JFK, 911 & The Real America - Tying US History Together

[-]

http://www.rense.com/general45/usus.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rense.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

JFK, 911 & The Real America - Tying US History Together
By John Phelan
11-23-3

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 "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 1848 - 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 1899 - 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 1918 - 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 1945 - 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 1989 - The Cold War (aka WWIII)

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 1953 - 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 1973 - 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" (aka WWIV)

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 school yard, 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 paw prints 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 class generation EVER. Watching them
recite fatuous denials to themselves, I'm reminded of the French Court
under Louis XVI. Their stock concept of 'political involvement' --
filling in a ballot once a year -- hardly seems likely to fix a
goddamn thing, since the forces of wealth clearly have both major
parties in their pocket. By all indications, they don't even care; the
interests of wealth have become their own. If Bush's 2000 installation
left any doubt about collusion between the two parties,
Schwarzenegger's triumph in California just removed it. The California
Democratic Party simply HAD TO KNOW that Gray Davis was history, so
why did they fail to put all their marbles behind ONE potent
alternative candidate? They can't strategize on their own behalf worth
a damn, but they sure do a bang-up job for the repugs. Is it insane to
wonder if they both get their marching orders from the same place?

Voting should certainly be part of a larger strategy -- it may not
mean as much as we're told, but at least it's something. Real change,
however, would seem to require much more from us: open dissent and
resistance, civil disobedience, total rejection of bourgeois
sensibilities, including careerism, as this is the path taken by most
on their journey into apathy and selfishness. It's no wonder, then,
that causing each of us to nurture dreams of professional glory has
long been this country's most lavish "philanthropic" project. Our
unprecedented university system -- is it really about giving us all a
leg up, or is it a clever and utterly cynical social engineering
program? As they hand out huge endowments, what do the bloodless
billionaires really mean with all their malarkey about "investing in
the future." The working class is the true home of the political left.
Demographically and politically, it once dominated this country, and
thoughtful people didn't always have reason to flee from it. Now it's
a defeated mass of Bush-boosting, TV-mesmerized morons. When class
assignment at birth is an immutable life sentence, intelligent members
of an exploited class tend to become revolutionaries. By its very
nature, the "classless" careerist ethic solves this problem by
identifying the gifted among them as young as possible and reassigning
them to a separate social order, where they're supplied with selfish
reasons for staying quiet. Added together, their class defections and
betrayals make up the aforementioned billionaires' "return on
investment." Divide and conquer, divide and conquer...

In so many ways, the true genius of American politics has been in
making sure the average slob has far too much to lose by rejecting
bourgeois temptations. The tragedy of this design is that it makes us
all full partners in the prevailing order of plunder and corruption.
During the Great Depression, poverty was so rampant here that this
formula began to unravel, prompting our keepers to feign benevolence
with an improvised Head Amputation Prevention System, otherwise known
as "the New Deal." Given the power of the information technology now
at their disposal, they seem to be preparing to let it unravel again,
this time to be replaced with an all-seeing electronic security state.
This is probably the real reason behind the USAPATRIOT Act, rampant
domestic spying, mounting repressive tactics and nationalist
propaganda, vast enlargements of prison infrastructure, and so on.
Kudos to all the technological utopians out there; far be it from them
to realize that those in power always pervert emerging technology into
a means of grabbing even more power.

The American political scene is now becoming so ominous that many
Americans are finally waking up, achieving real political awareness
for the first time in their lives. As they discover reality, they are
finding themselves in a horrifying predicament: this country is but a
few steps away from becoming an overt dictatorship, and the Neo-cons
seem determined to go the distance. All they need to do at this point
is arrange another "Pearl Harbor." Anything short of massive,
uncompromising civil disobedience seems unlikely to stop them, and the
vast majority of Americans are unlikely to engage in any such thing.
Incapable of even noticing how bountiful their lives are, what could
possibly induce them to reflect on the malevolent work by which that
bounty has been concentrated, or to acknowledge the rights of people
and other beings, living and dead, from whom it has been stolen? The
hopelessness of the situation is deepened by the relentless and all
but inescapable onslaught of commercial media, whose role of promoting
this exact selfishness and civic apathy is now performed with
incredible audacity. Most of these "Good Americans" just trudge along
mindlessly in the rut indicated by their message, willfully oblivious
to its subtexts.

America's malaise isn't entirely a product of conscious effort, but on
the other hand, none of it is accidental. How is this possible? The
main thing people use "logic" for is to conceal even from themselves
the mediocre nature of their true motives. America's corruption, like
that of all nations, is an organic phenomenon, i. e. it is neither
orchestrated nor needs to be. It has been advanced not by the lurking
efforts of secret circles so much as by the main thrust of American
culture. Those frontiersmen in Ohio, for example, scarcely needed the
inducements Washington offered them; they were eager to exterminate
the Indians and steal their land. And so it goes. By such means, the
corruption of our entire civic culture has been advanced by all of us,
through habits of thought that lie beneath the level of consciousness
-- for example, in the sane and humane alternatives we consistently
choose to NOT consider. Again, media's leadership in this area has
been inestimable.

