As if the word communitarianism wasn't already hard enough to pronounce, the term expanded; now it's also called "neo-communitarianism." Never heard of either one? Well, only certain places and certain people are allowed to use the New World Order terminology, openly, or in an academic arena. If the President or the Pope says it, the press repeats it but never questions it. Often we are later told that just because they said the term NWO it doesn't mean they really meant the NWO.
The definition of NWO is difficult to pin down. Wikipedia gives us three definitions. One is classified as the political definition and a portion explains Gorbachev's ideas for an NWO partially as: "But the principal statement creating the new world order concept came from Gorbachev’s 7 December 1988 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. His formulation included a laundry list of ideas in creating a new order. He advocated the strengthening the central role of the United Nations, and the active involvement of all members—the Cold War had prevented the UN and its Security Council from performing their roles as initially envisioned. The de-ideologizing of relations among states was the mechanism through which this new level of cooperation could be achieved. Concurrently, Gorbachev recognized only one world economy—essentially an end to economic blocs." (Gorbachev is a major communitarian player who helped Etzioni found the new science of socio-economics.)
Wikipedia's definition is under review, but currently the political NWO definition includes the conspiracy. Now, if anyone dares to be opposed to the NWO and even mentions it out loud, they're immediately ignored and pooh poohed as conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter that Communitarianism is not an alien or UFO theory. It doesn't matter that it's the philosophy mandating the creation of a stronger central global government. The flim-flam communitarian philosophy that justifies creating a supra-national global order it perfect, and it allows for no scrutiny or investigation. Don't expect the Communitarians to discuss it with common people. It isn't covered by the mainstream press for a good reason. Not only is it considered unhealthy to educate the masses in communitarianism, it's forbidden for slaves to speak openly of such things.
So here's the deal. If a a religious-state official tells you they're helping to establish a New World Order, they are talking about a lovely, but vague general plan to save mankind. If an astute neighbor in small town America tells you they're helping to STOP the New World Order because they know what U.N. Local Agenda 21 is, they're probably a kook with a mental illness. Anyone who stands up in a Homeland Security-Neighborhood Watch-community development meeting and questions the plans must be nuts. Questioning the planners, requesting detailed background and blueprints (or defending American legal principles) is not encouraged or well received.
For us two little women at the ACL, our biggest problem has always been that we're thinking Americans. We read a lot, Nordica is bi-lingual, and we don't get our non-fiction information from the American mainstream media. We decide which news matters to us. When we want to know what's going on with the plan we don't turn on the TV. We study source documents published by the Communitarian planners. At the ACL we consider all the available information and factual evidence we can find. We have been forced to confront every taboo topic because they all connect in one way or another to communitarian thinking. We did not choose to become NWO researchers when we began studying the communitarian philosophy. We were forced into it because the founder of American Imperial Communitarianism does seminars like this:
|
11/24/2005-- Dear Avner De-Shalit,
I am the co-founder of the Anti-Communitarian League. I found the announcement for your lecture on Amitai Etzioni's commlaw elist. Do you have a detailed synopsis of the specific implications included in your lecture? Will there be published papers of this event? I appreciate your study into this very important arena and would be grateful for permission to access and reprint your published works. I regret not being able to attend the lecture personally, I'm sure it will be very interesting and contribute greatly to our understanding of the communitarian system.
Sincerely,
Niki Raapana
http://nord.twu.net/acl 11/25/2005 -- [Avner promptly responds to my email] "I gues you approached me by mistake. It is Amitai Etzioni who will be here and will talk about this issue. best wishes, Avner" |
| Other perspectives on this matter relate to globalization and various intellectual movements evolved from Marxist "internationalist" ideology, such as Social Democracy and Socialism, aiming to homogenize cultures and values by political normalization, as pointed out in the European Union's gradual "communitarian construction" scheme of a common economic and legal framework for all countries. Some political groups, such as the Club of Rome and the Socialist International (to which the French, British and German parliamentary Left-wing parties belong), openly advocate these goals. [emphasis added ~ed.] |
The ideology that requires us to rebuild the world into ONE giant, global community is communitarianism. Dialectical "thinking" is the foundation for our new global LAWS. Dr. Amitai Etzioni, the Communitarian Network founder, is the "guru" of globalization. Etzioni advises state governments and he is a prominent player in many Global legal sessions (sharing his more moral advice). He's been an adviser to several US Presidents and he is the most influential Israeli working in the White House today. Etzioni's recent attendence at the very exclusive World Political Forum in Turin (March 2005) shows his powerful role in planning for an international government. This "former" terrorist also co-founded the whole new "science" of SOCIO-ECONOMICS with "former" communist Mikhail Gorbachev.
Americans are not allowed to consider any evident assaults on our free country unless it implicates Muslims or Christians or an anarchist "lone" gunman. Psst. The question over the "right" to Israel's nukes is kind of a touchy subject and discussing accused Israeli spies in the U.S. Pentagon or looking for "Mega" is anti-Semitism. Controversy is limited to studying if/why Jews are genetically smarter. (For the best overview of all the possible players and angles in the Zionism dialectic see Israpundit.com, an exit link from etzioni's blog.)
