Tea Party Communitarian By JONATHAN COPPAGE • November 19, 2013

There's a very good reason I've never identified with the Conservative Right. Many Conservatives support the ACL because we publish facts they use. They simply respect our quality of work. Many conservatives are put off because I don't identify myself as a Conservative or a Christian. They ask me to. I won't. If I did, I'd have a lot more readers, supporters, and a lot more promotions. If I were anything, even a Lesbian Democrat, I'd be a lot better off than being what I am. In order to appeal to my countrymen I must wear a label. But I don't identify myself as anything but anticommunitarian, and the American people have yet to become aware of what that means. 

Once I identified the thesis and the antithesis leading to the communitarian synthesis, I became aware of the dialectical roles each "side" plays in promoting the communitarian synthesis. After that I could never participate in any "side" that helps the communitarians. Then we showed with our antithesis how the evidence verifies the transformation of all societies into one big blob. Okay, so I never described it as a "blob," but maybe I should have! People know what that word means.

Today the communitarian synthesis (or blob) is manifesting in the Tea Party. I warned Americans this was going to happen in my Open Letter to Local Tea Party members in 2010. http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-letter-to-all-members-of-local-tea.html

Either I have special powers of divination, God told me what to write, or I'm a damn good journalist. Whatever I am, I am the ONLY writer in the world who saw this coming and warned the public about it years before it happened. Now there's a "Tea Party Communitarian"! Oh yeah.

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

By JONATHAN COPPAGE • November 19, 2013

Article re-posted in its entirety from The American Conservative website http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tea-party-communitarian/:

Mike Lee is an unlikely candidate for conservatism’s most promising policy mind. A Tea Party firebrand since he swept into office in 2010, Lee was the driving force behind efforts to defund Obamacare that led to a 16-day government shutdown this October. Yet the past year has also seen him reveal another side to his populist conservatism: a communitarian agenda for policy reform.

At the American Enterprise Institute in September, Lee set out a tax-reform proposal centered around a per child tax credit that would apply to income and payroll taxes alike. At the unveiling, Lee said: “Now, if you are like me—a conservative with a libertarian streak—you might at first raise an eyebrow at all this. My plan, you might say, may share some features of traditional conservative tax reform but it’s no flat tax. It’s no consumption tax,” two policies long favored by conservative for their economic efficiency or ostensible fairness.

“That’s right,” he continued. “It’s better.”

With the slightest hint of braggadocio that only a humble Utahn can muster, Lee broke with the economic individualism of the conservative establishment to prioritize instead the family, “the first and foremost institution of civil society.” There was a sound economic basis for this, to be sure. Lee drew attention to what he called the “Parent Tax Penalty” whereby parents doubly contribute to entitlement programs through their taxes and the expenses they incur raising future taxpayers. And he insisted, “Here, I am not speaking about the family as a moral or cultural institution, strictly as a social and economic one.” But that in itself is significant: the family, not just the individual, is what economics must be about.

“Conservatives sometimes get criticized for putting too much emphasis on the family in policy debates,” he acknowledged. But “the real problem may be that we don’t think about the family enough. For family is not just one of the major institutions through which people pursue happiness. Is the one upon which all the others depend.”

At the Heritage Foundation in April, Lee delivered a communitarian manifesto of sorts entitled “What Conservatives Are For.” He emphasized “that the true and proper end of political subsidiarity is social solidarity” and explained that his “vision of American freedom is of two separate but mutually reinforcing institutions: a free enterprise economy and a voluntary civil society.”

Lee’s proposals focus on relieving burdens on the institutions that strengthen society in their everyday practice. This outlook goes straight back to his Utah origins. “We’ve always been a state that has had strong institutions of civil society, very strong neighborhoods, very connected neighborhoods where people know each other,” the senator tells me. “Sometimes people are quick to assume that that just refers to people who are members of my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but it’s not just that. There’s a very strong neighborhood dynamic in Utah that perhaps traces back to the way we were settled,” he explains.

“People had traveled great distances, sometimes thousands of miles to get there to what was initially a fairly desolate desert. The Salt Lake Valley was said to only have one or two trees when the first Mormon Pioneers arrived in 1847, and it required people to work together a lot to build these communities, to make the desert blossom like a rose. And that has become part of our culture, and it has thrived.”

{Niki ads this link here: Mormon Communitarianism- Distinct by Eschatology

 http://boaporg.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/mormon-communitarianism-distinct-by-eschatology/}

Communitarian concern for the social fabric and libertarian resistance to big-government interventions fit together naturally for the Utah senator. “Lee has been eager to show that social conservatism and concern for the family doesn’t speak a different language than his kind of constitutionalism and limited government-ism,” says Yuval Levin, editor of the policy quarterly National Affairs. Levin is encouraged by the direction he sees leaders like Lee taking.