My gratitude to those who have protested and been civilly disobedient
over the years is beyond measure -- they are the true bearers of
Liberty's flame -- but I am doubly contemptuous of those among them,
seduced by privilege, who have ended up swinging to the other side.
They are the very soul of corruption, and traitors even to their own
dreams.

Here's the richest irony of all: Bush's most avid supporters are a
puritanical bunch. They attend church. They pray on streetcorners.
They bludgeon the unwitting with their sanctimonious talk of God,
Family, and the American Way. So convinced are they of their moral
superiority, they have no qualms about marching toward even greater
material gluttony over a pavement of charred corpses. In fact, they
seem to see this as a divine quest. You don't need a doctorate in
Theology to know that if Hell is real, its inmost pit has got to be
reserved for hypocrites such as these.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notes:

1) Even now, the "independent commission" is shot through with
incredible conflicts of interest, exemplified by the present
chairman's financial ties to members of the Bin Laden Family. Such a
panel can hardly be expected to deviate from the gutless pattern of
past "investigative commissions": the Warren Commission, the
Rockefeller Commission, the Iran-Contra hearings, etc.

Chossudovsky, Michel. Who's Who on the 9/11 "Independent" Commission.
see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO307B.html

2) Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial
in the Americas, 1492 to the Present. (San Francisco: City Lights
Books, 1997) pp. 209 - 214

3) Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States, 1492 -
Present. (New York: Harper Collins, 1999) pp. 149-169

4) ibid, pp. 297-320

5) ibid, pp. 359-376

6) Stinnett, Robert. Day of Deceit: the Truth About FDR and Pearl
Harbor. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000) See ALL

7) many historical documents support this analysis, including:

United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Summary Report (Pacific War)
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1946) p.26:
"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing
attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient
pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need
for invasion... Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts,
and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders
involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31
December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan
would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped,
even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had
been planned or contemplated."

8) Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions
Since World War II. (Monroe, Maine, USA: Common Courage Press, 1995)
pp. 21-23, 39-43, 50, 51, 122-127

9) ibid, pp. 129-145

10) Heller, Jean. Public Doesn't Get Picture With Gulf Satellite
Photos. St. Petersburg Times, 1/6/1991

11) MacArthur, John R. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the
Gulf War. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1992) pp. 37-77.

12) Bamford, James. Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret
National Security Agency from the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New
Century. (New York: Doubleday, 2001) pp. 82-91

13) Blum. Killing Hope. pp. 106-108

14) A scanned copy of this memo can be seen in
http://www.internetpirate.com/bush.htm -- scroll down

15) Webb, Gary. Dark Alliance. San Jose mercury News, 9/18/1996
available online at:
http://home.attbi.com/~gary.webb/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

16) de Grand Pre, Donn; Col. US Army (Ret.). The Enemy is inside the
Gates available online at
http://scribblguy.50megs.com/evidence.htm#THE%20ENEMY%20IS%20INSIDE%20THE%20GATES

17) multiple sources:

Kennedy, Dominic. Suicide Hijackers Hid Behind Stolen Arab Identities.
London Times, 9/20/01

MacFarquhar, Neil. A Nation Challenged: The Hijackers; Confusion Over
Names Clouds Identities of Attackers on Jets. New York Times, 9/21/01
available online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/21/international/middleeast/21IDEN.html

Jeffery, Simon. Special Report: Terrorism in the US. The Guardian,
9/21/01 available online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601550,00.html

Harrison, David. Revealed: the men with stolen identities. The Daily
Telegraph, 9/23/01 available online at
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

Author unknown. Hijack 'Suspects' Alive and Well. British Broadcasting
Corporation, 9/23/01 available online at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm

18) Hepburn, James. Farewell America. (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Frontiers
Publishing, 1968) see ALL. Available online at
http://www.voxfux.com/Kennedy/farewell/farewell00.html

19) The most suspect parties here are Nelson Rockefeller and his
demonic lackeys, the Dulles brothers. The threads implicating
Rockefeller in Kennedy's death are explored rigorously in:

Colby, Gerard and Charlotte Dennett. Thy Will Be Done -- The Conquest
of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil.
(New York, USA: HarperCollins, 1995)

Approaching this matter from different directions and supporting their
arguments with extraordinary historical documentation, the authors of
'Farewell America' and 'Thy Will Be Done' arrive independently at
strikingly similar conclusions.

John Phelan
truth...@yahoo.com

http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=82574&group=webcast

Disclaimer
Email This Article

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

This Site Served by TheHostPros