Press "Enter" to skip to content

Local Birchers Harass Whitewood Council with Agenda 21 Harangues

Last updated on 2013.05.08

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:

The overall effects of Agenda 21 include eliminating private ownership, restricting civil liberties, restricting volume of water usage, and restricting the amount of trash and waste, Nachatello said. He said Agenda 21 uses names like "sustainable development," "land use," "open spaces," and "comprehensive planning."

Resolution language says the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives is pushing Agenda 21 into local communities. Policies include names like Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other Green or Alternative projects [Jason Gross, "Whitewood Addresses Agenda 21," Black Hills Pioneer, August 25, 2012].

Remember, this absurd distraction from real policy-making and problem-solving isn't mere fringe paranoia: the South Dakota Republican Party endorsed this juvenile waste of time in its 2012 platform.

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."

Let me shoot from the hip with some counter-philosophy. Communitarianism does not entail a tyranny of the masses over the individual. Communitarianism recognizes that individual rights exist only in the context of community. Outside of community, you have no rights, not to mention no means to really enjoy them. A mountain man has no real liberty, because he's too busy guarding his skins and trinkets with his buck knife and musket.

In community, you get to accumulate property, make binding agreements, express unpleasant opinions, and relax without worrying that your neighbor is going to cheat or invade you because you live in a web of shared culture, mores, education, and law that define and protect your rights. You also enjoy a practical infrastructure of schools, roads, and public services that give you a lot more time to exercise your rights than the self-reliant mountain man does. In return, you have a responsibility (there's a word conservatives like) to pay your fair share for the benefits you and your neighbors enjoy.

Communitarianism does not demand that Bill Nachatilo and his fellow paranoiacs surrender their individualism to the community. It says they enjoy their individualism to the fullest in community. Ignore the shouters, Whitewood; you have practical problems to solve... problems you'll solve only by acting together as a community.

Update 07:50 MDT: The Displaced Plainsman notes that Rose Wilder Lane was more of a communitarian than a Randian.

38 Comments

  1. larry kurtz 2012.08.27

    It has been fascinating watching the fascist right haranguing the President for what it calls his “regulatory tyranny stifling economic growth” while selectively ignoring the Obama administration erasing a promising industry and effectively chilling civil liberties.

    LawCo is becoming northwestern Montana: a land filled with white supremacists from somewhere else.

    Montana is bracing for civil unrest: christian/anarchist militias armed for the End Days are rattling online newspaper fora and blogs with vitriol for people of color. How these bozos expect to take on ATF, FBI, and Homeland Security is the height of ignorance. Think Katrina: if civil order is temporarily suspended these idiots will kill only those innocents by whom they feel threatened. Unarmed people would be preyed upon by these monsters unrelentingly.

    Andy Ridley died the other day. He'd have landed on this idiot's chest like an anvil:

    http://www.bhpioneer.com/obituaries/article_ef407a0a-ebb3-11e1-8455-0019bb2963f4.html

  2. Steve Sibson 2012.08.27

    "Communitarianism does not entail a tyranny of the masses over the individual. Communitarianism recognizes that individual rights exist only in the context of community."

    Does that include an "International Community" Cory?

  3. larry kurtz 2012.08.27

    UNDRIP came under fire from these same nutcases over at Bernie's: the sovereign citizen movement is at the core of the crazy Texas judge dealio.

  4. Steve Sibson 2012.08.27

    This is how Cory and his cohorts of the New Age Theocracy work:

    Typically, the local government will find a private consultant to “facilitate” the process. The facilitator will identify a local “steering committee,” carefully chosen from people who represent various segments of the community, all of whom are known in advance to be sympathetic to the goals of Agenda 21.

    Typically, the advisory group will meet in private to lay out the framework for the process and the goals for the finished product. When this is achieved, public meetings are scheduled to give the appearance of public input and ownership. Rarely are these meetings ever publicized adequately to attract the private-property owners who are most directly affected. Care is taken to see that members of local environmental organizations and social-justice organizations constitute the majority of attendees.

    These public meetings are said to be “the visioning process.” The procedures vary slightly from community to community, depending upon the facilitator. Remarkably, however, the “vision” in every community contains essentially the same elements: restricted auto traffic; bike trails; walkable neighborhoods; integrated housing; high-density urban boundary zones; conservation areas; green belts; and much more – directly from Agenda 21.

