulation of banking and finance came in through the back door disguised as a United Nations mandated and government decreed "right to affordable housing". This is representative of the New Age attempt to over rule and replace our natural, and Constitutionally guaranteed, God given rights. Such government imposed rights are obviously not equally applied, nor can they be. They are discriminatory and place the burden on those tax payers who do not qualify for the right because they are able to provide for themselves. These rights are therefore, socialistic by their very nature, designed for an equalizing effect toward a post Marxist classless society based on the Communitarian Philosophy.

In Bogus Rights, Walter Williams wrote "The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. ... The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings."

The foremost champion of individual rights, Ayn Rand, defines it very well in item 4 of Textbook of Americanism: "A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by permission—but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot."

A direct attack on individualism by the 1960's counter-culture would never have succeeded, but by first creating a corrupt Capitalism and then crashing it thereby destroying the concept of individualism along with it, the way is now cleared for the Communitarian Agenda to proceed. It took 50 years to do it, but the era of unfettered rational individual self interest has now been officially declared dead by direct government ownership of banking and finance, by which the means of production is efficiently controlled through complicit corporations acting as effective extensions of government as Non-Government Organizations (NGO's) and Public Private Partnerships (PPP's). This is the combination of Communism and Capitalism known as Fascism, a form of government completely contrary to our constitution, but it is here and now evident.

At the heart of the problem is the New Age philosophy of living in the moment of "the now". This mind set is pervasive throughout society, in government and among banking and financial executives. It illustrates a mass insanity consistent with the requirements of The Plan for world domination of a clueless and helpless society. Its exemplified in United Nations programs, government bureaucratic eagerness to adopt them, by legal coercion of corporate executives into compliance, and the willingness of the working class to take the path of least resistance and look upon government sponsored programs for their welfare rather than shoulder the responsibilities of rational self interest and self sufficiency.

Henry Lamb writes:

"During the Carter years, the United States became a party to the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (October 5, 1977). Article 11 (1) of this treaty declares that “everyone” has a right to, among other things, housing. This is the same year that the Carter administration pushed through Congress the Community Reinvestment Act, designed to increase housing for low-income people. This new law required banks to report the number and value of loans issued to low-income people, and also gave community organizations (such as ACORN) the right to “comment” on proposed bank mergers and expansions. This gave these organizations leverage against banks that failed to issue enough loans to low-income borrowers." — The Obama-Ayers-ACORN-Bailout connection

This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that bankers forced to make bad loans guaranteed by the government, with oversight by advocacy groups was designed to fail. Will a bank executive try to make such a perversion work, or will he extract as much as possible for himself and drive the corrupt system into the ground?

We have the answer.
__

Permanent location
Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
Please post or forward to interested parties

As for Ayn Rand, we had a bit of discussion about her a few months back where I learned from Bobby how her arguments were twisted by the people who took over her work. He's got it all at his website for anyone who thinks Rand is irrelevant here.

U.S. Integration with the EU, Russia and China

Before there can be a New World Order (NWO) or a global government, all nations have to agree to abide by a global system of justice. The NWO is being introduced as Free Trade agreements between the nations. Regional governance and regulatory bodies like the WTO (World Trade Organization) has been slowly implemented in Fabian fashion throughout the Western world.

In the U.S. we adhere to the emerging integration requirements via trade agreements like CAFTA and NAFTA and the WTO. Regional contracts may in fact negate our status (and I am studying this concept right now, thanks to Todd from WA). At the bottom community level (with the global community existing at the very top) regional communitarian integration is accomplished via subserviant local community and economic development regulations.

The "former" Communist Russia must also adapt to international communitarian law before they can be fully admitted into the global free trade community, while openly communist China already participates (very successfully) in the global free trade community. Apparently the very concept of putting one's nation and home businesses first, or protecting local markets from cheap imports, died with the end of the U.S. Republic. (Shhh... Friedrich List never existed.)

As the following report explains, the transition is painful for local manufacturers and agriculture, even in the Re-Sovietized Union, but it's the "long-term" socio-economic gains that justify the complete and utter destruction of local economies. (And lest we forget, Amitai Etzioni and Mikhail Gorbachev coined the term "socio-economics," together.) Across America small and locally owned businesses and industries have been closed because they cannot "compete" on the emerging "free" global to local market. Overwhelming American support for Wal Mart's Chinese goods have been a big boost to global free trade. While many Americans do seem to notice how quickly locally owned businesses close their doors forever after the "new" corporate stores open, that deosn't stop them from shopping at the new corporate/government stores.

We're paying for the total destruction of our national standard of law. Our taxes already paid for a good portion of the integration, and now we're trading the last of our liberty for cheap toasters.

