Webinar on Communitarianism April 13, 2013

Our first webinar on Communitarianism is on April 13, 2013, at 2:30 to 4:30 PM Alaska Time. Enrollment for each class is limited to 10. The cost is 40.00 USD, payment accepted via paypal only. Email registration requests to nikiraapana@gmail.com. Make your reservation today! Scholarships available.

http://nikiraapana.enterthemeeting.com/m/A14ZH1UN

The Communitarian "debate" between the Madville Times and the John Birch Society

This blog started as the ACL blog in 2003. Technically it still is, although I have made hundreds of posts unrelated to the ACL over the past nine years. Some of the top searches leading visitors here are "Why do people live in Alaska" and "Selling fur seal". I am a published author, I've also published hundreds of articles and research topic papers, but I blog too. What is the point of the whole "they're just a blogger" accusation that I hear more of these days?  I'm as connected to the posts I make on my blog as any articles or books I've written, and I have come to find many blogs well worth my time in my exhaustive research endeavor. What a shame that we have allowed a blanket dismissal of what has proven itself to be a wealth of knowledge and insightful perspectives, from so many viewpoints.

 

Because I have scoured the internet for over a decade doing keyword searches for the word "communitarian" on every website I visit, and spent easily a thousand hours doing google searches for variations of the term, I found an article recently posted at the Madville Times where the term was used. This pro-communitarian author not only used the term communitarianism, he chastised the John Birchers for their paranoid use of the word communitarianism.  This is his opening graph, leaving no doubt as to the purpose of the coming article:

 

"The Agenda 21 nutfest rolls on. The local John Birchers (under the guise of "Northern Hills Patriots") are wasting the Whitewood City Council's valuable time with their propaganda campaign to make every vaguely progressive public project or expenditure sound like a Marxist United Nations plot. Spearfish conspiratist Bill Nachitilo asked Whitewood councilors last week to adopt a resolution rejecting any policies or money related to the United Nations effort he and his pals imagine is afoot to take away our lives, liberty, and property." http://madvilletimes.com/2012/08/local-birchers-harass-whitewood-council-with-agenda-21-harangues/

 I think it's only fair to let my readers know what I wrote on that blog, since some are fans and/or members of the JBS. It's also important to me now that I make a very clear distinction between our ACL research and the John Birch Society. I wrote about how the JBS is using my research in their publications without attribution in the revision to 2020, but I didn't explain the exact difference between our views until I wrote it in the comments I made at the Madville Times.

 

Here's why I commented:

 

There's no fixing some political madness. But I want to take issue with just one tiny sliver of NHP's madness. In their deep study of unicorns, Nachatilo and his obsessive cohorts have determined that "'Communitarianism' refers to the community being superior over individual rights." {lbid}

 Who exactly are Nachatilo's "obsessive chorts"? I don't know Nachatilo, but he is quoting our thesis that LA21 Communitarianism means the community is "superior over individual rights."  This is our original theory of the Communitarian philosophy that's driving Agenda 21. Nobody else has done the same research we did or came to this conclusion before us. The JBS writers "leading" the fight against Agenda 21 ten years ago refused to even use the term in their publications. We were completely ostracized from the right wing "freedom" movement because we used the word!

 

I had to go look up Nachatilo and see what and who the Mad writer was referring to. There's nothing on Nachatilo's site with the word "Communitarian." http://www.northernhillspatriots.com/?s=communitarian So how did he become associated with the term? I had to go read the article cited in the piece by Jason Gross, a writer for The Black Hills Pioneer, who wrote:

 

"Nachatello said students of Agenda 21 have categorized three key areas:

*“Social equity” is based on social justice, which is about redistribution of wealth;

*“National sovereignty” is perceived as a social injustice, and open borders are favored; and

*“Communitarianism” refers to the community being superior over individual rights." http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/article_a2cd4312-ee3b-11e1-ba64-001a4bcf887a.html

 

 

What "students?" Why did Nachatilo include our original thesis in his summary as if it was a collective effort by some vague, un-named group of students working for the JBS/Right Wing opposition to Agenda 21? We're not JBS, we're not Right wing, we never have been, and we're certainly not students anymore, good grief. With what we've published and how many people we've taught about communitarianism, we're experts in this topic now.