“I think there’s been a tendency for a decade or more in conservatism to move away from communitarian talk to a much more individualist talk, and it’s very much in need of counterforce,” he says. “Conservatism needs to be a counterweight to radical individualism, not an enabler of it, and to me to see that being expressed again is really crucial.”

At AEI, Lee opened his proposal by speaking of “a new and unnatural stagnancy” that has trapped the poor and worn down the middle class. There are the beginnings here of a different way of talking about the economy, in contrast to the GOP’s old prosperity gospel for the upwardly mobile. Republicans a year ago proved all too ready to fan the flames of upper-class resentment with talk of the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax. Lee rebukes that mentality, pointing out at AEI that “people who pay no income tax do pay federal taxes—payroll taxes, gas taxes, and various others,” and squarely declaring, “Working families are not free riders.” 

Lee rails upward instead, against the cronyism that big government and big business together have cultivated at the taxpayer’s expense. “At the top of our society, we find a political and economic elite that—having reached the highest rungs—has pulled up the ladder behind itself, denying others the chance even to climb,” he warned at AEI. At Heritage, he went so far as to say, “The first step in a true conservative reform agenda must be to end this kind of preferential policymaking. Beyond simply being the right thing to do, it is a prerequisite for earning the moral authority and political credibility to do anything else.” How, he asked, could working families take seriously a conservatism that props up and subsidizes big banks and corporate agricultural interests?

For a GOP long seen as the party of entrenched financial interests, populist credibility must be won back, and a deregulation agenda alone won’t cut it. This is where Lee’s rugged communitarianism is especially vital to his cause. In his Heritage speech, he described the conservative vision as “not an Ayn Rand novel. It’s a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a society of ‘plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow, too’. ”

He continued,

In the last few years, we conservatives seem to have abandoned words like ‘together,’ ‘compassion,’ and ‘community’ as if their only possible meanings were as a secret code for statism. This is a mistake. Collective action doesn’t only—or even usually—mean government action. Conservatives cannot surrender the idea of community to the left, when it is the vitality of our communities upon which our entire philosophy depends.

Lee’s understanding of civil society redirects what often seems like a pure populist backlash—a mere reaction—to finding constructive ways in which limited-government constitutionalists can act on James Madison’s notion that government is for “the happiness of the people” and Abraham Lincoln’s idea that it ought “to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all.”

But can Lee sell his communitarian message to his fellow constitutionalists? Levin is hopeful: “He has a shot because to a certain extent he’s filling a vacuum, and that means he really has an opportunity to shape the arena the way he wants to.”

As Lee himself said at AEI: “For a political party too often seen as out of touch, aligned with the rich, indifferent to the less fortunate, and uninterested in solving the problems of working families, Republicans could not ask for a more worthy cause around which to build a new conservative reform agenda.”

Jonathan Coppage is associate editor of The American Conservative.

This article was reposted in numerous places around the USA:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x915445929/Gerson-The-communitarian-tea-partier?rssfeed=true

http://www.capjournal.com/opinions/columnist/the-communitarian-mike-lee/article_76f2773c-51a7-11e3-b8da-0019bb2963f4.html

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2013/11/19/how-mike-lee-is-changing-the-republican-party-n1749558

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590873/Utah-Sen-Mike-Lee-emerges-as-a-communitarian.html

Opposition to Common Core by Zandra Bishop

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

Speech to Independent Regulatory Review Commission in opposition to Common Core

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Zandra Bishop

Attachment 1-

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/free-thinkers/all/

Attachment 2-

http://www.abacus-es.com/journal/education-theory/advantages-of-the-one-room-schoolhouse-approach-to-teaching/

Attachment 3-

https://www.tragedyandhope.com/trivium/5-page-summary/

Attachment 4-

http://stopccssinnys.com/uploads/Al_Graf_-_Mary_Calamia_full_text.pdf

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

Zionist founder of the Communitarian Network, Amitai Etzioni, preaches communitarianism as a universal ideology. The Pope preaches it as a universal spirituality. Yet in practice and principle... it's pure racism.

Civil society, human rights and Jewish-Israeli communitarians
LIORA SION 20 September 2013
http://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/liora-sion/civil-society-human-rights-and-jewish-israeli-communitarians

In many parts of the world, ordinary people view universal human rights as a “good thing,” something to support and enforce. Many Jewish Israelis will likely say the same, but only for people living elsewhere; Tibet, perhaps, or even Syria. When it comes to the Palestinians, I doubt many Israelis would feel the same way.