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/290225/

  5. larry kurtz 2012.08.27

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which fights racial injustice and monitors hate groups, considers the John Birch Society an anti-government "patriot" group. When the ICLEI membership raised concern in council chambers, the Human Rights Network linked the outcry to the John Birch Society and a fall speaking tour in Montana by Tom DeWeese, a leading critic of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a United Nations roadmap of sorts to sustainability, but its detractors see sustainability as a trap of "radical environmentalists" and a threat to private property rights."

    You know a nerve has been struck when Bob Ellis emerges from his hibernaculum to comment on the Noem dust bill likely drafted, as Don Pay suggests, in the Koch wing of the cave.

    Liberty apparently means having the right to pollute the ground you live on or 'own;' and, it's God's will if neurotoxins or antibiotics that you introduce drain into the next guy’s property.

  6. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.27

    No, Steve, this is not how some global plot works. Local governments are colluding with the United Nations; they're trying to pave the roads, keep the schools open, and stop drunks from crashing into us.

  7. larry kurtz 2012.08.27

    have been seeing many bumper stickers around Santa Fe with the single word, "Matriot."

  8. Steve Sibson 2012.08.27

    Larry, are you into to Wiccan, which appears to support Agenda 21 from a religious standpoint:

    In the world of witchcraft the goddess is the giver of life. Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., in her book Goddesses in Everywoman, has this to say about the goddess:
    The Great Goddess was worshipped as the feminine life force deeply connected to nature and fertility, responsible both for creating life and for destroying life.
    Bolen goes on to say that "the Great Goddess was regarded as immortal, changeless, and omnipotent" prior to the coming of Christianity. For witches, the goddess is the earth itself. Mother Earth, or Gaia, as the goddess is known in occult circles, is an evolving being, as is all of nature. Starhawk, in her best-selling book The Spiral Dance, says that "the model of the Goddess, who is immanent in nature, fosters respect for the sacredness of all living things. Witchcraft can be seen as a religion of ecology. Its goal is harmony with nature, so that life may not just survive, but thrive."

    http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217709/k.A453/Goddess_Worship.htm

  9. larry kurtz 2012.08.27

    gee: thwarting religious freedom, stevie? women should run the planet in my view.

  10. Bill Dithmer 2012.08.27

    Wow Sibby I thought something sounded familiar.
    Didn't this happen in the South Dakota legislature a couple of years ago?

    "Typically, the local government will find a private consultant to “facilitate” the process. The facilitator will identify a local “steering committee,” carefully chosen from people who represent various segments of the community, all of whom are known in advance to be sympathetic to the goals of Agenda 21."

    This sounds like the legislative fact finding stunt that we had a couple of years ago to discuss abortion and the effects that it had on women with the deck stacked against the women.

    "Typically, the advisory group will meet in private to lay out the framework for the process and the goals for the finished product. When this is achieved, public meetings are scheduled to give the appearance of public input and ownership"

    Yup that's what happened isn't it?

    "Rarely are these meetings ever publicized adequately to attract the private-property owners who are most directly affected."

    Well I cant say that about our legislature. They told everybody about the goings on in Pierre but the funny thing was that they wouldn't allow any opposing views to testify.

    "Care is taken to see that members of local environmental organizations and social-justice organizations constitute the majority of attendees."

    Wow if you just substitute pro choice for environmental you have a perfect match don't you?

    "These public meetings are said to be “the visioning process.” The procedures vary slightly from community to community, depending upon the facilitator. Remarkably, however, the “vision” in every community contains essentially the same elements: restricted auto traffic; bike trails; walkable neighborhoods; integrated housing; high-density urban boundary zones; conservation areas; green belts; and much more"

    Wow they talked about restricting women's rights, lied about PTSD after abortions, and only let those people that are anti abortion take the stand. It looks like Sibby wrote the book.

    Never have so few tried to rule the bodies, and minds, of so many without risking any rights of their own.

    Does this mean that the GOP in the legislature invented " New Age Theocracy in South Dakota?" Maybe, maybe not, but they sure are right in line with Sibbys description of what that is.

    A skunk smells its own hole first.

    The Blindman

  11. Bill Dithmer 2012.08.27

    Wow if you just substitute pro choice for environmental you have a perfect match don’t you?

    Should have been anti abortion instead of pro choice.

    It was a case of hands thinking without the brain attached.