 

Why did the Madville writer make a direct association between the "key area" called "communitarianism" with the John Birch Society? Maybe because the Northern Hills Patriots have the JBS magazine, The New American, listed on their website:

Special Web Links

Nothern Hills Patriots Website: http://www.northerhillspatriots.com/
Citizens for Liberty -Rapid city: www.sdcitizens.com/events/group-events/rapid-city-tax-day-tea-party/
Tea Party Express: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/
Human Events: GunsandPatriots@email.humanevents.com
Heritage Foundaton-Morning Bell morningbell@heritage.org
The New Americaqn News Magazine: http://www.thenewamerican.com/
Political Math http://www.politicalmath.com/index.php
Contact Info: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
National Review: www.nationalreview.com/articles/262205/obamacare-marches-michael-tanner

 

The JBS never published any original research about Communitarianism (unless Berit Kjos or Jerri Lynn Ball are JBS). They cannot show how they came to the conclusion that it's the philosophy behind Agenda 21. We have, and we can.  Yet the JBS never linked to our research, and we were never invited to speak or participate in any of their "Freedom" events. I contacted them more than once over the years since they were such a major component in the Sustainable Development arena, but like the Libertarians, they refused to use the term communitarianism and for the most part refused to acknowledge our work even existed. Not that we wanted to go to their "liberty" fests or join their "Freedom" clubs, but after a few years it became obvious that there was some kind of a club of people studying Agenda 21, and we were not in it. In the past few years many new websites have popped up all over the internet claiming to be "experts" on Agenda 21, but not ONE of them produced any original research on communitariansm that tied it to Agenda 21. 99 out of a 100 never even used the term, and the majority excluded our links from their source and reference lists.

 

Napa, California anti-communitarian Kevin Eggers told me he attended a JBS meeting last year and not one of the twenty members present had heard of it. But every article recently that's written anything about the local opposition to Agenda 21 that mentions the word communitarianism in their piece, directly associates the term with the John Birch Society.

 

So why, now that Agenda 21 has caused such a commotion across America, is the JBS being given all the credit for our contributions to understanding the philosophy behind Agenda 21? Because the JBS leads everyone right back into the dialectic by telling people it's "basically communism." This retreat into the outdated 50s dialectic gives the other "side" of the phony dialectical debate a target they can easily ridicule and dismiss. By associating communitarianism with the JBS and their Right Wing definition, it keeps any discussion of what Communitarianism really is out of the conversation altogether. Most American "patriot" sites continue to rail against the system by calling it communism or socialism, but that's slowly changing right before my eyes. I think we can expect to see the word communitarianism used more and more, but it'll keep being dismissed as a JBS unicorn study.

 

Our position in the debate was challenged by the Maddies and I was personally attacked as being a self-inflated egotist because I insisted my research gives me a position of authority on the anti communitarian position. I was told I'm not the "only anti communitarian researcher" and that there are many others. That would be good news, if it were true. But the facts don't support it. The only "students of Agenda 21" who categorized it as a Communitarian Program are at the ACL. Anyone else who writes that is using our research. The only students of Agenda 21 who wrote an original thesis disputing Communitarianism and Agenda 21 are at the ACL. 

 

We wrote the only published Manifesto against Communitarianism. We always acknowledged and referenced anything we used from Jerri Ball, but our work is very different from hers (Kevin assures me Jerri has changed her view of it since she last published Time Bomb in 2002). Constance Cumbey is another writer who has published some articles about it and uses it in her tag line, but the only published works that focus opposition on The Communitarian Network and the guru Amitai Etzioni are at the ACL, or originated from the ACL. The only extensive lists of published papers and original opposition research on International and EU Communitarian Law is at the ACL. The law is another piece that most anti Agenda 21 writers ignore, and I still get emails telling me crazy things like EU Communitarian Law evolved organically and has nothing to do with Agenda 21! 

 

The LAST thing the dialectical players want any of us to know is that there is no official "communist law," and there is no official "socialist law," but there is definitely an official law called "communitarian law."  So okay, you get to learn the word Communitarian now, the controlled right have to use it because Rosa Koire let the cat out of the bag, but you can't know what it is, and all left wing rebuttals will be against the JBS. Now that's what I'd call a nutfest too.

 

I'm going to make a new section at the ACL website called Plagiarizers and Disinfo Experts. If you're one of the many people who have stolen my words and written them as if they were your own, if you're one of those plagiarizers who ignored my email requests to remove it from your site, this is your last warning to take it down off the internet and pull every hardcopy publication you put out that reproduced our original research without proper attribution or acknowledgement. We made our work freely available because we wanted to share it. "Share" is the keyword. We never gave up copyright. 

