|
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/79489
Hijackers?
What makes you think you actually KNOW what happened on those planes? All
four were obliterated, along with everyone on board, remember? No crime
scene, no direct evidence, no recognizable remains, no witnesses whatsoever
-- it's a blank canvas. How convenient for any party intent on launching a
new era of global imperialism, and willing to spin this tragedy into a viable
excuse. Indeed, all of the attack's consequences are far better explained by
this agenda than by Bin Laden's purported death wish. Those presuming to
examine this matter, i.e. ALL OF US, need to recognize that such trickery is
a timeless specialty of governments.
And yet from that very day we have allowed the government-media complex to
focus all attention on one rather thin explanation: Crazy Arabs did it!
George W. Bush and his cabinet have made it known to us, in the most arrogant
terms, that they will brook no discussion of other possibilities -- an edict
most Americans, in their desperation to believe in this man, seem to have
embraced. The Bush Administration even withholds its "proof" of Al
Qa'eda's guilt; clearly, it considers mere citizens too unimportant to
require full explanations, and once again, we're just rolling over and taking
it.
The phrases 'spiritually broken' and 'morally adrift' come to mind...
Until the full case against Al Qa'eda is made available for public review, we
have absolutely no assurance that this "proof" isn't exactly like
the "proof" of Iraq's weapons programs -- i.e., a big fat lie from
top to bottom. On these terms, wholesale acceptance of the hijacker scenario
will continue to be what it has always been: a pathetic display of blind
faith in this administration's utterances, and in those of its media
accomplices. At present, it is astonishing that anyone places faith of any
kind in either party: by means of the "WMD" debacle, both have
proven themselves amoral, duplicitous, and utterly devoid of humanity. Indeed,
why do we give them so much as a moment of our attention? No one with a lick
of sense would do this.
A rigorous civilian investigation of 9-11 would help resolve such doubts. If
Bush and the rest were standing on firm ground, they would fully support such
a thing. Instead, they have worked to thwart both its formation and its
progress, using every resource within their reach. Some time last year, they
seem to have realized they were only fueling suspicions this way, so Bush
grudgingly approved an "independent" investigation. The arrogance
of this bunch is so disabling, however, that they actually damaged their
credibility even further by naming Henry Kissinger to lead it. This is a man
whose dedication to "US interests" verges on homicidal psychosis (see
his treatment of Cambodians 1970, Chileans 1973, East Timorese and Kurds
1975, MUCH more). He could only be expected to skew this investigation
accordingly, i. e., to omit and cover up any issue not conducive to empire
building. Ironically, even Henry had the sense to admit he was an
inappropriate choice, thus resigning from this duty, whereupon Bush
immediately returned to his original tactic of stonewalling (1). Could the
man possibly have something to hide?
To appreciate the ugliest possibilities of the 9-11 attack, one must first
become aware of the continuous practice of such manipulations by the entire
progression of American politicians. The need to cultivate this awareness is
itself an enigma: if you have the honesty to see this pattern at all, its
full enormity, emerging over time, will at some point cause your previous
ignorance to amaze you. Imagine living your entire life with an 800-pound
gorilla, then realizing one day it's not a sofa, after all. At the same time,
finding this enlightenment is challenging, because the relevant facts are
usually withheld from the public for decades, seldom appearing in mainstream
discourse even after they become common knowledge -- not because of some
grand conspiracy, but because legions of 'America Firsters,' including most
of the famous and powerful, simply don't want to hear it. The telling of
these facts is an affront to their most cherished political assumptions.
Invariably, they respond with hostile apologetics, ranging from simple denial
and ridicule to the claim that such incidents are random and unrelated
"mistakes." That they can sincerely believe this 'unrelated' claim
is remarkable, given the way it crushes into dust under any burden of
historical proof: America's state crimes have been ethically monstrous, vast
in both scale and number, unilateral in their aggression, virtually
uninterrupted in their chronology, and very coherent in both motive and
method. Certain themes just keep popping up:
1) Greed, particularly for territory;
2) Supremacism, driven only partly by race, perhaps more so by delusions of
national grandeur allowed to ramify without limit;
3) An enthusiasm for "total war" -- i. e., the indiscriminate
butchery of entire populations. This seems most likely to happen when
"strategic" territories, resources, or victories are at stake. That
is, when those in authority feel they "must win," and so discard
principle to whatever extent is necessary;
4) The systemic corruption and antidemocratic functioning of every level of
American government, made abundantly clear by its relations with sworn
enemies of the public interest, namely corporations;
5) The bid for global empire that has all but defined the American agenda
since W.W.II, in flagrant violation of democratic principle.
This last "US interest," discussed openly by flacks and shills only
since 9-11 suspended all moral judgment on such matters, actually represents
the driving passion of our ruling elite, going all the way back to the
Revolution. Indeed, grasping the means of power, beginning with sovereign
domain, was their main motive for pursuing revolution at all. Starting then
and continuing ever since, they have whipped the people up to support their
warped appetites, even as they have misrepresented them spectacularly. EVERY
SINGLE TIME we as a people have committed to a war of expansion, we have been
duped into doing so by their twin handservants, American politics and
American media:
1776 to 1890
innumerable 'Indian wars'
In which the western frontier was pushed through the territories of one
Indian confederation after another, all the way to the Pacific. An early and
definitive example is George Washington's post-revolutionary conquest of the Ohio Valley, where the Washington Family held deeds to immense tracts of prime real
estate never actually ceded by the Indians. The lore that George was a
"surveyor" is a populist distortion; he was no blue collar grunt,
laying out property lines to earn a living. He was in fact the most ambitious
of an elite family of 'land speculators' -- the colonial equivalent of
venture capitalists -- and his toils were in the service of his own family
fortune. Already one of the richest people in post-revolutionary America, he was determined to get even richer through the
sale of his Ohio holdings, and wasn't about to be stopped by
'two-legged vermin' like the Shawnees and Miamis. To this end, he abused his dominance of the early
federal government, arranging for Revolutionary War veterans (a
battle-hardened militia) to be compensated with "land warrants"
deep in Ohio's wilderness, far beyond his own holdings. He also
encouraged the issuance of large bounties, equivalent to several months'
income, for Indian scalps along the upper Ohio River. These were essentially open murder contracts that
targeted ALL Indians, regardless of age, gender, or tribal affiliation. By
this means, genocide was openly subsidized for decades wherever intact Indian
cultures presented an obstacle to "progress." Primitive as media
was, its role in all this was crude but sufficient: posting the bounties
while inflaming the settlers' hatred with tales of Indian atrocities, real
and imagined. In the Ohio Territory, these tactics rapidly progressed to open war,
orchestrated by Washington against Tecumseh's Shawnee Confederation, and then
to the total extermination and westward displacement of the Ohio tribes (2).