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

The Hands and Feet of Christ and the Identifying Marks of a Communitarian Social Justice Agenda by Donna Martin

Very important research into the church's adoption of communitarianism:

http://thecommunitariantrap.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-hands-and-feet-of-christ-and.html

Upcoming radio interviews

I'll be a guest on the Deanna Spingola Show on Monday, August 12, 2013, at 8AM Alaska Time.
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/. She has a live chat room during her shows too. http://www.spingola.chatango.com/

I'll be a guest on the Pete Santelli show Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 10AM Alaska Time.
http://petersantilli.com/. Mr Santelli has been in "da news" lately... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/18/pete-santilli-hillary-clinton_n_3299247.html

I believe both shows take calls.

Community versus Community

Community versus Community

by Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich

copyright June 3, 2013 all rights reserved

 

Across the globe there is a massive effort underway to transfer land use control away from the local people and hand it over to a different community. When the word community is used in a local land use plan, you can be sure it doesn't mean the local people. There are opposing meanings for the word community.

 

Most common born locals naturally assume community means all the residents in their neighborhood. But to a communitarian change agent, community means only the spiritually advanced converts seeking to control the neighborhood.

 

This is why development plans following Local Agenda 21 (LA21) suggestions always claim the community wants the plan. It doesn't matter if 95% of the local population have no idea there is a new plan. It doesn't matter if 90% of the local residents would reject the new plan if they knew anything about it.

 

LA21 plans rarely claim a majority of registered voters approved the plan. * The planner can honestly say the "community agreed" this is the plan they want, because their definition of community is: we the people who write the plans.

 

Profits from the transfer of control over the local economy to the community are incalculable. For 20 years LA21 planners bragged how much effort they put into enticing locals to be in their planning process. Where they advertised is key to their success, and some locals were happy to become partners in the global scam.

 

Trained to follow TV news and kowtow to academic titles of nobility, working class people don't choose to spend their precious few leisure hours talking about how to build a stronger community. Whatever that is, it sounds way too boring. Commoners don't do things they don't enjoy unless they're forced to. If it's not reported on TV or in local papers, it can't be very important, right?

 

LA21 legislation, usually in the Whereas portion, lists the hilarious ways locals were informed of the planning meetings. If 500 out of 300,000 residents show up and participate, that is considered a very, very good turnout. The City may even get a special award for Community Participation if less than one percent of the population participates in writing the final draft. Even if there is public opposition to it, in most cases it passes the local legislature without one dissenting vote. Elected officials adopt most everything the community asks for.

 

According to the communitarians who promote the "need" for the new plans, and then lead the planning process from start to finish, uneducated common people cannot understand the lofty purpose for the plans. Only a small group of trained experts are capable of determining the future use of local land and resources. It's a huge sacrifice they've made helping the rest of the world with their superior intelligence. To doubt their motives is akin to doubting God. Pope Benedict declared, "Communitarian development is God's plan" on January 1, 2013. LA 21 plans are long and filled with complicated new regulations. It takes the Bible, the Talmud/Cabala, the Koran and exegesis to comprehend God's secrets. Average people are confused (and bored) by the planning meetings as well as the plans, therefore their exclusion is justifiable.

 

Few unenlightened souls are found in community oriented groups. It's not hard to keep them out. The community isn't exactly friendly to non-grant funded working class people. This isn't local carpenters, farmers, housewives, bartenders or factory workers planning the future. Even if they have the intuition and courage to speak up, commoners haven't an inkling of the grandiose community purpose, so they never address the bottom line. Auto mechanics can't see any good reason why they should go sit through 100 meetings about bike paths. The ads inviting locals to attend the meetings say many different things, but the ads never even hint at the power the plan with have over the local economy. So, not only do our neighbors not go, they could care less what happens at endless meetings. Why should they care about livability and quality of life (whatever that is)?

 

The only people who join the LA21 community planning process are people who were pre-trained and are often paid to join it. The committed people controlling both sides, including the fake opposition, either have degrees in the fields created by the communitarians, like urban planning, environmental law/activism, sustainable development and socio-economics, or they are financed by rich communitarians, or they have a business that stands to profit from the plans, like green building/products,  eco-tourism, earth stewardship training, climate change research, etc.

 

Many LA21 planners who "volunteer" for the new community are government or ex-government employees. In the cities, they work for recently added agencies and departments created by the communitarians. Just a few of them are Department of Neighborhoods, City Manager, Community Police, Community Development and Homeland Security. In the rural areas the community is full of BLM, Department of Forestry/Agriculture, Tribal governments, public school teachers,  Dept of Transportation, and Community Mental Health Services.

 

Every member of the LA21 planning community has made a commitment to making a profit on sustainable community development principles. Every business member helping LA21 planners write the plans made the same commitment. Anyone who tries to participate without dedicating themselves to the development community will find their participation severely marginalized.