What I'm learning from social networking

I signed up for facebook a couple years ago after an 18 year old started a group there called the Anti Communitarian League. He designed the group page himself. He filled it with quotes from people like Margaret Meade and Ayn Rand, both of whom I think were players in the dialectical games, and their purpose was to lead us into the ultimate communitarian solution.

Even though I could see young Nick C. didn't quite understand all of the pieces and players who make up the communitarian scam, I didn't challenge him for quoting questionable sources to define his anti communitarian stand. I figured everyone grasps this new concept within the confines of their own understanding. His was clouded with a modern American Marxist education (the same one Nordica received). My perception is clouded with my American Zionist military patriot upbringing. Others use their religious beliefs to define it, and just as many others use their anti religious beliefs to condemn it. I've found there are as many different reactions to the communitarian theory as there are different variations on the theory. And up to this time, I've held to the assumption that it's best to allow people to figure it out on their own.

It didn't seem right for me to push my anti communitarian stand on anyone else, and while I often cajoled the American "patriot right" into looking at the law, I didn't hammer away at what I think we ALL need to think about communitarianism. I thought it was much more meaningful and important for everyone to determine for themselves where they stand on the most powerful social and political platform in the world. (And I didn't fully realize all this hammering at the Right made many people assume I am a rightwingnut too!)

What I had to finally face and admit is that it is impossible to grasp the pure evil of the communitarian ideology without letting go of every attachment we have to the bankers' economic and social theories. We cannot let go of the theories while clinging to the favored authors who taught us to join in the conflicts between all these theories.

As long as we adhere to a portion of the thesis or antithesis, we cannot see the final synthesis as the culmination of a whole process. I've spent 2 years on fb posting things that I thought would help people to explore the unnatural nature of communitarian thinking, and I've had some amazing conversations with insightful and thoughtful people.

I began calling the Occupy Wall Street movement communitarian months ago. Since then there have been members who self-describe the protests as "communitarian" and a few other mainstream writers have picked up the term. Still, I'd guess close to half my fb friends support the "Occupy" protests because they cannot see how they lead to a communitarian "solution."

"Is there a solution? Well, that depends on us. Can we live with less? Can we learn to use available resources — neighbors, vacant public spaces, social networks, community organizations — to maintain or enhance our health? Can we accept that overconsumption never really was the route to happiness anyway?"
http://rachelsigner.com/2011/10/13/how-it-all-went-down-why-we-have-the-99-percent/

It should have come as no surprise last month when the same kid who started the fb ACL page told me he doesn't see eye to eye with me politically and unfriended me.

The advantage of having a vague theory that combines all others is there's something in it for everyone. Something to hate and something to love.

2020/TACM update: We've got the pages laid out and are filling them in, shouldn't be too much longer now. While it's been a terribly embarassing long time trying to get it finished, it's been necessary time as well. There are a lot of new communitarian developments that will be part of this revised edition, and hopefully it's written with a better understanding of our readers. Again, thank you all for your continued paitence.

Communitarian Super Heroes!

This is not a prank story. It really happened.

Police alerted to 'superheroes' patrolling Seattle

By CASEY MCNERTHNEY
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Seattle police say a group of self-described superheroes have been patrolling the streets at night trying to save people from crime. They call themselves the Rain City Superhero Movement and say they're part of a nationwide movement of real-life crime fighters.

The national website -- cited in a police bulletin sent to Seattle officers Wednesday -- states

"a Real Life Superhero is whoever chooses to embody the values presented in super heroic comic books, not only by donning a mask/costume, but also performing good deeds for the communitarian place whom he inhabits."

Police say the "costume-wearing complainants" are lucky they haven't been hurt."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/430430_super19.html

I don't know about you, but this story may be the first time we've found something referring to communitarian that just made us laugh. Sure hard to explain anti communitarianism in this context.

How bizarre that the neighborhood in the article is where we lived and started the ACL, back before anyone knew what communitarian places were. And it sounds weird but I doubt this brave masked crusader meant to say "whom" because he thinks a communitarian place is a person, I'm assuming he meant "which." I do wonder where he learned to use the word communitarian place. Maybe we should track him down and arrange a secret interview.

I know my 3 year old grandson would think it's a great idea! He plays Batman all the time.