    The Blindman

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.27

    Bill D., as is so often the case, catches exactly what's afoot here. The Sibby Birchers and an alarming number of less crazy Republicans are using "Agenda 21" as a "fact-finding" stunt. They get all these piddly town councils and the occasional state party who just want to avoid a big silly fight and the possible alienation of some motivated fringe-conservatives (I believe the term Sibby would use is "useful idiots") to put statements of support on the record. They create then this official body of resolutions that they then cite in future press as evidence of the Agenda 21 scheme that they fabricated in the first place. They manufacture their own proof—thin proof, to be sure, but it's documentation that they can deceptively use to strengthen their own nutty case. The average citizen focused on work and family instead of politics will hear the quick tagline, something like "Hundreds of city councils across the country have condemned Agenda 21" and will think, "Golly, that must be bad," never taking time to learn that it's not even real.

    It takes people without conscience to conduct such nefarious propaganda. If anyone is waging a conspiracy to take over our communities, it's Nachatilo and his radical cohorts.

  13. Steve Sibson 2012.08.27

    "The Sibby Birchers"

    Can you provide a link to my membership?

  14. Steve Sibson 2012.08.27

    So Cory, have you been promoting more bike paths lately? Wind energy? More governmental takeover of property there in the Black Hills?

  15. Steve Sibson 2012.08.27

    Bill, It is those of the New Age Sex whorshipping of goddesses that want to maintian for women the exclusive right to sacrifice their children.

  16. Steve Sibson 2012.08.27

    This is no conspiracy theory Cory. Take from the UNESCO web site who is in charge of implementing Agenda 21:

    UNESCO has also been a catalyst for clarifying key ideas and guiding principles, and sharing experiences across countries, for example by:

    • convening international conferences and regional and sub-regional workshops
    • sponsoring demonstration projects to encourage innovation in education and the development of sample curriculum and training materials for use by teachers and students
    • creating an international network of schools (the UNESCO Associated Schools Project – ASPNet)

    committed to the principles of peace, human rights, equity and conservation.
    UNESCO is also facilitating the international Education for All (EFA) programme that aims to develop and implement national education action plans, enable capacity development in early-childhood, primary and science education, and catalyse new approaches to family education as well as citizenship, peace, multicultural and environmental education.

    The challenge of sustainable development is a difficult and complex one, requiring new partnerships — among governments, academic and scientific communities, teachers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local communities and the media. All are essential to the birth of a culture of sustainability.
    Thus, UNESCO has developed partnerships with many UN agencies, including UNFPA, WHO and ILO to promote population education, WHO to develop new approaches to health education, FAO to advance education in rural areas and promote food security, WHO and UNAIDS to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic, UNEP to promote sustainable consumption, as well as UNICEF, UNHCR and major NGOs to assist in the reconstruction of education in crisis and post-conflict situations.

    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5434&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

  17. Niki Raapana 2012.08.28

    I am the co-author of "The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking." Our original antithesis against Communitarian theory and practice has been viewed by almost a million people since it went online in 2002.

    My ongoing research into this obscure theory and the implementation of Communitarian policies, programs and procedures is used by people in government and academia all over the world. My focus is on Communitarian Law and subtle and open changes to national political structures and constitutions in UN member nations that adopted it. In the USA Communitarian Law is not openly introduced as it is in the EU or other places, like Bolivia, where the term is used to define the new system and can be seen frequently in official documents and statements.

    To the author of this post I would ask where you got your explanation of the communitarian theory? Can you provide evidence and sources to show it's as natural and benign as you make it out to be? I'm curious how you became an expert on something so new most Americans have never heard of it before. Is Etzioni your guru?

    The only "political madness" I see here is the completely ridiculous assumption that opposition to Communitarianism has no basis in fact and is a right wing fantasy. For the record, I am not JBS, I am not affiliated with the JBS, the Tea Party, the Libertarians or any other right wing group.

    The assumption that a debate over Communitarianism is a left v right argument is not only dialectical, it's dead wrong.

  18. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.28

    Thank you for coming to flog your own credentials and website, Niki. Since you cite your web stats for self-published research as support for your expertise, I assume I may do the same. I've gotten about the same number of web visits as you in half the time. So on that count, I'm twice the authority you are, right?

    But who wants to argue from mere authority? I follow no guru, but my reading and experience lead me to the Rousseauian conclusion that community does not stand in opposition to individual rights. Much to the contrary, community makes individual rights and morality possible:

    "The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite, does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in this state, he deprives himself of some advantages which he got from nature, he gains in return others so great, his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted, that, did not the abuses of this new condition often degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it for ever, and, instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man.