1846 to '48
The Mexican War:
Beginning in 1818, when the Oregon Territory was acquired, American imperialists developed an intense interest in California. Simply adding it piecemeal to their territorial
inventory wouldn't have worked, however: it was too isolated, too defensible
by the Mexicans. To take California, all of northern Mexico -- what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado -- would have to be taken, requiring the invention
of some PRETEXT for doing so. In 1836, American "adventurers"
(freelance political operatives) instigated a regional coup in the Mexican province of Texas, splitting it off to form an independent country, the Republic of Texas. Nine years later, this nation was annexed as the 28th state.
Immediately afterward, President Polk made the predictable move of sending
belligerent military incursions into disputed lands along the new border with
Mexico. The Mexicans replied with patrols of their own,
and then clashes developed, leading to the "spilling of American blood
on American soil." Or so the press told it (their bias could be summed
up in a phrase they coined around this time: "Manifest Destiny").
In fact, the soil in question was situated between the Nueces and Rio
Grande
rivers, an area both governments held equal claim to. But no matter -- the
people eagerly accepted this distortion, Polk got his dirty little war, and
then proceeded to steal something like 650,000 square miles of territory from
our next-door neighbor. Add to this the previous criminal acquisition of
territory from Mexico, i.e. the "Lone Star State," and the area usurped approaches one-third
of the contiguous 48 states, or HALF of what was originally Mexico (3).
Some years later, a fantastic mineral strike in this stolen territory -- the Comstock Lode -- would provide the Hearst Family with an immense
fortune, soon parlayed by William Randolph into an infamous media empire.
1898 to '99
The Spanish-American War/Philippine Campaign:
Though still a colonial client of Spain during the 1880s and '90s, Cuba was also a hotbed of insurrection, thanks to the
efforts of Jose Marti and others. By 1898, the Cuban independence movement
had Spain's colonial government on the ropes. The prominence
of blacks among the rebels made this situation alarming for fin de siecle
American royalists, among whom "Darwinist" (i.e. proto-Nazi)
political thought was at the height of its popularity. Also, having just
recently subdued the last free-roaming Indian tribes back home, their passion
for grabbing other people's land could now be expanded into the Caribbean, Central
America, and Pacific, via
expanded activities of that handy agency, the US military. So in the fall and winter of 1897-98,
the Hearst syndicate and other news organizations were blasting Americans
with "yellow journalism" on the subject of Cuba -- sensational and often ludicrous accounts,
custom made to induce support of US military intervention. The public thus primed, the
sinking of the battleship USS Maine in Havana Harbor gave McKinley all the excuse needed to commence grabbing up not only Cuba, but also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. It was in the Philippines that the US military took "total war" beyond North America for the first time. Encouraged by the Filipino's
uncanny resemblance to Native Americans, US troops mass-murdered something
like 25% of the civilian population. As imperial outrages go, this was the
equal of anything that's happened since (4).
A 1975 investigation led by Admiral Rickover determined that the Maine's hull was breached by an explosion originating
INSIDE the ship. This could have been a spontaneous "coal-bin
explosion," or it could have been a bomb placed by an imperialist
traitor. As with 9-11, this catastrophe neatly erased any inconvenient
witnesses to its real mechanics.
1917 to '18
World War I:
Three years into the "Great War," it looked as though Germany would defeat Britain and France, our primary capitalist hosts in Europe. Big financiers like J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, who
between them had billions invested "over there," weren't about to
just sit back and watch this happen. They barked orders to their underling,
Woodrow Wilson, who then declared war, using German interference with US
shipping activities as a feeble pretext. Leading up to this, the media
minions whipped the public into a war frenzy, basing their wildly
manipulative propaganda on incidents such as the sinking of the Lusitania, two years earlier. Funny thing about the Lusitania: it's hold contained a secret, illegal, and
massive cargo of ammunition and other materiel bound for Liverpool, and its passengers were used as unwitting human
shields for this cargo by the US government, which is why they died. Neither Wilson
nor the media of the day ever admitted any of this (5).
The dynamics behind America's entry into World War II were virtually
identical. Over 500,000 Americans died in these two wars, with 875,000 more
wounded, and an additional and unknown number emotionally shattered, all of
which brought untold misery to their families and communities. Given the
choice between destroying all those lives or allowing the likes of Morgan and
Rockefeller to suffer the tragedy of somewhat less obscene wealth, our
"representatives" chose the former as the lesser sacrifice.
1941 to '45
World War II:
France already lying crushed beneath Hitler's war
machine, and Britain under a devastating siege, the White House was
once again compelled to intervene on behalf of its capitalist masters, whose
European investments had grown two magnitudes since the close of W.W.I.
Unlike Wilson, however, FDR did a truly brilliant job of
constructing a pretext. in September of 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact, a treaty committing
all three countries to counterattack against new foes faced by any one of
them. This gave Roosevelt a back door into Europe via the Pacific. Beginning one month later, and fourteen months prior
to the Pearl Harbor attack, he launched secret military and economic
operations against the Japanese Empire, obstructing its only access to oil,
rubber, and other strategic resources. The Japanese response to this blockade
-- open hostilities against the United States, beginning with a crippling preemptive attack on
the Pacific Fleet -- was entirely predictable. In fact, it was Roosevelt's whole purpose in setting up the blockade: Nearly
unanimous "isolationist" sentiment at home was his first military
target, and precipitating a "vicious sneak attack on US soil" was his deliberate design for
destroying that sentiment. For this reason, he concentrated the Pacific Fleet
in Hawaii as never before, where it would be seen as an
imminent threat by Japanese generals. He then withheld intelligence of Japan's attack preparations from Pearl's top officers, continuing to exclude them even
when radio intercepts revealed the movement of a Japanese carrier group
toward Hawaii (6).
From 1941 to '46, and again in 1995, Congress investigated "the
intelligence lapses that made this sneak attack possible" no less than
NINE TIMES. On all of these occasions, officials of the Roosevelt
Administration and the Office of Naval Intelligence perjured themselves and concealed
vast amounts of evidence to preserve the historical fictions surrounding the Pearl Harbor attack. To this day, the NSA claims "national
security" as its basis for withholding relevant material from the
public. "National security" stands revealed, then, as a euphemism
for this government's ruthless grip on power -- a thing that certainly would
be threatened, were we to become fully aware of the treacheries it spawns.