Well duh, went and read their website and not laughing as much anymore. It's all tied to their belief in "community service." They're tools for the evolving collective... and that's not funny at all. So much for my looking at the brighter side of life. :)

Becoming the Communitarian Middle

A + B = Z
anti-war versus war equals
peaceful nuclear war

Rainmaking in Afghanistan
by Amitai Etzioni

The reports from our generals in Afghanistan—trying to convince the public to support extension of the war, to be shortly reviewed by the President-- remind me of a study by anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard. He wondered how rain makers could stay in business, given that they hardly produce rain on demand. The shamans, he found, had well-honed explanations that kept them in business. Our generals are using the same rationales to keep going. When no raindrops followed the rain makers’ dance, they would claim that the dance was not properly performed. Our generals argue that we did not fight right in the first six years of our engagement in Afghanistan—but now they have found a better way: it is called counterinsurgency. So far, though, it has not produced any better results.

If still no rain was coming the rain makers in Africa would argue that some external force interfered, and it is to be blamed for their failings. Our generals are employing a similar argument . Indeed, they name the external force. They call it Pakistan—which provides a safe haven for the Taliban—and the ISI is said to arm them and provide them with intelligence and training. True enough, but this “external” force is not going away.

And if countering the external force with a new dance still did not do the trick, the shamans held that the dance had to be done over again, and that it will rain—only later. The generals argue that they need more time; they assure us they will prevail by 2014 or by 2015, or—some say—it will take even longer.

Indeed, the generals have a rationale they can add to the rain makers’ repertoire. They say that they did not have enough “dancers”. And whatever additional numbers they get is never enough.

There is one very telling difference. Eventually, it would rains and “validate” the shamans. I am far from sure that our generals will be able to keep us supporting their “dances” for long enough for them to win in Afghanistan, if only because what winning means is changing all the time.

We first were in Afghanistan—in wake of the 2001 attacks on our homeland to ensure that it did not harbor terrorists. Indeed, as late as 2009 President Obama defined our mission there as “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda,” period. Since then, the mission has been expanded to include building a legitimate and effective government in this 12th-century country, in order to prevent future terrorists from making it their home, a very tall order, at best. We recently added that we cannot leave unless the Taliban agree to abide by the Afghan constitution that guarantees women’s rights. We are now also told that we must stay there to avoid a civil war.

The most recent twist, in this ever changing –and growing—rationale is that if we leave, it would “be a big shot in the arm to different militant groups in the region, groups that are not just Taliban insurgents—and they are diverse—but groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba that are fighting into Kashmir and want to attack India, and groups in Tariqi Taliban in Pakistan that are fighting the Pakistanis,” according to Caroline Wadhams, Director for South Asia Security Studies at the influential Center for American Progress. Still others argue that India will be troubled if Pakistan can unduly influence the post–U.S. Afghanistan, and—that Pakistan will be upset if India gains more influence after we leave. Some even argued that our retreat could lead to a regional war.

Those of us who opposed the war in Vietnam and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, find all this all too familiar. Generals are wisely very reluctant to go to war, but once they do, they hate cutting their losses and calling it a day. This is why we must raise our voices. We cannot build a legitimate, effective government in Afghanistan. We should let the people of Afghanistan figure out what kind of government they want. And it is up to Pakistan and India to work out their differences, curb terrorist groups that aim to undermine their regimes. We never could be the world’s policeman, and we are less equipped to do so now than we were in more affluent days. Above all, never mind the shamans’ excuses. Look at the result, here and now.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at the George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale 2007).

http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2010/11/rainmaking-in-afghanistan.html

For more information, please visit:
-The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at www.icps.gwu.edu
-The Communitarian Network at http://communitariannetwork.org/

If you do not wish to continue receiving mailings from us, please send a message to icps@gwu.edu with the subject line "unsubscribe."

The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies
The George Washington University
1922 F St. NW, Rm. 413
Washington, DC 20052
ph: 202.994.8190
fax: 202.994.1606
icps.gwu.edu

Where does Iranian opinion fit into Etzioni's dialectic? It doesn't.

