Michael Shaw--John Dean describes himself as a conservative.  His book, “Conservatives without conscience” is devoted to demonstrating the authoritarian mindset of the hard-right movement which makes them a far cry from what is understood as a traditional conservative.  Dean’s thesis is heavily inflienced by the work of Bob Altemeyer regarding what Altemeyer described as “right-wing authoritarians, who tend to be fundamentalists, accept authority definitions of right and wrong and reject moral relativism.  The right-wing authoritarians travel in a tight circle of like minded people and display an inability to exercise independent judgment. 

The problem with Dean’s analysis, aside from the misnomer of labeling these people “conservatives without conscience” is that Dean takes far too seriously the question of whether there can “really be fascist people in a Democracy?”

I regard the question as silly, even trite.  The Nazi rise to power began during the Weimar Republic with the Nazis first securing seats in the Reichstag, followed by Hitler’s ascension to Reich Chancellor.  Germany held elections even after the death of Von Hindenburg.  The better question is how long a democracy can survive when fascists bent on its destruction rise to the highest levels of power?

107933 Right on Earnest! To me neo-conservatism is exactly the same as neo-liberalism. Look at kooks like Horowitz. This guy’s been bouncing from extreme left to extreme right for decades. The key of course is extreme and as you say, what it all really boils down to is fascism.

Glad you mentioned John Dean too. He has become a useful ally in that he is no liberal, nor ever has been, making it very difficult for this current group of right wing radicals to argue around him. They call him a traitor for giving up Nixon when the guy actually fulfilled his sworn oath to defend the US Constitution. He has done much to weaken Bush and company and the more people like him who come forth, the weaker these fascist freaks will become.

Right you are Michael.  That is why sometimes I think the word neoconservative is a misnomer.  They are not conservatives--not even “conservatives without conscience,” which is how John Dean describes them in his book by that title.  They may have long ago captured the Republican Party but the word Republican doesn’t begin to capture their essense.  How can you apply the word “Republican” to people who are bent on overthrowing the Republic and replacing it with a totalitarian police state?  The people who fought Franco’s fascists in Spain were the Republicans--the defenders of the democratic Republic of Spain.  Even words like “hard-right” do not fully describe them.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Addington, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are fascists--American fascists to be exact.  In the case of our president, we deal with a third generation fascist--what with his paternal grandfather Prescott having been involved in a fascist plot to overthrow Roosevelt in the thirties, a man who acted as a financier for Nazi Germany even while we were at war.

Perhaps we progressives would do well to stop the relatively polite references to these sociopaths as Republicans or even neoconservatives.  We should use the appropriate label that accurately describes what they are--fascists, plain and simple.

I remember reading about the 14 points of fascism, an in depth 20 year study of all fascist regimes. By every account Bush fits the bill. There is not one point he has avoided.

Ernest, I do believe you have less faith in our fellow citizens than I and I very much fear we are correct. I truly do not see a way back, given the mindset of the population.

Going to Nicaragua for a week, so you guys have fun while I am gone. Have to start looking for a way to go to the US other than by flying.

On compromise and parallels to Nazi Germany.  Feb. 27, 1933 was the Weimar Republic’s 9/11.  That was the day Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag.  Caught in the act, van der Lubbe was quested by Rudolf Diels, the non-Nazi head of the Prussian police who determined the fire was the work of a lone, crazed assassin.  With the Reichstag’s main chamber still in flames, Diels was summoned by Goring, Hitler & a group of leading Nazis who had gathered on a Reichstag balcony.  Diels tried to explain but the Nazis wouldn’t hear of it.  They insisted it was part of a Communist uprising, Hitler noting:  “There will be no more mercy now; anyone who stands in our way will be butchered.”

As noted by Richard Evans in “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Hitler leaped at the opportunity, convincing the non-Nazi members of his cabinet that “the psyuchologcally correct moment for the confrontation has now arrived.” Goring, being a bit less subtle than was the Bush administration when it linked Saddam and 9/11, falsely claimed van der Lubbe had been seen with leading Communists.  All but one minister were persuaded to agree to a decree which suspended key articles of the Weimar constitution “particularly those governing freedom of expression...press...and assembly....It allowed police to detain people in protective custody indefinitely and without a court order, in strict contrast to previous laws, which had set strict time limits before judicial intervention occurred.” (Sound familiar?).  Hindenberg signed the decree even though it ceded major portions of his power to Hitler.

There are stark parallels not only in the manner in which the Bush regime seized 9/11 as the “pscyhologically correct moment” but in the way in their use of democratic institutions to destroy the fabric of democracy has been facilitated by a failure of democracy to recognize the danger.  In “The Great Unraveling,” Paul Krugman quotes from Henry Kissinger’s doctoral thesis on revolutionary powers:  “Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered sane and balanced....” Krugman added this “sent a chill down [his] spine because it explains so well the otherwise baffling process by which the administration has been able to push radical policies through, with little scrutiny or effective opposition.”