This context radically transforms "national security" rhetoric into
an ideal excuse for all sorts of betrayals and deceits, and this seems to be
it's actual interpretation among those who "safeguard" it.
The agonies of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. under Hitler, not to mention those
of the Chinese and Koreans under the Japanese Empire, were incidental at best
to US motives for pursuing W.W.II, both before and during. It was only
afterward that the camps were seized upon as a full-blown "pretext in
retrospect" to maximize America's apparent heroism. With each year that has passed
since, this myth has been more shamelessly advanced, so that now some
stunning percentage of Americans believe that "halting genocide"
was their government's main motive for waging war at all.
1945 to '89
The Cold War (a.k.a. W.W.III):
was launched by the closing episode of W.W.II, i. e. the atomic bombing of Japan. President Truman's official rationalization for
the bombing, trumpeted ad nauseum by the media of the day, was that it was
the only way to end the war quickly, thus avoiding a horrific house-by-house
assault of the entire Japanese Archipelago. In fact, the Japanese were
already making conditional surrender overtures. Accepting their terms,
however, would have made Truman's victory conditional as well, and he was
determined to humiliate them. Even the total surrender he insisted on was
only a few months away, by all signs. Meanwhile, the war in Europe having ended in May, the Russians were now free to join the allied
fight against this old enemy of theirs, and were preparing to do exactly
that. Given enough time to enter the Pacific War, they would have claimed a
portion of Japan upon its surrender, just as they had recently claimed the eastern
half of Europe. To keep the Soviets from horning in on this
pending crown jewel of America's Pacific Empire, Truman needed his total victory
immediately, and The Bomb gave him an irresistible means by which to secure
it. As an early devotee of anti-Communist paranoia, he was also confronting
the Russians with a demonstration of America's 'invincible technological prowess.' Finally, his
decision to vaporize 200,000 Japanese civilians was made easier by his avowed
hatred of the entire race (7).
The cover provided by the Cold War enabled the United States to pursue its largest campaign of expansion by
far, extending its economic and strategic tentacles into every corner of the
planet and even into space by means of literally hundreds of
"anti-Communist" initiatives, interventions, and proxy wars. Our
present "global hegemony," a source of endless glee for Bush and
other miscreants, didn't "just happen" -- it was the overarching
and unspoken goal of US Cold War politics.
Another important thing to understand about the Cold War: the "War on
Terrorism" is directly adapted from it, just as the Cold War itself
developed directly from W.W.II, which was in turn a direct consequence of
W.W.I, which was Germany and Britain vying with one another for world
domination -- a contest America ended up winning. What an epic of
greed-crazed murderous lunacy! One that the present regime seeks only to
perpetuate, and for the same reasons as always: expansion and consolidation
of empire.
1950 to '53
The Korean War:
To coerce public support for this war, the press and the Truman
Administration whipped up public hysteria about the "Red Menace!"
that was then "swallowing up" obscure Far Eastern precincts. No
mention, of course, that the mounting anti-US sentiment in those precincts
resulted entirely from collaboration between US occupation forces and the
Japanese fascists they were supposedly there to remove. This collaboration
ranks as one of the most arrogant foreign policy blunders in US history. For
people throughout the Far
East, it was an
unbearable betrayal, as it effectively prolonged what had already been one of
the most gruesome and protracted military occupations EVER. Similar dynamics
had already developed in mainland China, a hornet's nest so immense that withdrawal
quickly resolved as our only sane option. And also in the Philippines, where
US troops and Huk rebels started out fighting side by side to expel the
Japanese. Indigenous sovereignty being the Huk's ultimate goal, the Americans
began killing them, too, as the Japanese were subdued. Two thousand miles
from all these places, in French Indochina, the exact tensions seen in Korea arose AGAIN in response to brutal French/Japanese
collaboration -- abetted by American field agents, naturally (8).
In all four places, revolutionary leaders greatly admired America's political tradition of anti-colonialism and
self-determination, and sought to claim these values for their own countries.
They even made earnest attempts to form friendships with the US; they thought colonialism was a 'european thing,'
so that we must therefore be 'the good guys.' For strategic planners back in Washington, all this was at odds with their grand design for
the Far East: now being vacated by its previous colonial
tenants, it was seen as a "power vacuum," fairly begging for
RE-colonization according to America's obfuscated formula of puppet politics and corporate
infiltration.
American society has yet to recover from the "Red Menace!"
propaganda barrage, which soon became a constant theme of international news
coverage, and remained so for the next 40 years. As a means of inducing mass
paranoia and public consent to limitless militarization, the "Red
Menace" lost its punch following the collapse of the Soviet Union, necessitating its replacement with a more robust
methodology -- the "Terrorist Menace!" Nazi Germany and Israel being the great innovators of this second method, America owes a great debt to both of them.
1965 to '73
The Vietnam War:
By way of manipulating Congress into granting him war powers, LBJ reprised
the "vicious sneak attack" gambit with his brazen lies regarding
such action by the North Vietnamese against US Navy vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin. Beginning in 1969, Nixon and Kissinger expanded on this crime
enormously, adding Laos and Cambodia to North Vietnam as targets of a redoubled 'total war' initiative.
Several million tons of cluster bombs were then used to totally destroy vast
civilian districts in all three countries (districts simply crawling, mind
you, with subsistence farmers bent on global domination). All of which
exactly repeated the pattern of the Korean War -- right down to America not winning (9).
As huge as the American effort against Vietnam was, it was just one element of a yet more
enormous strategy of military encirclement (a.k.a. "containment")
directed against mainland China. Other elements were: the permanent and massive US
military presence in Japan; a similar presence in Thailand; unlimited
military and economic support to Chiang Kai-Shek's exile government on
Formosa (Taiwan); the Korean War and subsequent permanent US military
presence in Korea; a strong strategic interest in India, including covert
support of an otherwise preposterous nuclear weapons program; also, a
US-equipped and -trained covert army of Chinese "nationalists" in
eastern Burma, within what became known as the "Golden Triangle."
It was here that the CIA first learned of the marvels of the international
heroin trade.
To advance its "interests," the US government has manipulated the affairs of every
region of the planet on this same incredible scale, and continues to do so.