The Mafia Principle that drives U.S. foreign policy means that the power elites cannot tolerate the slightest open defiance from any entity, even when that entity is not a serious threat to their global interests. This mafia principle is the overwhelming driver for the U.S. war preparations against Iran. The possibility of gaining effective control over Iran's vast hydrocarbon resources, educated workforce, and substantial market, however remote, is but an added bonus that could turn the ruling elites' wildest wet dream into reality. Failing that, there is always the exciting prospect of breaking up the country into more managable pieces. Bomb Iran Back to the Stone Age: U.S. Army Journal Cover Story by BabakSabzevari
24-Jun-2010 http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/babaksabzevari/bomb-iran-back-stone-age-u-s-army-journal-cover-story

Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'

This came today from Consuelo. It confirms Etzioni's recent CNN article and his advice to our government. Many govt employees can use communitarian "reasons" for stripping our rights and liberties away. It's been a few years since I posted that article from an English newspaper where the London cops took an entire pub hostage and gave them the same choice between a virtual strip search and an actual strip search. Is strip searching bar patrons for drugs and weapons the next step here too? Communitarianism is, after all, a global justice program.

How many Americans are meekly submitting to these Israeli/Nazi checkpoints? Most of them?

Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'

by Michael Roberts

October 15, 2010 – My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an "alternative option" to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.

As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.

Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this "incident" – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.

As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.

"Am I under arrest?" I asked.

"No, he just needs to ask you some more questions."

"But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?"

"We just need to hold you here so he can…"

"Hold me in what capacity?" I insisted.

"Detain you while we…"

Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.

We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?

"Do you want them to board your plane?" he asked.

"No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."

"Yeah, I know," he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, "But somebody’s already taken those away."

"Maybe they have," I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.

As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.

The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.

His reply: "That’s irrelevant."

It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.

"I need to get your information for my report," he demanded.

"The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him."

"No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…"

"I’m familiar with TSOC," I assured him. "In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline."

"Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better," he barked.

"Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"

"I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."

"Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly."

Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative "option" to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d "had words" with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been "any exchange of words." I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.

As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.

It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.

Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

Michael S. Roberts
3794 Douglass Ave.
Memphis, TN 38111
901.237.6308
FedUpFlyers@nonpartisan.com

October 18, 2010

Michael S. Roberts [send him mail] is a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Interest grows in anti communitarian theory

The garden view in early spring,

we just had the warmest February on record?

Perfect weather here today!

I'm getting more pleas for a simplified explanation of anti communitarian thinking. Must be because Clinton is going around the country telling us we have to be more communitarian

Here's a response I sent to my mother this morning, with all the typos fixed. :) Please feel free to add comments and share with my mom what anti communitarianism is for you, or anything else relevant to this. My mom is not the only one asking for a simple explanation, and I know that anti communitarianism is defined differently by everyone who understands it. That's the nature of the beast. Communitarian solutions require dialectical conflicts, and we have all been trained to think and fight dialectically. But not all our differences are dialectical, and I know that if we agree on one piece of this, we don't always agree on another. What's the bottom line to you?

Dear mom,
Communitarianism is the theory behind the emerging global government. It over rules all US law and replaces it with communitarian supremacy of law (EU, WTO, NAFTA, etc.) It's been introduced under treaties (Law of the Sea, Kyoto, etc) and under the Administrative Procedures Act of1946 (agency regulations). The blueprint for changing the global landscape is called UN Local Agenda 21. http://nord.twu.net/acl/agenda21.html

The global system is based in self appointed community councils who direct all private and public resources. According to the gurus (and yes Clinton is one of them)all rights to privacy and property are barriers to peace and global prosperity; communitarianism promises all wealth will be gathered and redistributed amongst the poor nations who suffered so long from Western greed and gluttony.This is why Seattle had the new "right" to enter our homes without a legal search warrant. Under communitarian law, ALL individual rights must be "balanced" against the rights of the undefinable, vague community, who have their own new police force introduced under Clinton, called community policing. (I have many recent quotes of Clinton on the ACL homepage, http://nord.twu.net/acl/index.html)

I am opposed to elimination of US law without a constitutional amendment approved by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, as per our constitutional requirements. If this isn't what you wanted or you want to know more, we just restocked 2020: Our Common Destiny. That's the most simplified explanation of the system we've written. http://nord.twu.net/acl/books.html I also highly recommend you read our Anti Communitarian Manifesto, http://nord.twu.net/acl/manifesto, available free online or in hardcopy collector's editions. Part I will be difficult since you have no education in philosophy, but please plod through even where you don't understand it. In the end you will, I promise.

Mom, our thesis against communitarianism has been studied by university students AND professors for eight years... and no one has ever rebutted us. Our work has been introduced in Vassar College Seminars on Quality of Life, it's been included in National Association of Scholars research into communitarian residence life movements. I can assure you I have established myself globally as a credible researcher, I am the expert, and my audience is world wide.

