The host is Daniel Natal, host of the Daniel Natal Show. You can find his articles over at The New American.
Vicky Davis is the guest, and she has a couple of websites. One is The Technocratic Tyranny. The other is Channeling Reality.
Out of the box, however, he mentions Ametai Eztioni, a sociologist advocating for communitarianism for 20-plus years, born Verner Falk in 1929-2023. His family moves all over the place, ends up in Israel, and adopts the name Ametai Eztioni, papers that he wrote, about building community. whole ideology is around the idea that community forms the person. People within have a responsibility and privilege to participate in a/the community. Is Hillary Clintons "It takes a village to raise a child" from Etzioni? It's the village that forms the person and parents seem to be cut out of the loop in terms of the formation and character of the ethics within a community which is kind of what we're seeing now in our political and cultural lies it seems like these communitarians are really taken over through the schools trying to take over not just learning but the culture and the belief system of children and young people. Only it's not working out very well because the community is rather perverted at this point
3:27. and it's also diffuse and there's no responsibility. It's kind of like the Jamestown Colony right when they first started it was socialistic "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs." Farming wasn't anybody's particular job so everybody assumed that everyone else would do it and and everyone starved and then when they remade the colony they gave everybody their own plot of land and said now if you don't work you don't eat and production explode with all these extra surpluses. So yeah when you're depending on this vague Idea Idea like the community is stranger loves my child as much as I do or more than I do I remember one school administrator words to that effect we were casting about for a school for a son and a public school administrator was like acting like she cared more about our child than we did and even said words that affect. No I'm pretty sure we care more about our child. And then you'll hear the teacher cop out after, "Oh no I don't get paid enough to care about . . . ." No, wait, I thought you cared more about the kids than the parents? Oh, you don't get paid enough to care about the kids? So there's this disconnect. I'm going to give my kids to strangers, and the community will love my kid or do the character formation for us and the formation never happens. And the kids grow up without values. It's an inversion. In Aristotle's Politics, he talks about how the family unit is the building block, the atom of civilization, and he says when you have a bunch of cousins living around the initial family, you have a tribe; when you get enough tribes, you get a nation. That was the historical way to look at it. Individuals created the nation, as opposed to the nation creating the individuals; that's the inversion.
5:25. Yeah it is an interesting inversion, and based on what we're seeing in the United States it's not working out very well. I just started looking at communitarianism and when I saw who was involved in it, one person in particular, William Ruckelshaus, 1932-2019, as being instrumental in the communitarian, Agenda 21 takeover. He was the first head of the EPA. I always look at the people involved in something to be able to know how much or how seriously the organization is and what connections they have, how much power they have to actually implement what it is that they're talking about. And Ruckleshaus is a very influential person. He was the first administrator of the EPA he was also moving up in time he was involved in Bill Clinton's President's Council on Sustainable Development, 1993, that through their task forces basically redesign the government functioning, the systems of government, and basically moved us into globalization. So Ruckleshaus is very key person. The fact that he was involved when the communitarian network was formed in 1990 and Clinton's president's Council on Sustainable Development was initiated in 1993. Close time frame. You could say that the President's Council on Sustainable Development was the implementation of communitarianism in the United States.
7:37. It sounds like [communitarianism is] a rebranding of communism. There's that quote from Talleyrand the French diplomat from the 18th century who said that one of the chief jobs of the politicians is to come up with new names for old Concepts that have been odious to the people, "An important part of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public." So Liberal gets replaced by Progressive, the New World Order gets replaced with Building Back Better or the Great Reset, or whatever. So communitarianism sounds very suspiciously evocative of communism.
8:08. Yes, yes and I think it is when they redesigned our government; that was when the internet was just coming into place, being opened up, you know, the telecommunication system for the country was being opened up for everybody to jump on the internet, bring your ideas forth. But what it did was to provide a forum, a network capability for communitarians. Plus the fact that the reinvention of government was all encompassing, all inclusionary. It meant our schools, our healthcare systems, our law enforcement and justice system, entirely across the board without any thought to the security of the country and what that was going to mean. I guess these people are truly believers in "Democracy," which is mass chaos.
9:31. One of the things I was thinking about was how the organizing principles of the society. If you were to ask Queen Isabella in 1450, whatever, what are you? Her reflexive answer would be Christian. Her designator, her idea of the world was Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever, and then the church stops ruling. Christendom goes away and becomes the West, right? Christianity gets stripped out of it, we stop saying BC and AD in the calendars, and it becomes a before Common Era. They systematically strip away all of the religious underpinnings of and then the nation state comes in, and the nation state's organizing principle is different than the church. The nation state's organizing principle was race, like Albert Camus said. He said that Bismarck had trouble bringing together this modern German nation because they were so disparate: they had different languages and cultural habits and all these different things, and he said only when they introduced the concept of race could they cobble together this nation. Modern political Zionism is like that. It was formed at the same time, under the same influences, so they get a lot of heat now because they're forming Israel, but you have to remember that Israel was formed in 1948. So they're at the very beginning stage of the creation of a nation-state, which means they're going to put a lot of emphasis on group cohesion, ethnic solidarity, which is actually normal for the creation of a nation. So we're at the end- stage ourselves because we're now going away. Stage 1 was Christendom. Stage 2 was nation-state, and the organizing principles are different. One that you're a Christian, the other you identify by race. Now we're entering this 3rd iteration of Rule by Corporation, or what? The organizing principle of that is . . . I'm not sure and I think that communitarian answer to that would be what, the internet, like technology kind of linking us together? What would be your, as an expert on technocracy, what would be your decided opinion about the organizing principle?