Other hotspots include Europe, the Middle East, Central Africa, and all of Latin America and the Pacific.
1991 to 2003
The Gulf War / "No-fly Zones" / Sanctions:
To con Americans into backing this outrage, Daddy Bush and his media
bed-buddies told a couple real whoppers. First there was the one about the
satellite photographs of a massive Iraqi invasion force assembling on the
northern border of Saudi Arabia (10). Then there was the Kuwait Incubator Hoax, an
inventive revival of the childish "babies on bayonets" propaganda
of World War I -- as told by a child, no less (11). As it turned out,
Operation "Desert Storm" was merely the opening episode of a
ruthless destabilization program, aimed primarily at hapless civilians, that
would continue for over a decade, killing no less than 500,000 Iraqis in a
fairly obvious attempt to turn them against their head of state. This
fulfills any sane definition of terrorism, and is probably the most grandiose
recent example of the state-sponsored variety. It was maintained with
enthusiasm by the Clinton Administration.
2001 to present
The "War on Terror" (a.k.a. W.W.IV):
Pretexts include: 1) the 9-11 attack; 2) this Administration's single-minded
incrimination of Al Qa'eda (a CIA proxy), backed up with such things as; 3)
an obviously fraudulent videotape of Osama "confessing;" 4) the
conceit that Al Qa'eda's guilt justified a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan
(the combined strike force for which began building up at least six months
prior to 9-11, disguised as a "war game"); 5) an implied equation
between Al Qa'eda and Iraq's Ba'athite regime, and; 6) the absurd fantasy
that Iraq, a country left all but helpless by the previous campaign, might
pose a real threat to the world's deadliest strategic power.
By rights, I should have included the Civil War in this run-down: all the
ingredients are there, with antidemocratic preservation of domain being
equivalent to expansion. Also, the fable that 'freeing the slaves' was its
entire purpose has to rank among the wildest disinformation campaigns ever
perpetrated upon Americans by our "free press."
Though they never precipitated the full-scale wars their authors had in mind,
a few other nasty episodes are especially relevant to 9-11:
Operation "Northwoods"
A Pentagon plan for a massive "false flag" terror campaign against
American citizens, the purpose being to provide pretext for a full-scale
invasion of Cuba. If approved, it would have entailed such things as sniper
attacks on random US citizens (a la the DC sniper), terrorist bombings, and a
bogus missile attack on an unmanned, remote-controlled US airliner in the
Caribbean, the plane's fictitious passengers to be reported as "entirely
lost." All of this was to be carried out by US intelligence agents
posing as Cuban operatives, whose dirty work would translate directly into
the sort of massive public manipulation campaign this government always
launches when it sees profit in war. The Northwoods plan was called off by
Robert McNamara only when it was submitted for executive approval, having
already been approved by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (12).
Northwoods would never amount to anything more than a glimmer in some agency
psychopath's eye. In Europe, however, the CIA's most deranged anti-leftist
terror tactics were actually implemented ...
Operation "Stay Behind"; Operation "Gladio"
As part of a larger US withdrawal strategy following W.W.II, the CIA created
underground right-wing militias throughout Western Europe, to be activated as
guerilla armies in the event of invasion by the Soviets. These were known as
"Stay Behind" forces; they were a rogue's gallery of mercenary
scum, dominated by devout ex-Nazis recruited by SS-cum-CIA agent Reinhard
Gehlen. As the years passed and the Soviets failed to provide the anticipated
invasion, the Stay Behinds resorted to other means of justifying their CIA
paychecks. All across Europe, beginning in the 1950s, they morphed into
right-wing hit squads and terrorist groups. They participated in massive
CIA-NATO destabilization efforts against the Soviet Bloc countries,
assassinating Soviet officials, sabotaging industrial plants and public
infrastructure, and generally terrorizing civilian populations. The pattern
should be familiar from similar terror campaigns against Cuba and Nicaragua.
In East Berlin, the activities of Stay Behind units were the primary reason
for the construction of the Berlin Wall. The Stay Behinds did not limit their
mayhem to the Soviet Bloc, however; as time passed, their attention turned
more and more to equivalent activities within their NATO home countries.
Throughout Western Europe, particularly in Italy, leftist politics had a
stronger following than it has seen in the US since the 1930s, and the Stay
Behinds were the CIA's primary footsoldiers in its "dirty tricks"
campaign against this percieved enemy. In a psy-war effort to alienate the
public from the political left, they launched bogus left-wing terror outfits
(the "Baader-Meinhof Gang") or framed real leftist undergrounds
(the "Red Brigades") for atrocities they committed themselves. In
Italy, where the Stay Behind operation was code-named "Gladio,"
agents posing as left-wing extremists perpetrated many public bombings during
the '70s, killing at least 300 people. These culminated in the August 1980
Bologna Train Station Bombing, which killed 86. The 1978 kidnapping and
murder of Aldo Moro was another Gladio exploit. These activities had one
purpose: to portray the political left as public enemy number one, thus
isolating it domestically while building consent for military escalation and
NATO aggression against the Soviets (13).
* * * * * * * * *
So what's it all about, anyway, all this intrigue and stomping of jackboots
on distant shores? Thanks to its unrivaled military strength and exceptional
geographic isolation (oceans make bitchin' moats), this country is all but
perfectly invulnerable to invasion, and repelling invaders would seem to be
the only defensible function of armies. No one's invaded this country since
the War of 1812, when British expeditions came out of Canada, Florida, and
the Gulf of Mexico. Don't expect a repeat anytime soon. Although a massive
one, the Pearl Harbor Attack was still just a raid, on what at the time was
this country's farthest-flung primary military base.
To keep the entire planet under its thumb, our government burdens us with the
gargantuan cost of the world's largest military, which it mostly uses to
crush pitiful rebellions in the remotest and poorest corners of the world,
places we truly have no business being in. This is exactly like a bully
swaggering around a schoolyard, shaking down all the little kids. Is that
really how you want your government representing you to the rest of the
world? Shouldn't DOMESTIC policy take priority instead? Things like adequate
health care and effective primary education -- programs that would serve the
wants and needs of YOU, their citizen, whom they claim to be their master.
But this is not their priority, and never has been. The geometric growth of
this economy, by various forms of conquest, is their abiding passion, with
domestic policy being attended to almost as an afterthought. To force our
consent, they hypnotize us with lurid visions of one boogeyman after another,
maintaining childish fear as our primary political sensibility, keeping us
dependent, trusting, stupid, distracting us from our own self-interests...
