What they say:

"Global governance has been criticized for many reasons, some of which are more compelling than others. For instance, it is said that such governance violates old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty,9 which Professor Dinh defines well. However, the notion of national sovereignty is neither God-given nor part of human nature. Instead, as Professor Dinh correctly points out, global governance was something concocted in the seventeenth century to stop religious wars, which entailed the intervention of one ruler in the internal affairs of other communities." by Amitai Etzioni, pdf file at GWU, On the Need For More Transnational Capacity.

"Healthy communities are built upon two pillars of equal strength and necessity: a respect for the freedoms of individuals and a commitment to the common good. In order for our society to continue and to flourish, all of its members must work toward this balance between rights and responsibility-including children." Amitai Etzioni blog March 2005, Educating for Freedom and Responsibility.

"Officials recognize that these vaccines will harm a small percentage of (genetically susceptible) individuals, but it is for the common good. The communitarian code posits that it is morally acceptable, if necessary, to sacrifice a few for the good of the many. Or as one observer more bluntly puts it, "Individual sheep can be sheared and slaughtered if it is for the welfare of their flock." This information is provided by Mercola.com a natural health website.

"We establish for the moment a new world order. 11 September 2001 everything changed."
Amitai Etzioni on July 26, 2003 in an interview with Afghan Mania in Germany.



"The world needs a new global architecture, additional layers of governance, to deal with issues that neither nations nor traditional forms of intergovernmental organizations can cope with."
Amitai Etzioni at September 7th, 2004 conference at the Hague titled, "Europe, A Beautiful Idea"

"I am speaking of a new engagement in the lives of others, a new activism, hands-on and involved, that gets the job done. We must bring in the generations, harnessing the unused talent of the elderly and the unfocused energy of the young.... I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good." The Inagural Address of President George Bush 1989. Yale Avalon Law Project.

"Bush's inaugural address," said George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni, a communitarian thinker, "was a communitarian text, full of words like 'civility,' 'responsibility' and 'community.' That's no accident. Bush's advisers consulted on the speech with Putnam." Washington Post Staff Writer Dana Milbank, February 01, 2001 "Needed: Catchword for Bush Ideology, 'Communitarianism' Finds Favor"

"The President of the United States of America [Clinton] awards this National Humanities Medal to Robert N. Bellah for his efforts to illuminate the importance of community in American society. A distinguished sociologist and educator, he has raised our awareness of the values that are at the core of our democratic institutions and of the dangers of individualism unchecked by social responsibility." [emphasis added] A Biography of Robert Bellah.

"The First Amendment's disestablishment clause is not a foreign policy tool, but a peculiarly American conception. Just because the American government is banned from promoting religion within the United States does not mean that the State Department and the Pentagon cannot promote religion overseas in societies that are undergoing profound societal changes. This last point is crucial: Overseas we are participating as a key architect and builder of new institutions; we are in what social scientists call "the design business." This is quite distinct from what we do at home: shoring up a solid social structure designed two centuries ago, careful not to rock the foundations or undermine the pillars on which it stands. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other Third World countries, we participate in the ground-breaking, foundation-laying stage, one in which elements we can take for granted at home - such as a thriving religious life within civil society - must be provided." [emphasis added] Amitai Etzioni quoted on Publicradio.org.

"What then is the answer? If the question is how can we run a sustainable and just consumer-capitalist society, the point is that there isn't any answer. We cannot achieve a sustainable and just society unless we face up to huge and radical transition to what some identify as The Simpler Way, that is to a society based on non-affluent but adequate living standards, high levels of self-sufficiency, in small scale localised economies with little trade and no growth, to basically co-operative and participatory communities, to an economy that's not driven by market forces and profit, and most difficult of all, a society that's not motivated by competition, individualism, and acquisitiveness. Many have argued that this general vision is the only way out of the mess we're in." What is our biggest problem? by Ted Trainer. Extract from Ockham's Razor, ABC Radio National, 27 Nov 2005. (The Simpler Way is another new term for the communitarian's U.N. Local Agenda 21 Programme and the "mistaken for communists" international communitarian Vision 2020.) Editor of Raise the Hammer.org raised objections to this citation. His email and our response posted at bottom of this page

Sometimes called a "progressive dialectic procedure," the left v. right debate is between Engels/Marx (communism) and Adam Smith (capitalism). We argue that Smith and Engels/Marx represented the same ultimate goal. Their final synthesis is world government. Almost every player in the world today calls for a strong global authority. Communitarianism is the philosophical foundation for global governance. We oppose the foundation for the international court. We oppose the foundation for international laws. We oppose the foundation for phony federal laws that supercede state law. We oppose the formation of "sides" that promote further dialectical conflicts. The left and right appear to have different ideas as to how global justice should be accomplished, but they never really disagree with the purpose or the ultimate goal, only with the methods and who should rule. Communitarian Law is the final system in the phony pre-arranged social evolution of mankind. The whole world already lives partially under their vague new system. It includes a mixture of philosophy, religion, theosophy, facilitated meetings, party politics, legal and social reforms, mysticism, propaganda, alchemy, and, most importantly, SOCIO-ECONOMICS. It's all about manipulating false conflicts, protecting free trade and controlling global markets for the new age, communitarian imperialists.