If it sounds like I was bragging too much, I was, but like Kathy says, in our family if you don't brag, nobody listens to you. America is a lot like that too. Raised in American "no brag just facts" territory, I also know my words must counter what other words are often used to describe me, my lifestyle, and my work. I wanted to plant the possibility in my mother that my anti communitarian stand is right and just, that it has value, and that I can claim a certain amount of respect for what I've accomplished. I added that I love her, because I do, but I forgot to add the line I came up with during a radio interview last year: Communitarianism is best defined as Rule By Permit Only.

Been thinking about gertee so much lately, it's hard to get my head back around my ACL arguments. Part of me would rather not, and like I told Susan (who reminded me how many other times I've said this), I am again thinking very seriously about ending this blog and letting it stand as it is. There's not much more I can add to my argument. All I can do is follow communitarianism's rapid global development, witness more people I love fawning all over it and listen to everyone repeating communitarian lingo... what's the point of that?

I have 2 radio interviews coming up, March 14th 7pm CST on Intelstrike with Michael Vail and April 13, 9pm MTN with Melodee at The TruthQuest with guest co-host Lark! Links to both show hosts are on the right side, under Radio Interviews. They will probably be my last ones. Now that everyone in the US recognizes there are new rules, it's going to get even uglier out there, and I just can't imagine following every yukky way this thing goes down.

Watching my people flounder and drown is not how I plan to spend my last years of freedom. I want to live as if there are no communitarians anywhere, make my daily plans as if I hold all the natural born liberties that my constitution says I hold. Like dad always said, "the best defense is a good offense," and I further agree with another Friedrich named List, too.

I do believe the way we take back America is to take back our land, our natural resources and rebuild upon our local industry and agriculture. The US national system of high tariffs and fair trade with equals existed long before the national socialist model adopted by the Nazis.

Communitarian "balancing" eliminates the balance between national industry and agriculture. That's the ONLY "balance" the USA needs. We are still (on the books) a constitutional republic where the legitimate law exists only to protect individual citizens' life, liberty and property. It's always been about the land, and everything on it. The question is, who owns it? Even Lenin talked about that being our only strength as a nation. Without it, without our land and the right to use it and manage it as we see fit, we have nothing solid to sustain us, and our nation becomes dependent on the empire for all its necessities... just like the good old colonial days. Visit any American Indian reservation if you have any question about what happens when you lose your right to control your economic landscape.

So, because I can, I will try to do my duty and part, as an American (and not a global communitarian subject). I will start a homegrown business, create industry and find ways to take our goods to the marketplace. I'm certain I will see how many communitarian regulations my American freedoms violate, particularly since the whole new system is modeled after the system built by our Soviet allies in Israel.

As a freeborn citizen of the state of Alaska, I have the God given, natural right to do it all. I was raised to honor my heritage. I was told to think and then freely act upon my moral obligations, which moral men and women do naturally recognize. I was endowed with great respect for my ancestors, who put their lives on the line to defend my God given rights, because the world holds many men who seek to make me and my offspring slaves. I look at my children and my children's children and I can only weep when I verify the most horrific truths of what the future looks like for Nordica and Nolan, let alone Freddie's generation. I see an America ruled by the same principles ruling Gaza, the ME poster child for universal communitarian peace. I can only live each day with gratitude that we are not there yet, and every day we're not is a blessed gift.

Pro Communitarian Groups on Facebook

From the Communitarian Fellowship:

"The election of Barack Obama not only provided a fundamental shift in politics and social consciousness but also allowed the philosophy of communitariansim to move into the forefront. Much of Obama's philosophy during his campaign and even possessed in his writings are tenets of the communitarian spirit. many who wish or seek to undermine him or purely due to their own ignorance, have tried to label many of Obama's and others ideas to communism or socialism. While these schools of thought may have some similarities, Barack Obama is a communitarian in his political, social ans religious approach. His pragmatism expresses the notion that one can influence his community by getting involved and being active. Communitariansim looks at the infrastructure of society and humanity. By working together for common goals and solutions, many obstacles can be overcome. With a President of the United State so clearly of the communitarian approach, it is only fitting that the advocates and students of communitarian come to the forefront. It would also be profitable to discuss communitarian ideas and notions since they will be influencing many policies and procedures at least for the next 4 years."