Why is that?
WHO BENEFITS??
The average American, who spends his or her life chained to the machinery of
wealth production, watching their share of its output dwindle steadily, sure
as hell doesn't. The stratum of society that truly gains from all this just
happens to be the same one that finds employment in high-level intelligence
positions: big-time spooks like Kermit Roosevelt, the Dulles brothers, Nelson
Rockefeller, George H. W. Bush -- i. e. America's ruling families. In their
parlance, "US Interests" is just doublespeak for global empire and
corporate colonialism, and these have always been the real purposes behind
their warmongering.
All told, these wars killed over a million US soldiers, along with many times
this number of civilians and combatants in the lands invaded, and this isn't
even touching on the dozens of proxy wars that have been the American
Empire's main battle front for going on sixty years. All of these millions of
people, American and foreign alike, were MURDERED by a government intent on
advancing the interests of a tiny minority while betraying the rest of
humanity; a government willing to wield its power in their service in any
manner, including technological and economic terror campaigns waged against
entire national populations. And yet this government has the audacity to call
itself a "beacon of hope to the world!" And the majority BELIEVE
THEM!! It simply amazes.
America's shadowy patricians were already too powerful before the Cold War.
And then decades of public hysteria borne of imminent nuclear annihilation
delivered them into the fabled realm of "absolute power." This has
been pretty obvious. Americans have avoided realizing it only by actively
pursuing a mental state of utter denial on this subject, sort of like the
three monkey icons of Shinto. Thanks to this determined ignorance, keeping
the rest of us in the dark has been childishly easy for people like the
Bushes. They can even be incredibly brazen and sloppy and get caught
red-handed, as with Watergate. No biggy: just tell all the boobs it was Nixon
acting alone, assisted by his best buddies, who just happened to be, um, CIA
agents. Yah. They'll never notice this story's unbelievable stench; they'll
be too relieved at having any sort of excuse to NOT think about it. You know,
just like when the Warren Commission's whitewash came out.
One hypothesis is particularly good for sending 'America Firsters' into an
apoplexy of denial: that the political culture now emerging in Washington is
actually a product of 40 years of covert penetration into the Executive
Branch. To substantiate this, one need look no further than the lineage of
our present "leader." His grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a military
spy during W.W.I, a key financial collaborator with the Nazis, and a US
Senator. His father, George H. W. Bush, was heir to the CIA realm under our
most infamous presidential regime, a fixture in presidential politics for 20
years, and all in all one of the creepiest figures ever to darken the
American political stage. The 'quiet coup' that brought this man to power
traces back to the Eisenhower Administration, when the utterly creepy
"National Security" underworld first became a secret and malevolent
force in national politics -- a force whose power is still nearly impossible
to measure. There are ominous glimpses, though: in 1960, Eisenhower's VP and
political heir, Richard M. Nixon, was shouldered aside by John F. Kennedy,
who over the next three years developed grave misgivings about this
underworld and its power. Then he ended up dead, and yes, his assassination
DID stink of black ops, as did the similar jobs on Malcolm X, Martin Luther
King, and his kid brother "Bobby," who would have been the SECOND
Kennedy to sour Nixon's presidential hopes, had he lived to see the 1968
election...
Though the CIA denies it, several independent sources identify George H. W.
Bush as a high-ranking agent during the Kennedy Administration, commanding
covert operations against Cuba. The ships used in Operation
"Zapata" (the "Bay of Pigs" invasion) were named by him,
it is said, after members of his family. Those names indeed correspond with
those of his wife and children. Among the most conclusive sources is an official
memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover, dated November 29, 1963, which refers to a
"Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" (14). The memo
refers to Bush's evaluation of emotional reactions to Kennedy's assassination
among Cuban exiles under his watch.
From here, Bush the Elder went on to become a protege of Richard Nixon's, was
a mid-echelon member of his cabinet beginning in 1971, had very interesting
connections to CREEP, and somehow eluded Congress's Watergate dragnet.
Watergate and a few other incidents proved that Nixon had a most unwholesome
relationship with the CIA. Once this scandal had hemorrhaged to the point
that Congress could no longer avoid taking action, containing the damage
could be seen as the main theme of its response -- a hallmark of
Congressional investigations. There was far too much eagerness to examine
this matter only in terms narrowly relating to impeachment, thus leaving
larger questions wholly unexplored: did the Watergate break-in really happen
on Nixon's orders, or was the intelligence underworld acting on its own,
using 'dirty tricks' to prop up their man in the White House, exactly as it
has on countless occasions for entire puppet governments all over the world?
In the latter case, letting Nixon take the fall would have been an extreme
measure, but possibly the only sure way to divert attention from an abhorrent
and illegal power structure, thus preserving it. Nixon himself would have
been a likely author of this tactic, as it was he who trumped Congress' investigation
by resigning, whence the entire matter was eagerly dropped.
Bone-tired of Watergate in any case, the public was predisposed to accept
Nixon's implied guilt as the final answer: "responsibility can't go any
higher than the President, right? Harry 'the buck stops here' Truman said
so." In reaching this conclusion, we were assisted by major media
organs, which immediately began spinning this as Watergate's "final
resolution." In fact, this conclusion resolved nothing -- it left the most
crucial questions hanging in mid-air, soon to be shrouded in rhetoric by
professional apologists from all quarters. Its only definite outcome was the
softening of a renewed public spirit of scrutiny and resistance, which in
turn allowed a deadly authoritarian cancer to resume its march throughout our
body politic. After going underground for seven years, this cancer emerged in
full force as the Reagan Administration.
Dubya's announcement last April of another bogus 'conclusion' -- that of his
Hitlerian conquest of Iraq -- had a strikingly similar effect. Once again,
mounting vigilance was undone by a well-timed lie, universally disseminated.
Following Nixon's resignation, Poppy finally hit the big-time when Gerald
Ford named him Director of the CIA. After toppling Carter, he became VP
himself, and for the next twelve years was at the center of the Reagan era's
continuous parade of treasonous covert operations. A few highlights: 1) the
campaign to prevent an "October Surprise," in which Bush & Co.
induced the Iranians to delay release of the American embassy hostages, thus
undermining Carter's re-election bid; 2) an inhuman terror campaign against
the people and government of Nicaragua, even after Congress declared it
illegal, at which point the CIA was forced to devise covert funding
arrangements such as 3) "Iran-Contra" and 4) operation
"Watchtower." This last episode, which was going on around the time
of Bush Senior's succession, is easily the most incredible: the CIA was a
major domestic smuggler and distributor of "Crack" cocaine during
the late '80s, when this drug became an inner-city plague (15).