Think you know what free trade and protected markets means? Think again.
Adam Smith in 1776 and Frederick Engels of the London Communist League in 1847 were British economists. Smith defined a false version of American political economy (the imperialist self-interested Hidden Hand capitalist free trade thesis). Marx re-defined an ancient religious communism into a global political ideology exporting violence for the common good (the antithesis). It is our unoriginal thesis that their revolutionary economic theories established the right v. left dialectical conflict of ideologies. Like the Jacobin slogans that sabotaged the Rights of Man in the French Revolution, economic slogans destroyed the development and spreading popularity of the colonial idea for a national economic system. The original American system was quietly removed from the history books. Today it's as if it never existed, and the communist and socialist viewpoints sound more like the original American system. It's a brilliantly executed, long-range scam, and it's enormously successful. After 150 years of contrived false conflicts and synthesizing between two theories, communitarianism was introduced as the ultimate economic and social synthesis that transcends all modern classifications. Gee, why would anyone want to protect American, French or Australian industry?

We know what union stands for in Union of Free States. The USA is a trade union.
U.S. constitutional law was established to protect individual workers and their property from thieves, murderers and kidnappers. The federal government was established to protect and promote trade between the union member states. The American colonials wanted self-sufficency and a healthy, united balance between cottage industry and agriculture that would hold up against the reigning imperial colonial system. Our union in liberty is between free and independent states who represent each individual citizen. As Alaska State Residents we hold a written and binding contract with our hirelings at every level of legitimate U.S. government. We are citizens of a free republic. We totally support our legal, constitutional based system. We support the rights of all individuals residing in the U.S. and its territories. It's also called self-government. The purpose of government in our free country is only to protect and maintain individual rights to ownership. We own this country, and from our highest government official on down, they all must swear to uphold constitutional law. Communitarians are global merchants who import and export a system of communitarianized democracy and take slaves along the way. The original U.S. political and economic system was designed to protect Union members (citizens) from colonial servitude to inbred monarchists and their armies, financiers, merchants, and gurus. Most officials we've met have no idea their primary job is to protect us and redress our individual grievances. The modern U.S. "democratic regime" represents the inbreds. Since our thesis has remained undisputed for two years, we just plain discount all dialectical arguments and conflicts that lead to phony federal and international communitarian solutions. We say Communitarianism must be resisted at every level of life; it eliminates the Rule of Law declared by any free people.

What others say:

"It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants." The Federalist-General Introduction For the Independent Journal by ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

"Rothbard committed a three-fold career gaffe: (1) adopting Mises' epistemology (deductivist) in an era dominated by empiricism (inductivist); (2) adopting Mises' free market economics; (3) adopting a conspiracy view of history. Conspiracy views of history are acceptable by the historical guild only if you are a Marxist. Marx followed the money. "Cash nexus" was one of his more popular phrases. So, it is academically acceptable to indict capitalism as a Marxist, but not as a defender of free markets. To attack modern capitalism from a free market perspective implies that modern capitalism's weaknesses and evils are mainly the fault of the State, not open competition. It implies that society can overcome capitalism's weaknesses and evils by extending the realm of open competition. No proletarian revolution is needed. No government regulations are needed. Therefore, this kind of conspiracy theory is unacceptable in academia." The Red/Blue Map vs. Conspiracy Theories by Gary North.

"NEOCOMMUNITARIANISM: a trend of political thought which has been promoted in the USA since the '70s. It opposes that Liberalism which over-stresses human individuality and which proposes a falsely universalistic human society. It high-lights the constant interaction between civil society and political society and it considers inalienable the pre-eminence of civic virtues (government of men rather than of laws, as in the liberal tradition)." VOICES

Pandemic Influenza Is A Global Strategic Plan by Bobby Garner on November 9, 2005 pretty much sums it all up: "The "global threat" appears to be a moving target but consistently coming under the heading of terrorism, Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction, now Avian Influenza. On the global scale since 9/11, How many of us have actually been affected by any of these things? When you add them all up, the number pales in comparison to the number of deaths produced in the phony wars waged against them."