    "Let us draw up the whole account in terms easily commensurable. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title.

    "We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty."

    —Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762 http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm

    Communitarianism says community matters. I agree. The Agenda 21 screamers cited in the original post do not. They throw words around to make sensible, moral community activity sound like a sinister plot.

  19. Niki Raapana 2012.08.28

    You're welcome. Just making sure you knew who I am. I've been studying Communitarianism for 13 years and never read anything you wrote about Communitarianism before. I must have missed it somehow. Please link us to your original research on Communitarianism, that should settle any dispute over who's the authority.

    The communitarian theorists say a lot more than just "community matters." Dr. Etzioni, a former Israeli terrorist, says nations should be ended because they are a burden to global governance. His Platform insists the communitarians came to the USA to "shore up the moral, social and political environment" and he advises governments all over the world how to "shore" up their morality too. He promotes himself as the "everything expert" and has an opinion on how we should change just about everything. He's been an advisor in the White House since 1979, and most Americans have never heard of him or his "theory" of community spirit. Not one American has ever been asked to vote on this wrenching transformation.

    My main opposition to Communitarianism in the USA is it is a foreign system criminalizing constitutional guarantees and it was never approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

    Theoretically, Communitarianism is the final Hegelian synthesis that arose from 200 years of false conflicts between individual rights and community "rights." If, as you say, there is no real conflict between the individual and the community, and on this point we are in total agreement, then there is also no need for rebuilding the US into a communitarian sub-nation. There would be no need for neo-communitarianism and the technocratic class of experts who implement communitarian policies and regulations across the globe.
    http://oxford.academia.edu/WDavies/Papers/1649267/The_Emerging_Neo-Communitarianism

    The proposed Eleven Laws of Nature are communitarian in nature too, this fresh, new idea includes an international criminal enforcement court for the 11 new laws. It was presented by the Communitarian Bolivian led Pachamama Alliance at Rio+20. The modern communitarians introduce their agenda via UN programs, Executive Orders, federal agencies, environmental regulations and international treaties. Free trade unions are all based in Communitarian Supremacy. The Communitarians have built an entire new judicial system that enforces Communitarian Laws. There is more to this theory than "ideas" about nice communities.

    That you would cite Rousseau to validate your nice opinion of Communitarianism in the USA is revealing. The American founders did not use his social contract theory, but Kant, Hegel, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Buber and Etzioni did.

    "A second major influence is Rousseau’s political thought. Not only is he one of the most important figures in the history of political philosophy, later influencing Karl Marx among others, but his works were also championed by the leaders of the French Revolution. And finally, his philosophy was largely instrumental in the late eighteenth century Romantic Naturalism movement in Europe thanks in large part to Julie or the New Heloise and the Reveries of the Solitary Walker." http://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/#H7

    The Communitarian Guru was accused of intoducing a new version of fascism in 1995, by members of the American Association of Sociologists (when Etzioni was President of their organization). Dr. Amitai Etzioni, "father" of the Responsive Communitarian Movement, refused to respond. Maybe he should have at least quoted Rousseau.

  20. Steve Sibson 2012.08.28

    Niki, glad you found this site. Cory is a good guy, but needs to see the other side of issues. Your research seems to follow much of my research. I know someone who is putting together a documentary on Agenda 21 and will make sure he is aware of your work.

    One point regarding the French Revolution. My research points to the same influence was also behind the American Revolution (French Templar Masonry infiltrated by the Illuminati movement). Seems that somewhere along the line this movement away from monarchy and Papal Rome changed from an individual rights mindset to this communitarianism/communist mindset.

  21. larry kurtz 2012.08.28

    Living off the grid is very liberating: you should try it, Sibby. Be aware that is appears that Niki is also hunkered down for the End Days.

  22. Bill Fleming 2012.08.28

    She also appears to completely reject the Sermon on the Mount and the ethic proscribed in the Acts of the Apostles. Just another biblio/academic cherrypicker. Fizzledee and Fizzledum.

  23. Steve Sibson 2012.08.28

    "Living off the grid is very liberating"

    Larry, that is so anti-communitarian.

    Niki, Fleming is a troll in case you don't know.