At this point, the CIA was contemptuously wiping its ass with the
Constitution, and got completely away with it. If this were truly the America
the Boy Scouts taught you to believe in, the exposure of operation
"Watchtower" would have destroyed the CIA.
Late in Reagan's second term, 60 minutes was granted a horrifying personal
interview with Ronnie and Nancy in the Oval Office. Horrifying because, even
though Reagan's Alzheimer's wasn't disclosed for several more years, it was
perfectly obvious the man was totally gone. Faced with a steady stream of
unscripted questions from Mike Wallace, Reagan's usual patter rapidly
degenerated into stark senile mumblings. Desperate to conceal her husband's
incoherence, Nancy kept practically thrusting her face into the cameras. This
is consistent with puzzled accounts of writers and artists of the time, who,
as dinner guests of the Reagans, were mystified as to how such an oaf could present
himself so effectively on television.
All of which implies a striking parallel between the Reagan Presidency and
that of Bush II: in both cases, Bush Senior can be discerned as the man
behind the curtain, while the "president" is a mere speech reader,
whose real job is to keep the public distracted with his amiable, vacuous,
universally televised performances. Dubya's main puppeteers -- Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Powell -- are all Poppy's cronies, going all the way back
to the Nixon Administration. The five Supreme Court Justices who put Junior
in power are also Nixon/Reagan/Bush cronies, and their cancellation of
democratic process was a classic "installation," reminiscent of the
CIA's long-running antidemocratic escapades throughout the world.
It has Poppy's pawprints all over it.
If not for daddy's influence, Silver Coke-spoon Boy would be lucky to find
work fishing golf balls out of water hazards at the local country club. This
is obvious, and widely acknowledged. Most Americans, however, aren't willing
to examine the enormously sinister ramifications, given Poppy's background,
of the Bush Family's dynastic grip on American politics. Most Americans,
after all, are a weak-minded lot -- though harassed by apparitions of
unprecedented corruption, they lack the courage needed to fix their gaze upon
them.
Which brings us to 9-11...
The most venerable means of transmitting control inputs from a plane's
cockpit to its various aerodynamic control surfaces (rudder, ailerons, etc.)
is via a system of cables, i.e. "aircraft cables." With the
introduction of huge planes during and after W.W.II, unassisted human arms
could no longer provide the force needed to actuate proportionately huge
control surfaces, and so hydraulic assist devices and fully hydraulic control
systems were developed. The introduction of autopilots and landing guidance
systems over the next three decades layered yet another 'control system' over
this one, an electronic layer capable of manipulating the hydraulics directly
and thus flying the plane on its own. In the 757- and 767-series planes
boarded by "the hijackers," Boeing expanded this layer enormously,
making it much more sophisticated and integral to the continuous operation of
these planes. For one thing, it continuously monitors such things as
attitude, acceleration, turn rates, etc., and if necessary can assert
exclusive control of the hydraulics at any time, modifying or even overriding
pilot decisions that would otherwise result in drastic maneuvers,
inappropriate for passenger service. Though meant to provide an added margin
of safety in the event of gross pilot error, this arrangement introduces an
ominous new dimension: in a very real sense, the humans on the flight deck
have only tenuous control of flaps, rudder, etc.; the computer, the arbiter
between the two, allows them direct control only on it's own immutable terms.
If the computer can override the pilot some of the time, a potential exists
for it to override the pilot ALL of the time. This is a vulnerable arrangement,
as anyone who has dealt with a virus should know. In other words, the
advancing dependency on avionic interfaces has brought with it an advancing
potential for the total electronic co-optation of those interfaces. As they
have grown exponentially in complexity, so too has the number of entry points
by which such co-optation might be effected. All that was needed was for
technologists to devise a "back door"...
Enter the US government and its defense contractors, who began joint
development of remote flight control and flight circumvention technology at
least two decades ago, using the full force of their virtually infinite
R&D resources. The existence of these programs, and of the resulting
technology, was verified soon after 9-11 by a panel of commercial and
military pilots participating in an independent inquiry (16).
The existence of such technology IN ANY FORM raises intriguing
questions/possibilities about 9-11: 1) could the planes have been hijacked
via this technology alone? 2) Were they? 3) Remote hijacking and on-board
hijacking are not mutually exclusive scenarios; if there were actual human
hijackers on those planes, their plot may have been remotely co-opted by
another party they knew nothing about, leaving them as horrified as anyone
when the planes took control of themselves and banked straight into
buildings.
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea that the
override functionality of the planes' computers was somehow defeated,
allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited maneuvers. For example,
there are multiple photographs and video clips showing AA Flight 175 making
an outrageously hard turn into the second tower. According to official
information, the plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in this manner,
Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced large plane skills, and 2) a
way to defeat the planes' avionic systems. Since that flight school they
attended in Venice, Fla. probably didn't offer a course titled "Hot-dog
Maneuvers with Airliners 101," they must have possessed these abilities
already, so why would they have bothered with flight lessons at all? Any
benefit they realized in terms of understanding new control layouts would have
been at the cost of increased exposure, thus endangering their mission. On
the other hand, if they were as inexperienced as the presstitutes tell us
("I just want to learn how to steer"), they couldn't possibly have
flown the planes this way at all, which means someone else must have.
However distasteful, there is a real possibility that remote circumvention
occurred on those planes, a possibility that any credible investigation would
hardly ignore. All the more so because the necessary hardware isn't just a
cockamamie theory: a fully developed, totally programmable remote flight
control platform actually exists. Suggestively named the "Flight
Termination System," it is manufactured by Systems Planning Corporation
of Rosslyn, Virginia, which maintains web pages devoted to the FTS and
various subsystems:
A system overview:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS
The transmitter hardware:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS
Related software:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/MkVSW
The CEO of Systems Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a
long-time DoD and Republican Party insider, and a founding member of the
Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim became
one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and
strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs. After the 2000 "election,"
Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important
position -- Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.
Zakheim also co-authored the Heritage Foundation's infamous tract,
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," in which the Bush Administration's
entire design for renewed global conquest was laid down a full year prior to
9-11. On page 63, the authors note that timely implementation of their ideas
would require "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new
Pearl Harbor."
see for yourself:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
To identify the expansionist motive behind the "9-11 Wars," one need
look no further than this document. Echoing Ziggy Brzezinski's thoughts in
"The Grand Chessboard," the authors identify the Persian Gulf /
Central Asian region as the world's greatest geopolitical prize, and
recommend that decisive control of this region be made a top strategic
priority.
