[ Back to Table of Contents ]
Anti-Communitarian League : Research & Analysis of the Ultimate Third Way

Hillary Clinton -- First Communitarian President/VP of the United States?

by Niki Raapana, March 3, 2005

The Ideology of Constant Conflict

by Niki Raapana, December 6, 2005

When Hillary Clinton flip-flops from one side of an issue to the other, are we to assume she does it randomly without thinking about it first? We've never been told Hillary is anything but smart. It just doesn't make sense for her to make really obvious, dumb choices. She's a smart politician, one would expect her to make smart moves. So, is it possible that flip-flopping is actually a very smart move?

What if the emerging global synthesis requires a new kind of politician? Maybe America needs a strong, wishy-washy leader with no loyalties, one who can be counted on to support every side of every issue, equally? The country is torn apart over so many important issues. Could it be that we need a leader who can offer a middle ground to all our conflicts? Have we evolved as humans? Is the world finally ready for a new life of harmony and understanding? Is this the real dawning of the Age of Aquarius?

Hillary and Bill Clinton are New Democrats. The New Democrats aren't quite the same as the old Democrats, except only a few old Democrats can identify the difference between the two factions (and even fewer are aware that there is any difference). Most professional old school Democrats we've met won't even discuss it with us. The only people talking about communitarianism in America are the communitarians who spew the confusing party lines (that also flip-flop).

So here you have it from another biased viewpoint, mine: The main difference is the old Democratic Party was an American party with alligiance to the Americans it represents. The New Democrats have no loyalty to Americans or the U.S. constitutional system of government. They certainly don't represent the "people" as opposed to the Republicans who are supposed to represent big business. Many Americans complain they can't see the difference between the parties anymore, and that's because they're almost all communitarians now. But who is questioning the supporting values behind the new "bipartisan" political interests? Who asks, "What do the leading Democrats have in common with the leading Republicans?" Who writes about the merger between government and the private sector, or which philosophy supports the new model for a Public-Private Partnership?

According to American historian Anton Chaitkin (a LaRouche supporter), the DLC founders recieved start-up funds and their platform directions from private NY financial "interests" and the Rothschild Bank of England. While we've never verified that for ourselves, we have verified that the major American DLC founder in D.C. (who brought the Clintons into power) ended up married to Sir Evelyn de Rotshchild himself. (Apparently not a lot is published online about Lynn Forrester de Rothschild, because we get a lot of searchers looking for her who land here. Maybe they want to know if Lady Lynn does bloody tea time with her neighbor on the cutting edge of propriety, our new U.N. Goodwill Ambassador, Ms. "I never steal other women's husbands" Angelina Jolie?) The New Democrats are the Ultimate Third Way party in Britain and Europe and Israel too, and they all openly and passionately embrace all the Rothschild's communitarian values. It's probably a good thing most Americans don't know what those values really are.

Hillary and Bill both praised Communitarian Network founder Amitai Etzioni for his contributions to the new Character Education programme. They championed his efforts for the development of a new American morality that nobody can quite define yet. But for some unknown reason, the mainstream American press barely covered anything related to the new philosophy. In the 15 years since the Clintons were holding Etzioni up in the Oval Office light, it remains the least talked about ideology in the history of American politics. It's not a secret in Washington D.C., and several reporters from rags as esteemed as The Washington Post have written about President Bush's committment to promoting communitarian values around the world. Etzioni's written 24 books on Communitarianism, he's been so well recieved around the world that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands wrote the preface for the Dutch translation of The New Golden Rule. Americans, on the other hand, have no idea who he is.

It's unexplainable why so few Democrats know anything about communitarianism or their guru. But what's truly amazing is the almost complete silence from the opposition camp called the Republican Party. Our unaffiliated, brightest and most respected political news analysts rarely mention it either. Not that the term isn't used often in upper academia and in international legal circles, but here in the USA, on TV, or in the newspapers or on the radio, it's as if it barely even exists. When Etzioni does appear in the news, he's portrayed as a sweet little old man who advises global leaders to make moral choices. Every state that "flunked" Etzioni's pro-active stance on terrorism is changing their state laws to accomodate the guru. Not one state DMV will tell their state citizens that they have over-ruled American legal opposition to a National ID based solely on Amitai Etzioni's advice. (The State of Alaska and the Anchorage Daily News put Etzioni and the Network's advice on the front page of the ADN in April 2004. Not one Alaskan reporter or editor we contacted was interested in who he was, and nobody at UAA appears interested in studying the ideology.)