11:45. Well there is no organizing principle. What happens is that people separate often into groups of like-minded people, but they are not within a single jurisdiction or you know geographic area; they're spread out across the world, and so what you end up with is chaos, you know, because you have this network of people, like the communitarians, and they have this belief system and they are linked into, hooked into government. Government has been converted to think along the lines of communities. That was one of the concepts of the reinvention of government was that the government would step back and, of course, they didn't entirely step back; they became the handmaidens of business that had globalized. So you have a government working with business and power rolled back to your local communities, your local states where they are trying to implement what I would call a global value system, where ESG and all this kind of stuff yeah yeah ESG and LBGTQ Sustainable Development, Equity Inclusion just all the things that are really incompatible in an organization of people because they are trying to be everything to everybody and you can't do that it just doesn't work out because everybody has different belief systems and when you try to merge all of those different belief systems it simply doesn't work.
13:54. When you create a nation-state, one of the things you want to do is bring people together, you want to unify the people, whether it's Oktoberfest or Passover celebration in Israel. But you have these different things that you bring people together, the 4th of July in the United States used to be that. Under the new technocracy, the corporate technocracy, whatever you want to call it, they seem to want to keep people separate, because they're afraid of a revolution. So everything seems to be to ghetto-ize people, put them in their different silos. You're not an American, you're an African-American, go in this corner. You're not an American, you're a gay American; go in this corner. And the strategy like we just saw through the last global event that we lived through was to keep people separate, keep you afraid of your neighbor. "My neighbor might give me cooties. I better stay away from my neighbor, he's got germs." Like these things are designed to keep everybody apart. So it's interesting the silo effect of technology. We were told it would be used to bring us together, but as you just pointed out, your so-called community might be this virtual community, online, where you're a foodie or you're a vegan, or whatever, and you might "Oh, my friend is in the Netherlands," or "My friend is in Brazil," or wherever. But you never physically meet them. They are secondary relationships; they're not primary relationships, like family or church. That seems to be the M.O., the methodology of the new . . . I think this is why they so stigmatize racism; that racism . . . because racism brings people together, unifies them it makes them a monolithic group and that's dangerous. That's when you have nation-states. But they don't want nation-states; they are breaking up nation-states. So now, they're treating racism like how in the earlier iteration the church under Christendom treated paganism, "You're a witch if you worship the old gods." "You're a witch," because that was their way of displacing antiquity, right? So when the Christian period comes in they had to destroy, utterly erase the past. And then this happened again when the nation-state got rid of the church. And then that became stigmatized, "separation of church and state," you know. "Church is bad," you know. Now that the nation-state is being destroyed, racism is the new "you're a witch," because they don't want people coming together. You have to be separate; you have to think of yourself as an individual. I think that's what you were kind of talking about as well, you were worried that, on the one hand, we have communitarianism, but, on the other hand, pitted against that, is radical individualism, which is just as toxic. And I was wondering what your thoughts were on the radical individualism that our generation was kind of introduced to through libertarianism.
16:48. That's what I thought was so interesting about amatai espione's not just his paper but in the forums that he organized and sponsored that was the dialectic communitarianism versus libertarianism and that was the what I perceived to be the intent: to be able to divide people between those who insisted on individuality and those who wanted to form communities. And for communities, you might think small tribes, more of a tribal thinking with all of its efforts focused toward building the community. I saw that dialectic play out with Libertarians at the beginning of my research where all the Libertarians were saying, "Free trade! Free trade!" Well, free trade gutted our economy. Began in 1962, it was the trade agenda that began in 1962 when Kennedy changed the paradigm of trade. Prior to 1962, trade policy was based on tariffs the prices of terrorists and whether or not we let Goods into the country after 1962 they included non-tariff issues which means they opened up our entire economy which caused changes in domestic law when you're talking about clothes for example textiles if you open up your economy to textiles you're going to you're going to get massive Imports and you're going to put your own textile industry out of business
Nation-states use different forces to organize people. For the U.S. it was race that began to coalesce the population, dividing them from groups deemed un
Pitting people against each other with radical individualism was introduced through libertarianism, which is just as toxic as racism.
The dialectic was communitarianism versus libertarianism. That was the