The remote control scenario also neatly punctures the 'yada-yada objection'
always employed by conspiracy theory critics: "It couldn't have happened
that way, because too many people would have known, and someone would blab..."
In fact, the most sensitive part of this plot would be that of anticipating
or enabling nineteen flesh-and-blood "hijackers," and yet this part
of the scenario is all but universally accepted. Nineteen men backed by a
larger organization schemed to get on those planes and take control of them,
and then they did; everyone knows they did because CNN has stated this
"fact" about ten thousand times and counting. As for exactly WHICH
organization did the backing, well, there's a saying about 'dead men' ...
Once the patsies were in position, the rest of this scenario -- the
"really unbelievable part" -- could have been carried off in its
entirety by a tiny team wielding extravagant technical skills and
multimillion-dollar equipment. No larger conspiracy is necessary. As for the
apparent complicity of the entire government and media, this is mostly just
cynical opportunism and jello-brained obedience rising to the occasion -- a
response easily anticipated by the real conspirators, for whom history
provides a never-ending parade of examples on which to base such
expectations.
Mind you, this is not to say that remote circumvention is definitely what
happened. On its face, this scenario is wildly improbable. Speaking of
improbable, what about four airliners being taken over simultaneously and
used as missiles? Since this actually happened, we have no choice but to
consider fantastic scenarios, and since the official scenario is itself an
unsubstantiated "conspiracy theory," competing scenarios should
also receive serious attention. Our reluctance to question official doctrine
on this matter is a symptom of the societal role most of us have been bred
and trained for: to be ever-faithful hounds, tails thumping the floor as we
contentedly slorp the hand of class authority. Such credulity also becomes
inevitable when the alternative is so unbearable: if someone in Bush's
position is capable of lying to us about something as huge, as
gut-wrenchingly horrible as 9-11, then everything we believe about this
country -- about the nature of civilization itself -- might just be childish
nonsense...
Most people simply don't have the guts to go there.
Given a desperate enough need to sustain the childish belief in
government-as-benevolent-father, a person will adapt that belief to any
circumstance. The behavioral end result can resemble courage; indeed, we are
taught to regard it as the DEFINITION of courage. Actually, it's one of
cowardice's darkest moments. Even a casual examination of Nazi Germany, where
this phenomenon was rampant, will drive this point home.
It's almost funny, the way people readily see the threat of technological
circumvention presented by Diebold's electronic voting machines, yet when the
subject switches to the "Flight Termination System," which is every
bit as real, and to the exactly parallel possibilities it represents
vis-a-vis 9-11, they suddenly retreat into profound and combative denial.
It's as if a threshold has been crossed into a realm of possibilities too
vile to entertain, so they simply don't. Never mind that this country's
operatives have been traveling the world, perpetrating similar horrors, for
all of the past century. Rather than acknowledge the possibility of a
unifying pattern, Joe Average would much rather 'shoot the messenger.'
Every so often, such people establish a new high-water mark for cowardice and
facultative stupidity, and the present is definitely one of those times.
After all, the official 9-11 scenario they cling to with such desperate faith
comes from only one source: the Western "intelligence community" --
the most brazen, systematic, resourceful, and interlocked association of
habitual liars this world has ever seen. As should have been made clear by
the 'British dossier' scandal of last winter, the credibility of this bunch
goes past zero into the negative: pending airtight proof, anything they say
should be reflexively deemed a lie. You may remember that MI5 also provided
the identities of "the 19 hijackers" -- information that soon also
became quite suspect. At least six of the hijackers, possibly as many as
nine, are still alive in the Middle East -- a pretty good alibi, considering.
Several of these ex-suspects had their passports or other IDs stolen from
them over the years, and it's entirely possible that all 19 hijackers had
stolen identities, meaning they could have come from anywhere, or been absent
altogether. The US media was pretty slack about acknowledging this at the
time, and since then has dropped this ball entirely (17).
Rather than allow the "intelligence community" to render every
detail of our comprehension on this matter, we would be much wiser to
carefully identify and discard every assumption they hand us.
Far from being a source of independent corroboration, our "free
press" is more like a public relations contractor for the spooks. This
is because the entire fourth estate AND the governments of the West,
including their intelligence services, are essentially employees of a single
entity: the US-dominated coalition of international corporations -- by
several magnitudes the largest concentration of wealth in human history.
The subjugation of governments by such an entity is hardly unprecedented. The
Twentieth Century saw several extremely unsavory examples. It's called
Fascism. You don't need to take my word for this -- just peruse the opinions
of acknowledged experts:
Benito Mussolini:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism
because it is a merger of State and corporate power.
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate
the growth of private power to the point where it becomes
stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence
is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a
group or any controlling private power. Among us today
a concentration of private power without equal in history is
growing.
For many Americans, the word 'fascist' instantly evokes jackbooted Germans
wearing Swastikas and stuffing Jews into ovens. In fact, that representation
is a cardboard diorama, empty of nuance and historically specific almost to
the point of meaninglessness, which is why the closet fascists who own the
media keep force-feeding it to you.
Fascism is certainly a violation of every noble and enlightened political
impulse. To advance their agenda, fascists must bring about a mass rejection
of egalitarian and democratic ideals, and seem to get the best results by
inflaming and feeding upon common fears and popular bigotries -- racist,
nationalist, classist, religious, political, etc. ANY set of bigotries,
suitably stimulated, will provide fertile soil for fascism, and the incurably
ignorant, always a majority, are easily swayed by such methods -- fascism is
a dictator's fantasy formula for subverting democracy. Bigotry, however,
isn't fascism's whole essence; it's simply an expedient means by which
fascism's agents, classic political pragmatists, consolidate the monolithic
pattern of government corruption that is their true calling -- a syndrome
America has been sliding into deeper and deeper throughout its history. Just
look at the consistent warnings from all the presidents who noticed this
trajectory and tried to alert a nation of groveling candy-asses:
Thomas Jefferson:
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge
our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to
the laws of our country.
Abraham Lincoln:
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace
and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more
despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy
and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces,
as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw
light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern
Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two,
the one at the rear is my greatest foe.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves
me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned ....
An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money
power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the
prejudices of the people... until wealth is aggregated in a few
hands ... and the Republic is destroyed.