Communitarian thinkers freely admit that communitarianism evolved out of years of conflict. The tell us it developed out of a series of debates between the right and the left, and too, because of the desperate "need" to rebuild stronger communities. Don't ask how they decided it was needed. They hate to have to explain that the term "community" stands for communitarianism. Whether strong communities dominate and control the lives of the weaker members is also not up for discussion. They prefer to explain it all in vague, familiar terms that nobody thinks they need a dictionary to understand. We ALL think we know what "community" means, and it will be a cold day in hell before they explain "community" is the final balance of capitalist-communism with communist-capitalism.

The Hegelian dialectic is a simple formula for changing the world. A versus B equals Z (or whatever you want it to be). The Communitarians used the dialectic to explain how they arrived just in time for all the spontaneous, grass-roots movements sprouting up across the globe, all begging for the same exact sustainable development plans. It's almost funny when communitarian groups and organizations become offended when they read their efforts were part of a global U.N. plan. They really get mad and insist their local plan for sustainable development and building socio-economic capacity was all their own idea. Nobody wants to admit they've been duped by the communitarians, least of all the ones who help them because they actually believe in the lie. (As a former and almost Green-Libertarian-Feminist-Socialist, I ought to know.)

Communitarianism was introduced in the 1980s as the ultimate global ideology promoting universal peace. Its roots lie in perfected propaganda as established by the British Fabian Society. Its adherants don't need to explain exactly how it came into being. It's not a science, so it doesn't have to follow logic. It just sort of appeared out of the minds of Etzioni and Gorbachev, two men well-known throughout the world for their morality and peaceful ways. The miracle of communitarian thinking is both Etzioni and Gorbachev used to be very loyal to two of the most brutal governments in modern history. But, something changed them, we don't know what (and they won't say) but now, now they're against guns and terrorist bombings and they really care about human rights. You'll never hear either one of them supporting individual rights, which are not the same as human rights. Individual Rights in the USA are backed up by Constitutional Law. Human Rights are Resolutions passed by the U.N., and the term includes supra-national control over the dispersal of economic leveling programs. All communitarian players insist a balance between individuals and community is necessary.

If communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic, then Hillary Clinton is the Hegelian dialectic in motion. First she was a pro-Palestinian feminist and a shouting champion of women's "rights" at the U.N. Beijing Conference for Women. Hillary's efforts helped create the Domestic Violence Act of 1995, an act which has torn apart more families in America than Etzioni's Community Police enforcing the Violent Crime Act of 1994. Hillary doesn't care which side she supports today, nor which side she supports tomorrow. Like Bush and hubby, she understands that every "side" of every "issue" was created to further the Ultimate Third Way goal, which is a communitarian supra-national world order. Today she's a pro-Israeli working with the far-right, anti-abortion gang (and supported by the New York Hasidics). Tomorrow who knows, maybe she'll join the Christian Right opposed to Zionism and still support the Sanhedrin Court.

Communitarianism is the political ideology that insists on a "balance" between the far-right and the far-left. It is the ultimate middle-of-the-road solution to extreme conflicts between passionate adherants to extremely important, unresolveable political and religious issues. Communitarians work to achieve bipartisan consensus. Good communitarians go along with everything, never argue or keep their arguments within the boundary lines of the dialectic so that their argument becomes part of the circle, eventually anyway. Hillary Clinton is no dummy. Make no mistake about them; Communitarians definitely study all the issues. Academics and politicians debate the questions in private meetings, and gurus and politicians present the "new" communitarian solutions to the public. After all, the arrangements and the resolutions have already been made.

Somehow these conflicts are always the issues that dominate the news. Communitarian solutions cannot exist unless there are conflicts and problems that need to be resolved. The "debates" are always pushed into the political playground by the extremists representing the sides. Americans are asked to choose between the sides and then the fight-fun really begins. Some issues fizzle out because they just don't arouse any passion. But others can be counted on to grow and get worse until some wacko gets violent and people get hurt over it. By far, the most effective issues are the seemingly unreconcilable ones that induce unrelenting hatred.

Hillary's political flip-flopping is fast becoming normal behavior for American politicians. Is she pro-war? Aren't the feminists against it? We know she voted for the War on Terror. What does that really mean? Can she be anti-war, pro-Israel and a quiet communitarian, all at the same time? Maybe she knows about a Third Way solution to global peace and justice, and her presidency will be a 3rd way catalyst.The DLC platform (which most Democrats never read) called for a complete government re-structuring. The Republicans won't talk about it, but the Bush Administration kept up the Clinton's plans. Bush pushed every communitarian program the Clintons introduced. Etzioni doesn't leave his position as the top Israeli adviser in the White house just because our elected presidents change positions. The power behind the American throne is still behind the wizard's curtains. It can only be explained (and perhaps stopped) if the whole philosophical structure of communitarianism is exposed under their one thousand lights. Once Americans see how the Hegelian dialectic works to divide and conquer them, they can cease their support for dialectical conflicts and focus their energy on finding their own solutions. Once the philosophy and political ideology is out in the open and discussed by every American voter, then, and only then will our people take their rightful place in the history of "democratic idealism." Until then, average American voters will stay confused and keep voting (unawares) for phony flip-flopping comunitarian candidates.