  24. Steve Sibson 2012.08.28

    From Larry's link:

    "Our new world government represents the "community" (fill in whatever you think that means). The Law of the Community is swiftly replacing all other law on the planet. Local, state, and national laws that conflict with the new global standards must be modified. Community Law is Supreme over all other forms."

    Now go to the top of this thread and understand why Cory did not answer, "Does that include an “International Community” Cory?"

    No way can you argue that the community protects the individual. There is an "agenda" that you must follow. And yes, it is international in scope.

  25. larry kurtz 2012.08.28

    let's up the ante: planetary defense.

  26. larry kurtz 2012.08.28

    Fleming, Sibby is asexual in case you don't know.

  27. larry kurtz 2012.08.28

    Steve, you're against sustainability because you are unsustainable: your whole psyche reeks of it.

  28. Bill Dithmer 2012.08.28

    Several things here that need to be addressed. First there is this from Sibby. "Bill, It is those of the New Age Sex worshipping of goddesses that want to maintain for women the exclusive right to sacrifice their children."

    No you miss the point entirely. It is about letting a woman say yes or no to what is about to happen to her body without any interference from anyone else.

    There is nothing wrong with a beautiful woman's body, or mind for that mater. If I had a vagina I would be a lesbian. Who knows maybe in a past life I was.

    Now for Niki. Its not often that we get someone that is as arrogant as you seem to be walking down the streets of Meanwhile. I did this and I did that might sound ok in your circle of friends but it doesn't mean squat to me.

    When you talk about doing research it makes you sound like something that you really are not. Your research consist of referencing other like minded peoples research not your own. Your writing is biased and just a little hard to follow because it is so poorly written. For example right at the very beginning

    December 19, 2003
    Ex-President Clinton and George Bush Jr. both define their policy objectives as communitarian (Galston 1991; D'Antonio 1994; Milbank 2001; Allen 2002), yet only recently have Americans begun to study the communitarian platform as the predetermined synthesis to the Marxist's left-versus-right conflict of ideals (American Patriots 2001; Ball 2000; Iserbyt 2001; Worst 1999; Austin-Fits 2001).

    By adding just this one word you have soiled your own so called research. "Marxist"

    It looks to the average reader that you had some kind of preconceived outcome from the onset of your writing. Imagine that.

    And then this

    Communitarians call the U.S. national system of political and economic freedom, and especially individual liberty, "outdated" (Etzioni 1968). They claim a global perspective is necessary to ensure Americans' peace and safety, and they always present their philosophy as if it is a "fresh perspective." They emphasize they seek innovative ways to "balance" the ongoing "tension" between Americans' individual liberty and social responsibility. They preach as if their platform is more "moral" than the original American political system of liberty, freedom and equal justice for all under an agreed upon system of protective laws. They sing a soft lullaby for the American ideal of national prosperity and lure American politicans into relinquishing national sovereignty to a modified, "softer" international Marxist system, often called the Third Way

    Six times you used the word "they" well who the hell is they?

    There is a lot of truth in the things you write. Unfortunately those words are put together in such a way to prove your bias no mater what your intentions were in the beginning.

    Isn't research doing studies? For you it could very well be copy and past in this day and age.

    And finally this.

    "To the author of this post I would ask where you got your explanation of the communitarian theory? Can you provide evidence and sources to show it’s as natural and benign as you make it out to be?"

    Of course he cant, but the proof you give is at least as suspect. You reference bias sources to come to your own conclusions dont you?

    And then this.

    " I’m curious how you became an expert on something so new most Americans have never heard of it before. Is Etzioni your guru?"

    Are you really this condescending in real life?

    Well Niki anyone can read written material. It is how we assimilate that material that turns what we have read into knowledge. He got his the same way you got yours. The only difference is that you both found different answers to questions.

    Ms. pot meet Mr. kettle.

    Meanwhile I just don't give a damn about communitarianism, its a word that has different meanings to different people.

    I swear it feels like full moon. How's that for crazy?

    The Blindman

  29. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.28

    Well done, Bill D! I can use the word "research" at least as authoritatively as Niki to describe my blogging efforts... and my blog research generally focuses on what people actually say and do, not my wishful thinking for some conspiracy.