Theodore Roosevelt:
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible
government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no
responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible
government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt
business and corrupt politics is the first task of the
statesmanship of today.
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know,
that a financial element in the large centers has owned
the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, from his farewell address, 1961:
In the councils of government, we must guard against
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
John Kennedy took Eisenhower's warning to heart, apparently. During the last
year of his life, as he contemplated a second term and his own final
contribution to history, he resolved to reverse America's moral and civic
death-spiral, a.k.a. "the Cold War." His ideas included: ending the
CIA's freedom from oversight; abandoning the country's rabid anticommunist
stance, beginning with de-escalation in Vietnam; normalizing relations with
Cuba and Moscow; by doing these things, redirecting Washington's immense
weapons budget into sweeping domestic reforms (18). What's more, Kennedy's
popular mandate was strong enough by this time that he probably would have
succeeded.
From the viewpoint of the corporate capos that truly rule this country, one
aspect of the Cold War was all-important: it was a pork barrel straight out
of their wildest dreams of avarice. Watching Kennedy plant his feet and reach
for its plug, these 'absolute power' addicts would have been sorely tempted
to seek his removal by any means. As it just so happens, several of them were
also supreme civilian commanders of the 'National Security' apparatus,
meaning they had direct control of the most suspect means of effecting that
removal (19).
Since Kennedy's death, dire warnings about corporate power have been
conspicuously absent from the pronouncements of American presidents. Funny,
huh? By daring to stand on his conviction that it was he, not them, who held
the reins of American society, Kennedy quite possibly forced the financial
elite to make an example of him. Since that time, their supremacy has been
unchallenged by politicians.
It's as if democracy itself 'got whacked' by the Corleones and Gambinos!
Fortunately for them, Americans are kept too delusional to notice.
* * * * * * * * *
On the strength of the fear-driven and essentially mindless popular mandate
that followed the 9-11 attack, the Bushes and their kind are now concluding a
plan they began formulating long before 1963: transforming this country into
an abomination, a clinically exact violation of everything their core public
THINKS it believes in. The situation is a three-ring circus of ironies:
People like the Bushes, Ashcroft, etc., don't operate in a vacuum; they don't
suddenly and magically "seize power," any more than Hitler did.
The history of the Nazis holds many lessons of great value to present-day
Americans. Among the more important: political lunatics become dangerous only
when whole populations lose their marbles enough to deliver them into real
power. Truly, it's absurd to blame amoral monsters who insinuate themselves
into high places. OF COURSE they're going to do that; it's why they were
born. The sensible object of that disgust is 'The People' who allow them to
stay there; who idly watch as other groups suffer, too stupid to realize that
tomorrow the guns will turn on them; The People, who hand these scumbags ALL
of their power by becoming eager footsoldiers in the global mafias they
create. Helen Keller knew this:
"Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought!
Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of
murder!
Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human
beings!
Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction!"
So did Emma Goldman:
"How long would authority ... exist, if not for the willingness of the
mass to become soldiers, policemen, jailers, and hangmen."
No matter what label a government assigns itself -- democratic, communist,
etc. -- The People who live under that government, who are its real
repository of power, have an uncanny way of getting exactly what they
deserve. If a government has descended into utter moral dissolution, and its
people actually deserve better, they will summon the courage to do what's
right for themselves, as did the French, the Russians, the Cubans. If a
government is basically sound, but its people are grotesque petulant infants
gobbling at giant tits of material excess, then it won't be long before that
government sees its opportunity to build jail cells around them. Why not?
Frantic tit-suckers aren't likely to notice, and if they do, a jail cell
isn't so unlike a womb. If by some bizarre chance they should actually
protest, they can simply be told it's for their own safety. Infants are
easily duped with such talk, which they will regard as irrefutable when
backed up with lurid cartoons showing "The Enemy In Action!!"
This was the context in which Jefferson used terms like 'inalienable' and
'self-evident.' People determined to discover their own power will find a
way. So will those determined to live as slaves. The role of government is
secondary. If the American people didn't deserve this buffoon president and
his panel of corporate handlers... if this were other than a land of selfish
tit-feeders, spoiled insane... if "The Home of the Brave" didn't
ring quite so false... then the outrage of the 2000 "election"
would have unleashed a nationwide tsunami of riots, martial law would have been
declared, and the ruling class would have hastily dumped him before things
REALLY heated up.
As it stands, Dubya's sickening success is owed primarily to a curious
"political awareness," shared by a decisive majority of Americans:
intuitively, they know they're on the sugar-dumpling end of the global
economy. If staying there means everyone else gets hurled at birth into a
fuming acid bath, well that's okay, too -- just don't ask them to notice.
Just as rampant corruption is symptomatic of fascist governments, this 'let
them eat cake' mindset is also typical of the national populations that
sustain those governments through their complicity and inaction. Corruption
isn't just a disease of governments, elites, etc. -- it's a creeping
contagion that infects whole societies, eventually reducing them to colonies
of moral bacteria. If the wealth of a society is large enough that this
degeneracy can progress long enough, its members become so drained of the
essentials of character that whatever 'Great Things' they've accomplished
become like marble temples built on a lake of pus.
America, for example, once had a heroic reputation among freedom-seekers
around the world. Starting many years ago, the keepers of that legacy grew so
arrogant, so artless, that their attempts to disguise their selfish motives
became transparent to the average ten-year-old, so now America finds itself
becoming an object of generalized hatred. And deservedly: when an elite cult
of villains and cowards waylays all the governments of the world by holding a
nuclear gun to their heads, they SHOULD be hated, and that's exactly what
this government did while its subjects snoozed at the Big Boob these past
five decades. The aggrieved parties will of course be deemed "just
jealous" by the press, whose pronouncements are both source and product
of the tit-feeder mentality.
With Buffoon & Co., the pretenses are now so tissue-thin that even
Americans should have no trouble seeing through them. The one thing stopping
them is all-determining: they don't want to. This sort of delusion even
extends to self-described "liberals," who love to vomit the
platitude that "America's PEOPLE can't be held responsible for the
excesses of their GOVERNMENT."
I wish one of these nutless wonders would explain to me exactly how this
works; from where I sit, ultimate responsibility for the criminal conduct of
this government belongs to THEM. After all, thirty years ago most of them
were intensely aware of this government's capacity for evil. Since then,
they've been seduced by accumulations of property, privilege, and mental
lethargy, thereby settling into America's most selfish middle
|