Also, historical studies are censored now. The Jewish Holocaust was cannonized by the British, Israelis, the UN and American community policing services. Studying it, writing about it, or publishing academic books or scholarly papers that counter the official Jewish version of German or Nazi Socialist history is a crime under International Law. We are to disregard all contradictory, available, factual evidence about the world and rely on heavily edited, ancient religious history fortified with claims to represent God's "chosen" people. We must further discount whatever current facts we can verify for ourselves in our own neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties and states. Peace is defined by warmongers as silencing objectors, and Communitarian plans to rebuild the world are set in stone.
| "WASHINGTON - After years of criticizing Israel's human rights record, America now finds itself tapping the Jewish state's experience in balancing the need to protect individual freedoms and the need to fight terrorism. And Jerusalem seems happy to help, as the issues of torture and the general treatment of detainees are garnering national attention in the United States." Americans Look to Israel as Role Model in Fight Against Terrorism By Ori Nir The Forward, November 11, 2005. |
|
"Earlier this month, speaking before the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush outlined the five principles on which our nation's strategy in the War on Terror is based. First, he said, "we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur." Second, "we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation." Third, "we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes." Fourth, the President stated that "we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror." There is little disagreement that America will be more secure if we continue successfully to fulfill these four principles. It is important to note that Israel will also benefit from our achievement of these aims. The President's fifth principle, however, has drawn criticism from some circles. The President declared that "we're determined to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East." Some deride this "freedom agenda" as idealistic and na ve. Some argue that although well-intentioned, the short-term costs exceed any potential long-term benefits from democratization in the Middle East. The President respectfully disagrees. He believes the freedom agenda is critical for both the United States and Israel. So, this afternoon I would like to discuss why the effort to spread freedom throughout the Muslim world will leave both the United States, and Israel, safer and more secure." Remarks by Stephen Hadley to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee National Summit 2005 White House Press Release, October 31, 2005 |
|
America's S.O.S to the IDF By Amir Oren, Haaretz.com, Last update - 15:41 12/11/2005 "Officially, Centcom (U.S. Central Command) is barred from talking directly to Israel - it is supposed to do so only through Eucom (European Command?) or Washington. The prohibition is usually maintained, but life-and-death issues override it. Centcom despaired of the bureaucracy, while soldiers are being killed every day, and three officers who are serving in Iraq came to Israel to learn from the IDF how to combat IEDs. There are also Israeli combatants in Iraq who were released from the IDF to enlist in the U.S. Army." "To prove the Americans are learning from the best and most experienced sources, Conway noted that the British had encountered the problem of explosive devices in Northern Ireland and the Israelis have coped with suicide bombers in Israel and Lebanon. "We've tried to study what their experiences were and learn from that." Dutton, the British general, added another piece of information which explains why it is vital to draw on the knowledge the IDF gleaned coping with Hezbollah devices: the materials and the technology used in making IEDs are entering Iraq from the same source - Iran." "A soldier who is not present is not hurt, and the original sin of the U.S. Army in Iraq, in its mission to protect the emerging regime in Baghdad, is its failure to develop "control without presence" - a swift action, sparing in manpower and focused, that achieves results without banking on large-scale presence that eventually becomes bankruptcy. The IDF learned how to do this, on an impressive albeit not absolute scale, in its activity against Palestinian terrorism in the West Bank. This is a decentralized combat doctrine, on which the copyright belongs, in part, to the former commander of the Israel Navy, Rear Admiral (res.) Yedidya Yaari, now the president of Rafael." |
|
"As a scholar who dedicated the last 15 years to communitarian public philosophy, I have frequently argued that individual rights have been unduly expanded, often at the cost of the common good. I joined Harvard law professor Mary Glendon to point critically at the explosive growth of entitlements and the trivialization of rights. For example, some feminists claimed that they had a right to use the men's room even if there was no line at the women's room. And an employee of Macy's claimed that he has a right to play Santa Claus. I could not find such rights in the Constitution, or for that matter, any other place. In addition, I devoted a whole book to the limits of privacy, and I am among those who hold that Sept. 11, 2001, changed what constitutes a "reasonable" search. However, when we move to reset the balance between individual rights and the common good, we inevitably step on the slippery slope that we face whenever we reset legal doctrines, religious Do's and Don'ts and moral taboos. We hence need to be careful that we not open the floodgates to gross violations of individual rights-that we not end up on our backside on the lowest end of the slope. Some civil libertarians are so concerned about this danger that they would rather not set foot on the slope at all, and prefer to remain frozen in whatever position they find themselves. However, adjustments are often needed. The secret is to set clear markers for the new place on the slope beyond which we will not slide, a new definition of what is reasonable, a specific new point of balance between rights and the common good." [emphasis added] Amitai Etzioni, Communitarian Newsletter #4, received on the COMMLAW@hermes.gwu.edu elist, October 17, 2005. (also in The National Law Journal Online on September 19, 2005.) |
What does it mean to "reset legal doctrines?" Communitarian philosophers have been changing the meanings of words for over 200 years, which is why Etzioni uses the invalid slippery slope argument. Why do Americans need "a new definition of what is reasonable?" Doesn't the U.S. Constitution provide a clear, legal, and reasonable path for Etzioni's balancing and adjustments (called Amendments)? The only legal way to reset U.S. law is to go through the process. An Amendment that doesn't include a fully informed debate and 2/3 majority vote is treason.