|
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
|