This just came in from Pete. I haven't read through it all (it's a 26 page pdf file). Notice how important the year 2020 is to the entire "concept." "Russia's 2020 Strategic Goals and the Role of International Integration" http://etresoi.ch/Denis/russia2020strat.pdf

Our little biographical textbook, "2020: Our Common Destiny," explains our biased American view (and Paul Barnes' Canadian Perspective) of the outcome of Free Trade International Integration. We include a brief introduction to the EU and the applicable standards for adapting national systems. To be in full compliance with international communitarian law (supreme) requires a complete "overhaul" of national and state legal standards. http://nord.twu.net/acl/2020.html

Bobby Garner recently joined a law forum and tried to start a discussion on Communitarian Law. Here's what happened:

My first post on the Team Law forum (posted here on congregator.net) which I posted on September 3rd was immediately quarantined by the forum administration. On Thursday September 4th, 2008, in a private message they wrote:

Though we appreciate your participation in our Open Forum, we temporarily moved your recent post to the Secured Admin access only forum. This action was taken due to the length of the post and the fact that Admin will not have a chance to review the document until next week. It also took place because the content might not comply with our Forum Rules or the purpose of our Open Forum, which is: to eliminate e-mail to and from Team Law.

That "next week" and following weeks, nothing happened, but then on the 18th I received the following:

Though we appreciate your participation in our Open Forum, we deleted content form one of your posts. The deletion occurred because the post did not comply with the purpose of our Open Forum,...
Regarding the subject matter of your post:
We addressed it accordingly on our Open Forum system in the post where the content was removed.

The post was moved to the 'Elections' forum. You will notice that the first paragraph and a portion of the first sentence of the second paragraph survived, as did some of the last paragraph. Everything between was deleted, and replaced with their own connective wording. As they explain in the reply:

Your original post was significantly longer and it delved into an interesting point of view regarding Freemasonry, its intentions and the outcomes proposed from their continuing efforts along with those that have molded that path for our country from the beginning.

This reads like an acknowledgment to the truth of my argument, but to steer me away from that conclusion, they continue:

Regardless of our opinion regarding such matters, they remain hypothetical offerings we have heard before that have nothing to do with our work.

My comments about the reality of Communitarian Law are nothing more than a "hypothetical offering" which they have already heard before. If in fact they ever did actually hear of it, the audience was carefully protected from the actual word, since it never before existed on the whole website. I checked. They wrote:

The reason such ideologies exist is people are ignorant of the law... If we had not edited a single word of your post, this would not change. We can do absolutely nothing about such conspiracy theories; even if they were true.

While it may be true that we can do nothing about it, and that is an argument I myself have made, the implication clearly is that this is only a conspiracy theory, which is probably not true. The difference is that I recognize that Communitarianism is already the reality, and not a theory at all. Nevertheless, they "addressed it [the issue] accordingly on our Open Forum system".

Here some more of my "hypothetical offering" posted today:

The Governor's Corner page lists 12 original jurisdiction states which are electing governors. All of these governors are members of the National Governors Association. As such they are part of a network of organizations known as the National Associations of Development Organizations. All 12 original jurisdiction state governors actively participate in the National Governors Association programs.

Other NADO member organizations include:
National Conference of State Legislatures
National League of Cities
U.S. Conference of Mayors
National Association of Local Government
National Association of Counties
National Association of Towns and Townships
National Association of State Budget Officers
National Association of Regional Councils

Who coordinates and directs the activities of the National Association of Development Organizations?

What kinds of development? sustainable, regional, economic,community, urban..., "National Association of Development Organizations provides training, information and representation for regional development organizations in small metropolitan and rural America"

Each of these areas of development comes under the purview of Sustainable Development, which is the UN Agenda 21 program. The various associations of local, regional and national government, write, adopt, promote and enforce the body of Communitarian Law.

How can the mayor of my town make decisions in the interest of my town when he is building consensus with neighboring towns throughout a region, which by design promote the greater good of the region regardless of its effect on my town.

Seeing that the Original Jurisdiction state governors are complicit in this unconstitutional regional governance, how do they distinguish themselves from the corporate governors?

You can read it on the forum if you get there before they delete it, or the can read the entire thread HERE...

Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
Free to forward or post.

In America, Communitarian Legal Integration is still a conspiracy theory. How is that possible? Oh that's right, it's illegal here. It can never be openly discussed in front of a nation of individuals whose national and state law forbids globalists plotting to destroy the constitutional basis for ALL American law on U.S. soil.