    But no, Niki, I have not dedicated the last ten years of my life to chasing Amatai Etzioni and other spectres around piecing together DaVinci Code scraps of yet another Illuminating plot. I have encountered the term communitarianism, as I have encountered other terms of political art and philosophy. I guess as a reasonably literate speaker of English, I have about as much authority as you and my commenters to use and debate the term. And as I said at the top, I'm "shooting from the hip with some counter-philosophy." If you want to write a thesis about the sinister plot behind people who use the word "communitarianism," go right ahead...

    ...but I would suggest that your ten years of thesisizing on this topic will only bore most city councils, like the Whitewood City Council, which just needs to pave the roads and keep stuff from burning down, practical daily governance to which your exaggerated fears are wholly irrelevant.

  30. Douglas Wiken 2012.08.28

    The last John Bircher I heard had a booth at the Rapid City Home Show. (Well, there were a few more of them when I got to Winner) It was around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. He literally believed "Better dead than red", and that we would literally be doing Cubans a big favor by dropping a nuclear weapon on Cuba. I suspect there may be a few Cubans at least happy that Bircher's advice never took hold in Congress and the Whitehouse.

  31. Niki Raapana 2012.08.30

    I don't live "off the grid." I like my electricity, water and sewer as much as any other westerner. I do build my own yurts and live in them year-round in Alaska. But how I live isn't really relevant to Communitarianism, or is it?

    There is another "side" to the Communitarian propaganda promoted by the Communitarians here. But according to Communitarian cheerleaders around the world, there is only one side. There cannot be any opposition based in concrete evidence of ongoing illegal actions. If someone brings up anything real, assure your readers it's vague, warm, fuzzy and anyone who says otherwise is a nutcase.

    But get clear on one thing. The JBS "Agenders" are just a tool for the Communitarians. You needed somebody to ridicule because the last thing you want to do is address the facts about Communitarianism in. The only reason the JBS shills started using the word "communitarian" was to help the Communitarians do damage control. ACL research, and yes, it is "real" research that has been plagiarized, cited in numerous academic papers, and introduced in upper level college courses, is the most comprehensive work on Communitarianism in existence. Now that we've published our 3rd hardcopy book on the topic, have been translated into several foreign languages, have made a name for ourselves worldwide in spite of the gatekeepers and useful idiots, the Communitarians are doing late night damage control. The JBS, along with all the other cons involved in this scam, knows NOBODY in America is supposed to know anything about the Communitarians beyond what the people promoting it as a "good thing" or as "communism" tell them.

    Bill's cut and paste from "Part II of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto" is hard to read because it was an original thesis written to ASA standards for Amitai Etzioni, The Communitarian Network, and the ASA, which means it follows their format for sources, references and citations. I've also written hundreds of magazine style articles for average readers. My research did begin as opposition to the Communitarian Policing we experienced first hand in Seattle, WA in 1999. My opposition only grew the more I studied their works. Amitai Etzioni, the guru behind the movement, has published over 30 books now, and I'll bet one or two are on the bookshelfs of the Council members in Whitewood. I know they're on the desks of whoever writes the Daily Pentagon Briefs, because they quote him often.

    As for my lack of humility on this blog, I've produced a body of factual evidence that's often referred to as an Encylopedia. My work is entirely original, I borrowed my idea from no one, and nobody else in the world has written what I have. My readers tell me I'm not arrogant enough.

    I am the only dedicated anticommunitarian researcher in the world. Millions of pages have been published extolling the "virtues" of it. Hundreds of universities offer Master's programs in Communitarian Development schemes. Does it not strike anyone here as odd that in our "free" country there can be no "accredited" opposition to the emerging supranational communitarian system? What other forms of government practice censorship at this level?

    Keep saying it's just "practical city governance," over and over again, maybe it will come true, like a wish! Continue to ignore any of the contrary evidence. Better yet, just say no evidence exists and then belittle anyone who produces some!

    If all else fails, just say you don't give a damn about the word, because it has too many different meanings. lol!

    Keep up the good work. :)

  32. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.08.31

    At the point where you claim that the Birchers and Agenda 21 shouters are in cahoots with communitarians, you lose credibility. At the point where you bet that the Whitewood City Council is reading Etzioni and stacking his books on their shelves, you exhibit signs of delusion, or at least complete ignorance of local facts. At the point where you tout yourself as "the only dedicated anticommunitarian researcher in the world," you make yourself sound silly. You resemble our local friend Steve Sibson, who sees Republicans and Democrats collaborating toward the same devious global corporatist end (I would suggest Steve's claim is less radical than Niki's). Steve at least has not purported to be the only keeper of the truth; I think he still sees himself as part of a team of freedom fighters.