Christian? Author Warns Believers Against New 'Communitarian' Bible Curriculum By Jim Brown, November 9, 2005, AgapePress. Human? World-Speak: The Making of the Communitarian Creature by Nancy Levant.

"A true system of law which guarantees both that the certain rules are invariably enforced and that the authority to enforce these cannot use it for any other purpose, for its task of enforcing the common law the SUPERNATIONAL AUTHORITY MUST BE VERY POWERFUL." Author David J. Peterson, in Revoking the Moral Order - The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle, a critique of Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom as quoted in American Babylon-Rise and Fall-Part 5: The Triumph of the Merchants by Peter Goodgame.

"Behind the Communitarian shift of power to the state is a certain distorted preference about what a "community" is: Communitarians distrust and dislike voluntary communities. Robert Bellah especially believes that the only true community is one created and controlled by democratic political power, which also happens to mean that of the largest political unit possible. To him, small units, whether voluntary associations or smaller units of government, do not represent enough of "the People" to properly represent the General Will (as Rousseau would have said) of the Community. This is an amazingly credulous, dangerous, and naive view of the benevolence of democracy and of large government. What it reveals is that Communitarians are not basically advocates of real community, but they are statists and collectivists who confuse their own benevolent intentions, if they were in power, with what such a government would be like operating under the incentives for corruption that are created in the sort of unrestrained and absolutist, indeed totalitarian, government that they desire." Rights, Responsibilities, and Communitarianism by Dr. Kelly Ross.

"Moral theologians urge more government guidance of the economy, but many insist on the accountability of the state to civil society. Aware of the historic weakness of Latin American governments, Comblin argues for building a lean but strong social-welfare state and a joint public-private industrial strategy.(n64) This, however, is the long-term goal. At the same time, Comblin and others recognize Latin America's impotence vis-a-vis the rich nations of the North. Miguel Manzanera of Bolivia writes that "The present international political structure ... contradicts the ethical principles of the universal destiny of goods and of democracy itself."(n65) Emilio Albistur of Argentina recalls how recent papal documents and CELAM's Medellin Conference treated growing asymmetrical relations among nations and that Pope John XXIII, recognizing the insufficiency of nation-states to ensure the universal common good, called for a "general public authority" as a moral necessity.(n66) Without such authority, regional cooperation is stunted and local governments cannot ensure the common good." MORAL THEOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA By: Brackley, Dean, Schubeck, Thomas L., Theological Studies, 00405639, Mar2002, Vol. 63, Issue 1 Database: Academic Search Elite

It was very confusing when Seattle officials started taking invasive actions against owners and renters residing in our University neighborhood. Their plan was to abate properties with high-yield development potential. It targeted owners who rented (slumlords), and all their renters (transients with a significant negative impact on the neighborhood). We were renters in a targeted area. Even though we had made many lovely improvements to our rental home and yard, sustainable developers, COPS and concerned citizens called "transient" renters trash and pigs.

The communitarian plan to "clean up" our community was never fully disclosed to Seattle voters. Not one public servant would tell us what increasing community livability and quality of life represents, and the City thought it odd that we asked. When the City adopted 39 Neighborhood Plans in July 1999, we'd been studying their ongoing 4th Amendment violations against us for four months, and we still knew nothing about the whole plan. We found it bizarre that our public servants appeared to know nothing, and so did all our friends and family. We kept asking when the plan was to be implemented, and exactly HOW the increasing livability program would be introduced to our neighborhood. City officials refused to respond and many people thought we were imagining it. (We dedicated our first book draft to skeptics and called it, What Plan?) Then, in late September 1999, the new COPS used our neighborhood as a pilot test. It was a training exercise showing ALL City agencies how to serve public health warrants on renters for "suspicion of harboring rats and bugs." Thirteen rental tenants were detained under armed guard for over two hours while police searched their private rooms for drugs, weapons and activist materials. (It was also a WTO training exercise for using the GIS-COMPASS program to pre-identify protestors, but besides the Death Squad tactics, Public Health Warrants are normally served on owners. See Dawson v. Seattle). We found it even more bizarre when we caught our new friendly community COPS lying (and hiding documents) about the new GIS database with which they were testing potential ways to gather and use our individual information. (See Privacy Act 1974 and U.S. Code 552a)

It took a lot of difficult and mostly tediously boring reading, but we found their "new" definitions ourselves in March 2000. We spent the next few years looking for their authority to access our assets and plan a vision for our future. Once we identified our plan as communitarian, we studied the Communitarian Platform. We decided, after we read their published documents of the plans, attended their meetings, and filed for their planning notes, that we don't like any of it. Since nobody else seemed to know what it was either, and one of Nordica's friends is a generous web hostess, we began sharing our findings online in 2003.