Thanks to Bobby, Pete and Brian and Trudy for keeping me informed. For all the new people writing me lately asking what they should do now that they know, we just made another new friend who may have some ideas we can ponder. Lainie is a staunch McCain/Palin Republican who can recognise the communitarian vision in Obama. It's a start in the right direction. Welcome to the ACL quest Rev. Lainie!

Rev. L. Dowell, Five-Fold Minister
revldowell-clergywomen@erols.com
http://www.voiceink.blogspot.com

And now for economic and Wall Street news from Peter Myer's elist:

From: IHR News Date: 20.09.2008 04:01 AM

Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight
by Jon Hilsenrath, Serena Ng and Damian Paletta
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Wall Street Journal

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105785/Worst-Crisis-Since-1930s-With-No-End-Yet-in-Sight

And in keeping with the topic of this post:

From: Sino Economics Date: 18.09.2008 07:48 AM

China paper urges new currency order after "financial tsunami"
Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:45am EDT http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSPEK4365020080917?sp=true

BEIJING (Reuters) - Threatened by a "financial tsunami," the world must consider building a financial order no longer dependent on the United States, a leading Chinese state newspaper said on Wednesday.

The commentary in the overseas edition of the People's Daily said the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEH.P: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) "may augur an even larger impending global 'financial tsunami'."

The People's Daily is the official newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party, and the overseas edition is a smaller circulation offshoot of the main paper.

Its pronouncements do not necessarily directly reflect leadership views, but this commentary by a professor at Shanghai's Tongji University suggested considerable official alarm at the strains buckling world financial markets.

China's central bank earlier this week cut its lending rate for the first time in six years, a move analysts said was aimed at bolstering the economy and the battered stock market.

"The eruption of the U.S. sub-prime crisis has exposed massive loopholes in the United States' financial oversight and supervision," writes the commentator, Shi Jianxun.

"The world urgently needs to create a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States."

But Vice Premier Wang Qishan, on a visit to the United States, told U.S. trade officials in a meeting on Tuesday that China and the United States needed to maintain close economic ties with global markets going through such turbulence.

"The Chinese government is well aware of the fact that the United States, which is the world's largest developed country, and China, which is the world's largest developing country, should have constructive and cooperative economic and trade relations," he said.

China is a major buyer of U.S. Treasury bonds, and through its sovereign wealth fund it has taken stakes in two large U.S. financial institutions.

In July 2005, China revalued the yuan and freed it from a dollar peg to float within managed bands. But the yuan and China's trade remains tightly linked to the fortunes of the dollar.

The commentary suggested China must brace for grave economic fallout and look to alternatives, saying the crisis brings to mind the Great Depression of the 1930s.

"Lehman Brothers announced bankruptcy will not only have a domino effect on the global financial world, it will bring a shock to the world economy," the front-page comment stated.

(Reporting by Chris Buckley; Editing by Ken Wills)

Just think how much easier it will be to sell the Third Way synthesis during a global depression. The global planners know that desperate people make stupid choices. Will Americans fall for another New Deal? Maybe it's best to write it in Chinese and Russian so most Americans will accept a dumbed down translation of their new contract. Maybe too many of my generation can recognise the communist language in a globalist planning, so that's why they made such an effort to take over U.S. education, right Gislea?

Are Both Obama and Hillary DLC Candidates?

There's no doubt what-so-ever that Hillary Clinton is a friend of the DLC and its primary funders, the Sir Evelyn de Rothschilds. I'm sure Hillary knew American Democratic organizer Lynn Forrester before she married Sir Evelyn and the newlywed Rothschilds were invited to spend their wedding night in the White House.

The DLC's mission was to define the Third Way. I did some research on this a few years back, and Obamas name did come up: http://nord.twu.net/acl/thirdway.html

From the New York Observer, March 4, 2008:

"Mr. From said Mr. Obama had an intellectual, and not just tactical, connection to the D.L.C.

“I mean his chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, is a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, which is our think tank,” he said."
http://www.observer.com/2008/barack-obama-d-l-c-clintonite#comment-446036

It looked like Obama "left" the DLC in March 2005, at least that's what I quoted at the ACL. I'm not sure if using a DLC boy as his chief economist qualifies him to claim he left the DLC. I guess what this really means is we can't expect a revival of our economy based on the American System of Political Economy, besides, the PPI is only one of hundreds of think tanks that promote communitarian economics; the American system is outdated and a dangerous influence on Third World nations. Nobody who's anybody would ever be so uncouth as to bring it up in mixed company.

Here's a Rep Major Owens explaining in Jan 2008 why Hillary must rescue herself from the DLC. He gives a little background on it for us: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-major-r-owens/hillary-must-rescue-herse_b_81827.html