    Niki crafts herself a unique and unrefutable title. If I point to any number of opponents of communitarianism, whether scholarly or kooky, Niki can just say, "Oh, but they aren't dedicated" or "they aren't researchers." I smell fantasyland... or narcissism.

    The claim is also deceptive: when you call yourself an anti-X researcher, you reveal that your primary function is not research but advocacy or activism. And Niki is clearly not the only anticommunitarian activist in the world.

  33. Niki Raapana 2012.08.31

    Refusing to consider the role JBS plays in your attack piece about them is your right. I understand you need them in order to avoid any discussion about communitarianism. As long as every writer from the "left" can attach the word communitarianism to the JBS, they know most people will automatically disregard it because they think the JBS is a joke. Americans are finally, after all these years, writing and talking about communitarianism, and every article I see links it to the JBS, and the focus is usually on how nuts the JBS is. Sometimes the comments on leftist sites never mention the word communitarian at all... it's all JBS bashing. Which is too bad really because it's not a left v right issue anymore, it's progressed, we've moved into the final synthesis.

    Marxism and it's antithesis Capitalism are both part of the formula for forced social evolution. Communitarianism is the final phase in human development, according to the dialectical idea of history. The JBS never published anything about the synthesis, religious, theoretical or legal communitarianism, and just recently they began adding the term to their Agenda 21 dog-and-pony shows. I know, I should be happy it's getting out there regardless of what I think of the source, but, instead of teaching it as the synthesis, they are using Jerri Ball's old conclusion and saying it's "basically communism." There is a distinct difference in my opinion, calling it communism hides the true face of the bootstompers, and so yes, I'm convinced the JBS is a tool.

    This exchange was a good exercise for me, thank-you for your time. I don't care if you don't like me. I like figuring out your tactics. I'm fascinated by your claiming I said things I did not say, and then rebutting your own words. Apparently words you put in my mouth are the only way you can avoid having to explain or prove to your readers why Etzioni's communitarianism should replace our entire constitutional system. That is what you are advocating, is it not?

    I am the only one who studies the communitarian guru and the international developments at the boring level I do, or with the annoying consistency I've shown. The only other anticommunitarian researcher I know of is Jerri Lynn Ball. Jerri's position is from the U.S. Christian Right and she qualifies the term with a /communism. I do not share her religious beliefs or her politics, and I do not agree it is the same as communism. Our original thesis is that it's the synthesis between capitalism and communism. Our next original thesis will be that it is the synthesis of all religions too. Here's a taste of what's coming: http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/2012/06/green-virgin-pachamama-final-balance.html

    The argument I have with you is not over my position in the debate. Of course that's what you want it to be, and I can see why. You haven't spent one second discussing the law or the unethical way it's enforced in the United States. Your only concern is what you call my fantasy, my inflated ego and petty narrcisistic view of myself. You attack me and perform high school analysis of my personality as if that is all you need to do to prove communitarianism is as wonderful and benign as you say it is.

    I'll tell you one thing you're right about. You're damn right I'm a researcher with a purpose. I began this work because I wanted to know how our constitutions were being replaced by unconstitutional communitarian laws. From 1999 to 2003 my research was devoted exclusively to several civil lawsuits, including Dawson v Seattle (2002) a 4th Amendment case. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1365552.html

    In 1999, the City of Seattle decided the 4th amendment was a "barrier" to their new plans for abating private property along the proposed Light Link Rail route. Tenants in targeted homes in Roosevelt were used in pilot tests of the new communitarian SWAT policing programs. The Doj COPS programers designed innovative ways to help the planners promote livability, prevent full-blown-fear, build better neighborhoods and entice better neighbors.

    The Communitarian guru came to America "to shore up the moral, political and social environment," and if you want to discuss anyone's arrogance here, I suggest we move on to Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni's completely arrogant assumption that Americans needed his more moral "shoring up" is well documented. Etzioni's arrogance had a much bigger affect on all our lives than my pale-by-comparison arrogant assertion that I spent over ten straight years devoted to studying and exposing Etzioni's dream for America.

    Funny how the communitarians at our neighborhood planning meetings and little "citizen councils" sounded so much like you do. I asked these all-knowing, wise planners what "quality of life" meant, in legal terms, since it was used in their new land use policies. Their best response was, "Don't you want to live in a nice community?"

Comments are closed.