No matter what you've been told about American's "obsession" with conspiracy theory, the NWO (aka global governance) isn't an incomprehensible take-over by unidentified persons for unknown reasons. It's a well-documented (and easily verified), current plan. We don't need to concentrate all our studies on the obscure past. There are too many "expert" modern writers. Dr. Etzioni publishes (a lot).

What makes it so easy to study globalism via Etzioni is he's not only a theorist who builds new systems to justify world policing. He also writes all about his legal theories that grant authority to global-community organizations. His Fabian, Kabbalist advice to Presidents is the order portion of the New World Order, and he thinks he's some kind of guru. Dr. Amitai Etzioni is not our guru, and we don't celebrate his theory. His ideology revolts us.

According to the communitarians, Angelina Jolie is a healthy role model for the world's children and anti-communitarian thinking does not exist. While we initially sought legal redress, today, much like the celebrated honorees at the UN-USA, our goal is to share the global governance agenda with an unaware public. Unlike prosperous NGOs, international lawyers and movie stars, we're not eligible for titles, awards, research grants or homeland security taxpayer funding. There's nowhere to apply for graduate degrees; we're much too common in our "thinking." If Marx were alive he'd probably describe us as "Yankee apes." For the most part we don't exist anywhere in the world, because there is no deep background research or scholarly or journalistic scrutiny of the communitarian platform allowed.

Etzioni's Communitarian system is more moral because his theory has the biggest guns. The communitarians are the new law in town.

Ours is an occupied communitarian country. Community Police (and merging the military with the police under federal leadership) is their invention. Regional and community U.N. governance are their replacements for Municipal, County and State governments. Revised land management plans are validated by a few stakeholders and used to sneak "new" laws past unsuspecting neighbors. Neighborhood Watch groups are trained to monitor individuals and to ticket/abate unwanted neighbors for noise and junk storage. ABCD developers gather information for the COPS and Community Development Corporations. Everyone's skills are entered in the COMPASS database because mandatory-voluntary citizen participation is their motto. They created Faith-Based Public-Private Partnerships, and their morals uphold Character Education. The National ID is yet another Etzioni project.

We call Etzioni Big Mother. The Canadian Communitarian Network calls us "angry opposition." We're not angry, we're outraged. We understand (like many Chinese already do) that communitarianism changes our law, destroys our nation, and renders the globe helpless before the biggest, most inefficient bureaucracy the world has ever seen. Iraq and the U.S. are both under attack from the communitarian rebuilders. Once all nations bow before their power to reinvent government there will be no organized, legal resistance anywhere. At least here in the U.S. we're not classified as insurgents... yet. So far, the Constitution still technically exists, but they operate on every level of government and many openly call it "outdated."

It's our thesis that communitarianism was creatively designed to replace the national system of political economy, and controlling/destroying national banks, industry and agriculture is at the core of their imperialist, global ideology. While Americans bicker and fight over all the meaningless sides in the dialectic, the communitarian system is supplanting every government agency in the country. How do we explain our position? We support legitimate constitutional law and constitutional systems. This means (by principled default?) we also support every other nation of individual's rights to self-determination. We are against endless communitarian war plans that promise disaster and defeat, not our national defense or our nation's soldiers. We wish our country knew what we're really fighting for. Ho.

While Americans are spoon-fed a daily dose of sugar-coated elitist propaganda, legitimate U.S. policy is quietly replaced with a vast, vague, communitarian system. Their methods are called "a slow march through the institutions," and their efficiency after Katrina shows their motto extends into everything they do. After almost a century of quiet, seditious implementation, they've nearly subdued our independent nation and achieved an American region of sustainable communities. They plan to subordinate every state and nation. Etzioni calls it "supra-national." This website covers many issues connected to the plans, but we suggest you become familiar with U.N. Local Agenda 21 first.

Does our Anticommunitarian Manifesto fulfill any requirements for a Ph.D. thesis? We can defend it orally. Should we be allowed to pursue it? Here's our application appeal. We'll settle for an accredited Bachelor's program that includes anticommunitarian views in their communitarian studies. We'll go anywhere in the world if that's what it takes. Please help us locate a professor/advisor who knows more about anticommunitarianism than we do. Besides GWU, many American universities host communitarian studies and legal programs. To this day there's not one accredited anticommunitarian studies program in the world. As students of the whole story behind communitarianism, we have nowhere to apply for admissions. Even communitarian police have their own American academy. (Also, Americans are regularly fined, jailed and lose their property under communitarian law, but there are no American law schools teaching lawyers to defend us against it.)