News ::
JFK, 9-11, and the REAL
by Jon Phalen
Email: truthserum9
(nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!)
Modified:
An organic reconsideration of US history and
major "conspiracy theories" of the past 40 years, including those
pertaining to the 9-11 attack, and how they shed light on America's present
drift into fascism.
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 "
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:
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
1846 to '48
The Mexican War:
Beginning in 1818, when the
Some years later, a fantastic mineral strike in this stolen territory -- the
1898 to '99
The Spanish-American War/Philippine Campaign:
Though still a colonial client of
A 1975 investigation led by Admiral Rickover
determined that the
1917 to '18
World War I:
Three years into the "Great War," it looked as though
The dynamics behind
1941 to '45
World War II:
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
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
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
The cover provided by the Cold War enabled the
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
In all four places, revolutionary leaders greatly admired
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
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
As huge as the American effort against
To advance its "interests," the
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
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
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
* * * * * * * * *
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
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
One hypothesis is particularly good for sending 'America Firsters'
into an apoplexy of denial: that the political culture now emerging in
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 "
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