Henry Lamb's article on communitarianism softens the concept

A keyword search for "communitarian" at Henry Lamb's website, sovereignty.net gives us zero returns. Bobby Garner recently started an email discussion with Lamb regarding this glaring ommission in his well-promoted and most respected work on issues realted to preserving American freedom. So today, out of the blue, an article appears at worldnetdaily by Henry Lamb called, "An unseen enemy of freedom."

"From the highest rafters of academia comes another enemy of freedom: communitarianism. This is a belief system that opposes both authoritarianism and individualism, and promotes instead a social organization that is governed by policies designed by civil society to limit individual freedom as required for the benefit the community. Dr. Amitai Etzioni is credited with founding this communitarian movement.

"Described by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as "The Third Way," this relatively new philosophy has actually guided design and structure of the sustainable development movement. The goals of communitarianism and of sustainable development are quite laudable. In a word, they seek to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community. The problems arise in the methods employed to achieve these goals." {boldface added}
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75118

The first paragraph Lamb wrote sounds like it was written by Etzioni for Wikipedia. Lamb's second graph is the big communitarian lie. Our ACL thesis, Part II: The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking, proves Etzioni's theory is NOT "relatively new."

Who IS Henry Lamb? In the last email challenge to a phony debate from Fusionist Terry Hayfield on Sept 9, Hayfield wrote:

"One reality you probably are not aware of is, I am a "Ghost Writer" for several prominent "others" from the competitive world of Conspiracy Theory that do not share your opinion of me."

When I started seeking the actual facts about American history (as opposed to the British academic revisions and rewrites I had been taught to believe) I trusted Lamb, and it was mainly because of his "Timeline to Global Governance." But I found it very confusing that he wrote nothing about communitarianism, as if it were not even real.

Henry Lamb just showed me exactly why Americans don't know ANYTHING about communitarianism. Now he's going to teach them it's a "laudable" goal. What evidence does he have that communitarianism is laudable ("worthy of praise, commendable" -Websters), besides Etzioni's lofty Zionist opinion? Is Lamb serious, or did he just not do enough homework before he wrote this article? Well, as he told Bobby in an email today, his objective is ongoing.

Henry Lamb wrote:

"Two issues: "The goals are laudable…" As you pointed out, who can oppose "sustaining" resources for the future? My goal is to focus on the SD/Communitarianism cost of the method used to sustain the resources. Perhaps that was not as clear as it might have been. This is a constant, ongoing objective.

"I did, in fact, provide a link to both the Anti-communitarianism site, and to the American Policy Center, as well as to Dr. Amitai Etzioni. The WND editor chose to delete these links for some reason. This article will also appear in Canada Free Press, GOPUSA, and several other publications next week. These links are likely to appear in these publications."

H

For some reason, Lamb does not use our actual name either, neither in the above email or in his article. The Anti-Communitarian League is not the Anti-Communitarianism League. Henry Lamb does such meticulous research I am astonished at the level of this mistake (twice) when referring to us specifically (because we are the ONLY possible reference he can mean to "the anti-communitarianism site"). But then again, Henry Lamb calls the communitarian goals "laudable," so obviously he wrote this article very quickly with little concern for getting his facts straight. Here's what Bobby thinks is going on:

Henry,

"The titles they have chosen, "communitarianism" and "sustainable development", and the glowing terms which they use to promote them are laudable, but those titles do not define the goals, and the glowing words are bald faced lies. They are designed to misrepresent and mislead a gullible population. The real goals do not and indeed cannot sustain anything whatsoever, except the power behind the agenda.

"If you provided the links as you said, and I believe you did, then it is no mystery why WND removed them. They want to preserve their readership by feeding them so many political opinions and viewpoint that they will continue believing in the power of their own opinions, keep up the letter writing campaigns to congress, and to keep them starved for any real truth."

Bobby