From I think I may be a communitarian:

There are Seven Principles of communitarianism consists of 1. Unity of all people and their diversity. This unity can be expressed through one's faith, community (family and friends circles), and social groups. 2. Self-Determination and actualization by defining oneself, naming oneself, create and speaking for oneself and appreciating whom god has made you. 3. Collective Responsibility by building and maintain community together and make our neighbour's problems our problems by working together for a solution. 4. Cooperation and Entrepreneurship To be committed to the work ethic and working together for positive results and solutions.5. Purpose in making our collective vocation the building and developing of ourselves and our community in order to restore people to their traditional greatness and potential. 6. Creativity and Innovation where one does as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our communities self perpetuating and beneficial for future generations.7. Faith"

From Community Forum-Concept of a Communitarian:

"The election of President Barack Obama has initiated the rise of Communitarianism or the concept of the community shaping the mores and values of society. Let us all be that individual who makes up that community in society that shapes our world. Many have tried to label Obama as being a socialist, but actually he is expressing the tenets of a Communitarian."

From Communitarianism/Christian Democracy:

"At the heart of the communitarian understanding of social justice is the idea of reciprocity: each member of the community owes something to all the rest, and the community owes something to each of its members.

"Basically, this is a group to join and network members of the communitarian and Christian Democracy ideologies. These two movements differ in the means by which they arrive at very similar ends. The most basic explanation of these movements is, by their American definitions, socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I encourage you to join if you either loosely agree or identify stongly with this ideology."

From Oklahoma Communitarians:

"This group was created for those people who don't fit into the political box, who consider themselves Communitarians, to have an opportuinity to learn more from one another, and discuss politics and policy."

From Red Tory Revolution:

"Notable Red Tories: Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Robert Borden, John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Bill Davis, and Joe Clark.

"Red Tories believe in government intervention and every ones responsibility of to others and the state. Also as well that with power and wealth there are social as well as other responsibilities. These involve many communitarian ideas such as an equal right to education, housing, universal health care, welfare, social safety programs, public works programs, and laws limiting those things like guns or pollution that are seen as detriments to society."

From Christian Anarchists- A new world is possible:

"The teachings of Jesus Christ and the essential nature of his present and coming reign and rule are anarchistic and nonviolent at their core and foundation. Christian anarchism is a much needed alternative to the civil religion that has been posing as Christianity since Constantine. This is a genesis type attempt at bringing together serious nonviolent communitarian Christians and nonviolent Christian anarchists for the sake of community and common cause."

There's been a lot of concern over facebook's violation of copyrights policy, and I was one of those who almost quit the place because of it. I stayed because I want to keep up with how the communitarian ideology penetrates unaware minds. It was also important to me that I maintain a presence at the Anti-Communitarian League group, which has hovered at around 40 members since I arrived. Nobody's saying much on the wall, but I see that happen at a lot of groups so it doesn't concern me much. What does concern me is there are already so many groups promoting it using Etzioni's propaganda. The Anti-NWO groups that have the biggest memberships use information from disinformation agents, so, as much as I "support" their titles I cannot support their foundations. We don't need to cite Alex Jones, Jim Marrs or the Protocols to define our anti NWO position, and when we do we play right into their chess move and basically negate all our legal grounds for opposition.

Communitarianism is a religious based GLOBAL LEGAL system, and to categorize it as a benevolant and kind social political theory is the biggest lie of all time. People DIE under insane communitarian laws. People lose their homes, their farms, their vehicles, their right to work, to play and to study. Communitarian democracy is what the British-US-Israeli leadership is exporting to the Middle East. Environmental Communitarian Law is already enforced in almost 200 "nations" around the globe.

In spite of the frigid dip in temperatures here (it's been very cold in my gertee when the fire goes out after I'm asleep), I'm keeping my spirits lifted and raising my voice to the sky. I've got a lot (too many?) of projects going all at once and then I stopped in the middle of everything and made a whole new miniature scene for my older sister's upcoming birthday. I can't believe how powerful the inspiration is when I design one for a specific somebody I love. Then gluing it all down because it has to be shipped was an amazing transformation too.

So, while the gertee book is still a number one priority, and the Camp Redington website showed me how badly I need to revise and update the ACL's gertee page, right now I'm writing a new ACL article called, "Communitarian Law: Rule by Insanity." I'm trying to keep it simple, and that drives me insane. :)