As for whence it commeth, the communitarian plan for rebuilding the world is very old, and yes, it did take some time to accomplish. Because of their painfully delicate and slow maneuvering, the United States wasn't completely "reinvented" until 1992. After 9/11/01 and the "big push" past all the previously "identified barriers" to the plan (like the 4th and 5th Amendments), the final programs were introduced that completely eliminated the old constitutional structure for American government. Every communitarian law passed after the terrorist attacks was planned and written well before the actual attacks. Besides the Patriot Act and other ACLU passions, many other important laws and plans were quietly implemented across the country while our people were diverted by other more "important" issues that everybody talks about. Even though the Iraq war is a planned conflict leading to rebuilding a model communitarian system in the Middle East, you'll never hear the anti-war movement protesting that portion of the plan (excepting Justin Raimondo and antiwar.com).

Communitarianism is definitely a conspiracy, but it isn't a theory. The conspiracy part requires that most Americans be kept in the dark about the new system until it's fully operational. Go ahead. Try to find an American political analyst who will explain Hillary Clinton's communitarian thinking for you. They can't deny it, so they'll side-step, wiggle, and squirm out of having to answer directly. Ask. You'll see. Perhaps you'll learn to dance with them once you're aware this ain't no disco....

Forwarded on Peter Myers' elist -- (5) Hillary 2008 - The Year Of The Lizard

Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:46:13 EST From: Jude10901@aol.com

Hillary 2008 - The Year Of The Lizard

By Judy Andreas

Will Hillary Clinton be the next President of the United States? Sorry, folks, but it certainly appears that way. As " Bozo the Clone" is being set up for a "one way ticket to Crawford", Hillary Clinton is slithering towards the oval office.

I caution the feminist readers not to begin applauding prematurely. Hillary has reinvented herself from the good old days of granny glasses and women's rights. The Ms. has become a Mrs. and soon hopes to become a President.

It seems like only yesterday that Hillary was championing the rights of the Afghani woman and justifying the invasion of Afghanistan to help their status. What happened to THAT Hillary and what happened to the Afghani women? Has anyone been monitoring their liberation?

Has "Hillary the Hawk" looked lately at the women in Iraq? What has the Corporate Agenda done for them? Look at Africa where women and children are starving as a result of this Corporate Agenda. Are you aware, Mrs. C? Do you care, Mrs. C?

A master gymnast, Hillary has flip flopped on the Israeli/Palestinian question. Isn't this the same woman who, as First Lady, supported Palestinian statehood and hugged Yasir Arafat's wife? Isn't this the same woman who made a violently anti-Israel speech and had been known to call Clinton campaign workers efing Jew-bastards?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=10059#

I guess Mrs. Clinton realized that such behavior was not in the best interest of a candidate for Senator of New York State. It certainly is not the proper strategy with which to capture the Presidency in 2008. And so, Hillary embarked on a trip to Israel (with no stop in Palestine) to visit and praise the "separation barrier" being built along the edge of the West Bank. Separation barrier? Is that what you call a 30 ft high solid wall with electronic fences? It's more like a Warsaw Ghetto, Mrs. C. Observe the service road and another fence and a 13 ft deep trench. There's a special road for armed personnel, and you can imagine what their duties are. A "separation barrier" sounds like something I fashioned to create a dining area.

While she was in Israel, Mrs. Clinton praised Ariel Sharon's work for peace. PEACE? Is that why they call him "the Butcher of Lebanon"? Was he handing out beef briskets to the hungry Lebanese? What about the killing of the Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon under Sharon's watch? UN Resolution 194 guarantees all Palestinian refugees the right to return, and yet, Ariel Sharon refuses to implement this resolution. In addition, "the butcher" has turned a deaf ear on countless other resolutions denouncing the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Mrs. Clinton, you are starting to make George Bush sound good.

Let's travel back in time to the year 1991. Remember when four members of the New York Hasidic community of New Square were convicted of starting a fake religious school with 1,500 fake students and embezzling $40 million in federal Pell grants, which they then funneled back in to the New Square community? I remember this well, since New Square is only about 25 minutes from where I live.

In August of 2000, Hillary visited the New Square Hasidic community where she met privately with community leader, Rabbi David Twersky. Nobody knows for sure what was discussed in the meeting. Perhaps she was interested in converting.

