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. 

Claiming ownership of our original thesis on Agenda 21 & Communitarianism

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

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

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

Sustainable Development Handbook

It's in videos of other people

ROSA KOIRE: Shut down Agenda 21 and communitarian Fascism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBrwuhoavG0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qKvnu_f02F0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PHBHsxIG-zg

http://shiftfrequency.com/tag/communitarianism/

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/10/un-agenda-21-exposed-with-rosa-koire-video-2482896.html

It's in articles "written" by other people

http://ppjg.me/tag/communitarianism/

Communitarian Heresy in the Classroom: Charles Haynes and the Bible Literacy Project

Community by Coercion Communitarianism New American May 31, 2004

COOLECTIVIST MINDSET: RECIPE FOR REVOLUTION

It's in letters written by other people

http://resist21.com/2013/02/05/letter-from-rosa-koire-executive-dir-of-post-sustainability-institute-to-democrats-in-the-oklahoma-legislature-to-support-hb-1412/

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

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

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

Copyright Law of the United States

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

Opposition to Agenda 21 is not just a Right Wing agenda

Over the past few years we've seen a rising swell of opposition against Agenda 21 in the United States. It's becoming harder for Americans to not see that something is very wrong in America. We've also seen our book orders triple in the last few months, and a huge percentage of the orders are coming from the UK and the EU. People are catching on to the hidden nature of the plan, and seeking information at a level that almost gives me a renewed sense of hope.

There are hundreds of new websites and articles about Agenda 21 flooding the internet. While some are innacurate, borrow heavily from other people's research and provide no new information, the good news is, they're not all conservatives. The opposition to the big lie is not only coming from Christian and Right Wing perspectives; just one "Democrat" site opened the whole topic up to a general audience uncomfortable with the idea of aligning themselves with the Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society.  Lucky for all of us, that one Democrat site uses the term "Communitarianism" to define the political theory driving Agenda 21 and all Sustainable Development around the world. Lucky for us, Rosa Koire still links to our websites and many people have found the ACL via her. Because of our low-key approach and our aversion to advertising ourselves, and because the JBS and their network of Christian affiliates do not even mention our work (even when they use it in their articles), there is no one in the "information war" who knows what Communitarianism is, or if they do know, they aren't willing to take the time to explain it properly.

We are not Right Wing Christians and there were very few Christian writers I was willing to cite at the ACL ten years ago when we built the website. In fact I purposely avoided republishing any of the religious views thinking that was unecessary and clouded the issue. I provided links to religious people I thought were offering good research, and included in those lists were several I have since learned to distrust. It's okay, it's all part of the learning process that this kind of work requires, and our attachments to people and dialectical pieces are sometimes very deeply held and unbreakable. Especially when it comes to relgion. So I avoided it, wanting to leave something for people to hold on to and find out more about their own beliefs on their own. Today I see communitarianism is the global religion, and my next book is exploring the expanding communitarian religion, and all the churches embracing it, in detail. It's the final key to putting the whole plan into perspective, and as painful as it may be for some people to pull back this final veil, it has to be written.

Our original thesis poses that Communitarianism is the final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. But that means nothing to the average reader. Hegel confuses people with Master's degrees who read Hegel in college. Our first Hegel Communitarian tutorial was designed for my father, a US Army soldier who had no formal exposure to dialectial reasoning. We later laid out our argument so that Dr. Amitai Etzioni and the Communitarian Network, who we were calling out for a public debate, could follow precisely how we arrived at our conclusion in The Anti Communitarian Manifesto.
Part 1 went online in December 2002, and Part 2 was completed in spring 2003. We started at the upper academic level because that's where the only "debates" were taking place.

Over the years I tried hundreds of ways to explain it to the laymen who begged us for a "simple" explanation.  I'm still trying, and my new approach is the 30 second flash card:

The confusion about what the term "communitarianism" actually means continues. That's why any beginner to the topic needs to know right up front that Communitarianism was designed to confuse us. We're not ever supposed to understand it. It's considered as, "most notable for its vagueness."

The new ACL website will have a beginner series of articles about Communitarianism and several new topic sections.  After 14 years of studying and writing about Communitarianism, after a few years in the social networks meeting like-minded folks and some not so like minded, I'm ready to take ACL research to the next level, and put our information into the "game."  And so is Nordica, without whom there would be no ACL, and no new ACL Books site. It should be going up in the next couple days. I'll let you know when it's up.

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.