 

After the plans are adopted into law, and the laws go into effect, it's a done deal. Any local resident who openly objects to the law is criminally disruptive. Concerned about a plan that drastically reduces your ability to thrive? We're oh so sorry, but this is what the community said it wants. Case closed.

 

Anyone questioning the new junk science that justifies LA21 law is labeled, ridiculed, attacked and discounted. Legitimate questions about the plan are deflected by the Communitarian Left with tirades against the Communitarian Right. Cons on both sides of the political spectrum allow for no scrutiny of the community system. The less we all know about it, the easier it is for the community. Even the authentic local environmentalists who attend LA21 meetings in good faith quickly see that the LA21 planners will not include their suggestions in the final plan, unless it helps to achieve the desired LA21 outcome.

 

The desired outcome for every land management plan in the world is the same. Creating a global standard of law regulating all human activity on the planet is the communitarian's phase one goal. No matter what the locals living in the local community want, no matter how sustainable they already are, no matter how responsibly they already manage their local resources, the community will still insist they adopt laws that comply with communitarian legal standards.

 

Locals aren't told LA21 plans justify the community government's new powers to invade and take private property. Locals are never told LA21 plans establish the framework for community governance. Locals are never told Communitarian Supremacy of Law grants the community limitless regulatory control over all local business, resources, and people. Locals are never told anything about Community Law. They don't even hear about it when they are fined and jailed for violating it. Millions have lost businesses, property and freedom to the community, without having a clue as to why or how the transfer took place.

 

Community Developers write Community Laws that are adopted by Community Councils and enforced by Community Police. In order to stop the LA21 plan, commoners around the globe have got to take back their local communities. Locals could follow the communitarians' advice for Mapping and Mobilizing Community Capacity. ** Commoners can also go house to house, block by block, town to town doing knock-and-talks and survey for assets. Anyone can assess and mobilize local citizens for capacity to resist the communitarian con.

 

* The 2009 Bolivian Constitution is one rare exception. The French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Constitution in 2005 because of its Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause (it became official under the Lisbon Treaty). The EU Court is the home of the acquis communitaire.

 

** See Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. This is where the Obamas trained to be community activists.

 

Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich founded the Anti Communitarian League (ACL) in 2001, changed it to ACL Books in 2006. The ACL is not affiliated with any political, religious or fraternal organization. The ACL has published over a thousand free online articles on LA21 & Communitarianism, many cited in academic papers. ACL research was used in several lawsuits, including Dawson v Seattle (2002). Both women have appeared on numerous radio shows and occasionally do public speaking engagements. They co-wrote two books, "The Anti Communitarian Manifesto" and "2020: Our Common Destiny". Combined and updated in 2012, they are available only at the ACL Books website, nord.twu.net/acl. 

Zionist Communitarian control of the anti-Agenda 21 movement

In 2000, we identified Communitarianism as the legal system supporting Agenda 21. We identified the "guru" of the Communitarian Network, whose own writings tell us he was a terrorist, a soldier and now a planner in the Zionist takeover of British Palestine.  I quickly understood why some Christians would never consider these facts, but I've been trying to understand why so many of the Americans actively opposing Agenda 21 and claiming to be on our "side" avoided discussing Communitarianism and its root philosophy, Zionism, for 13 years. 

I couldn't understand why the Liberty movement took no interest in the Communitarian philosophy either, especially after Washington Post Columnist E.J. said the last battle would be fought between the Libertarians and the Communitarians. When the leaders of the Libertarian Party REFUSED to acknowledge that challenge, told me the word was "too hard" for Americans, I was confused by that. I waited for Ron Paul to say the word just ONCE during his Liberty campaign, and his silence did nothing to alleviate my suspicions that all was not as it seems in the Liberty corner.

It's recently been revealed that Ron Paul's Homeschooling program is connected direcly to  Christian Futurist Dispensationism. This explains to ME why RP, Tom Woods and all the other Von Mises "liberty" economic proponents refused to discuss or debate Communitarianism.

Now it's been revealed that Rosa Koire, who is the only person out their speaking against Agenda 21 who alludes to the term "communitarian" in her speeches (but never fully explains it), is censoring the most relevant FACT about it. On page 31 of her book, Behind the Green Mask, she does a very tricky thing. In the top half of the page she writes, "calling it a Zionist plot is absurd" and the bottom half of the page encourages her readers to "Familiarize yourself with communitarianism."  Rosa learned ALL the facts about Communitarianism when she read both our "excellent books" (her words) about it in 2009, but when she included our research in her book in 2011, she used it on the same page where she negated our research as "absurd." Sure, she cites us in the back somewhere (not on the page where she distorts our original thesis), and she has links to us from her websites, but so what...so does Etzioni and the Communitarian Network.

The war against the slippery Etzioni and his Zioni followers takes many shapes and forms.