Heading into the 2000 Senate campaign, most New York Hasidic communities were supportive of Rick Lazio. It was expected that the New Square vote, which was traditionally conservative, would vote for Lazio by as much as 90%. Two Hasidic communities near New Square went for Lazio 3,500 to 150. However, New Square shocked everyone, by voting for Hillary 1,359 to 10. Imagine that !!!!! Hillary got 99% of the vote. In December 2000, just a month after Hillary took New Square by 99%, Bill and Hillary met with community leaders from New Square in the White House Map Room where they discussed pardons for the four New Square embezzlers. You are a religious woman, Mrs. Clinton, giving those "men of God" a break !!!!

And, speaking of a "religious" woman, in January of this year, an article by Francis Harris appeared in the Telegraph. It was entitled "Gasps As Hillary Woos The Anti-Abortion Vote." It seems that ole Hillary made an appeal to right wing religious groups. She said that she sought common ground on abortion and described herself as a praying person (preying?) She praised religious groups which have run chastity campaigns for young people and backed W's Faith Based Initiatives. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton had had an encounter on the Road to Damascus.

Recently, "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan urged her fellow/gal Democrats not to support "pro-war Democrat" Hillary Clinton for president, saying "she sounds like conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh in her support for U.S. efforts in Iraq."

Citing Hillary's comments to the Village Voice that a pullout would mean U.S. troops had died in vain, Sheehan complained:

"That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me. That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me. What Sen. Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party talking points I heard from Senators Dole and McCain."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/19/101329.shtml

Yes, I am afraid we are in for a rough ride, friends. And here you were, happily awaiting the exit of Bullwinkle and Snidely Whiplash.

The Hillary Clinton Presidency will be marketed as an end to war, but please do not be fooled by this clever manipulation. President Hillary will not only have all of the American troops, but she will also have NATO troops and an International Force which is being put together as I write. It is likely that she will have a total of 350 to 400,000 troops at her disposal. And, although Ms. C and her velvet glove Administration will probably call them "peace keeping forces", do not be fooled by words. Rest assured that the troops will continue to bomb with the same Depleted Uranium and shoot with the same bullets, as they engage in their "peace keeping" missions. But will you be any the wiser? Will the press tell you what is being done in our name?

The stage is set and the bumper stickers are already available. However, it is not only your bumper that will be STUCK, friends. (And, speaking of "stuck", it should be apparently clear to even those Americans who are in delta stage sleep, the reason Mrs. Clinton stuck by her man)

So stay tuned, my friends. The drama will continue after a short intermission to rid the stage of "played out" actors. George W is about the shape shift into Hillary Clinton. And, just when you thought things couldn't get worse, welcome to the era of "touchy-feely" fascism.

Copyright: 2005 Judy Andreas www.judyandreas.com JUDE10901@AOL.com

February 08, 2005 -- THE HOWARD AND HILLARY STORY: QUEEN OF THE REVIVED THIRD WAY? by Steven C. Clemmons.

"In the middle of this Third World War, we Americans cannot be Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish. We must be American. We must hold to the almost 250-year-old soul of the United States Republic as it is outlined in the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Presently, dealing with the scientific, legalistic challenges from an internationalist's idea called the Worldwide Socialist Federation - a One World government run out of the UN - we are Americans facing the frighteningly successful triumph of a 19th-century constitution outlined by Karl Marx's Das Kapital and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto."MARXIANITY VS AMERICANIANITY by Michael Moriarty, Actor and Columnist, November 19, 2004

Hilary's No Liberal by Wendy Kaminer, July 22, 1999, at The Nation.

THE THIRD WAY: SEARCHING FOR A STATE WITHOUT ENEMIES! posted by Sociology online.

SUBORDINATING AMERICA UNDER A SOCIALISTIC WORLD GOVERNMENT by Patrick Briley, September 20, 2004, NewsWithViews.com

New Democrats Online: State and Local Playbook.

Social Ecology, Eco-Communitarianism and Inclusive Democracy Abstract: "The aim of this article is to delineate the differences between the inclusive democracy project and the project of social ecology, including its version under the name 'eco-communitarianism'. It is shown that these differences may be located on the philosophical grounding of democracy-a fact which has important repercussions on the respective conceptions of democracy itself. Thus, democracy, in both social ecology and eco-communitarianism, is grounded on dialectical naturalism, i.e. a closed system of ideas which, like dialectical materialism, involves a rational process of Progress, whereas, in the inclusive democracy project, democracy is seen as a process of social self-institution implying a society which is open ideologically - namely, one which is not grounded on any closed system of beliefs, dogmas or ideas involving a linear or dialectical conception of History."