The Bush/Cheney regime is a “revolutionary power” which no more accepts the validity of American Constitutional democracy than Hitler accepted the validity of the Weimar Republic.  They have ascended to power in order to destroy it.  We bump along thinking all will be well in 2009 not considering that executive orders are now in place that portend to future suspensions of elections, marshall law and a totalitarian state with surveillance capabilities far beyond the Nazi imaginations.  Yet the Nancy “Impeachment is off the table” Pelosi is seen as the pragmatist.

More the Aristo’s Club, the English meaning of “Gentleman” as an Aristrocrat and above and oblivious to the “rabble”.

Christie, I tend to go along with Jim Hightower about the middle of the road.....yellow lines and dead armadillos.

But I do have a copy of Klein’s book coming to me. I am in Costa Rica so cannot run down to the B&N;.

Wolfe’s book is a documenting of the erosion of our rights and comparison to past regimes which turned into police states. She wisely, and astutely does not say that we are “just like” the Nazi regeme, for example, since we are not- but she does point out some commonalities. It’s very short, and she is a good writer, so it is easy to get through (despite the crying it might provoke).

(I am not overfond of Naomi Klein, by the way, as I find her ideas to be revisionist at best. The thrust of her argument seems to be the adoption of the “third way"- a sort of hybrid between capitalism and socialism. Going by the recent lessons of history- particularly in Germany, where the SPD and the CDP ( socialist democratic party and christian democratic party) had a coalition government under which we saw the largest cuts to social programs and a rise in the nationalist right, I would say that the middle road is not advisable. We are seeing something similar in France now as well.It is not promising. The reasons are that capitalism is inherently a nationalist thing, which precludes peaceful globalization, and that the interests of capitalism are in direct contract to the interests of socialism. In any event, though she is a fiery speaker, I think she idealizes Lula, among others.)

105712 I apologize Miriam. I see that in your gentleman’s agreement commentary you were referring to the political boys club rather than Ernest’s neutral olive branch.

Christie you are again correct. The lose of liberty has been a deliberately slow and subtle process, up until Bush that is. I have been so centered upon him and all he does that at times I forget much of what’s going on here has been an accumulation. I am praying he and the neocons are defeated but realize just as Nadine Strossen once told me, the fight to preserve liberty is an unending process.

As for going about the same goals in different ways, that’s democracy in action. The fact we are not entirely in lockstep, yet share the same basic ideals is not that much different from the bickering of the forefathers. It is not the difference in thought that endangers us but whether we tolerate those differences.

Tell me more of Naomi Wolfe. I’ve been delving into Naomi Klein myself.

107644- Michael, yes that is worrisome, to put it lightly. Developments such as Blackwater, however, point up not the strength, but the weakness in a government. Fear is what builds mercenary armies.

You might like Naomi Wolfe’s new book, The End of America. While I do not agree with her conclusions as far as action goes, I do appreciate her enumerating the clamping down on freedoms which we have seen in the last few decades (it does, you know, start before the current administration).

In any event, it is clear that the current system of imperialist domination of resources, backed up by military might is not a stable, nor can it be a lasting condition. It will get very bad - already is- but it is not sustainable. (Here I am resisting a tirade against the evils of capitalism, so I think I deserve some high marks for restraint!)

I am glad that we at least agree that change is necessary, though I realize that, based on our fundamental outlooks, we might disagree on the methods and ultimate form that change should take. Still, it is good to see someone thinking critically about it.

107573 Christie I understand what you’re saying. It was the isolation plus the brutal restrictions as being all they knew and of course the Czars wanting to keep it that way. The real scary part is that any nation can become oppressive. We have witnessed the beginnings of it right here in the US. There does seem to be a trend in dumbing down the populace by making education harder to achieve for those without money. The fact our government is so powerful is what really makes things scary in that if there ever were a revolution, it would be easily crushed. How could a new army defeat such a high tech establishment? Without satellite technology, radar and aircraft it wouldn’t stand a chance. Privatizing the military makes the prospects even worse. Once its completely privatized there will be no enlisted men ready to come to the aid of their families as they did in Russia when the crew of the Potemkin stormed the Winter Palace. Only hired thugs would be there, armed and ready to protect the upper echelons and slaughter us indiscriminantly.

As for your newsletter, I’d like to see it. Thanks!

107520- Well, Michael, there is a lot more going on than directly affects you or me these days, yes? I mean, I daresay neither of us has yet been extraordinarilly renditioned, nor have we (likely) been held without charges pressed against us. However, we *know* such things are happening, and we have something against which to compare it (The Constitution), so we know that, even under the laws of the country producing such atrocities, it is not legal.

Russia at the time of the October Revolution had, as you said, a long long history of oppression. It also had, largely, no idea that another way of life was possible. Even among backward countries, the citizens were backward (cf the literacy rates). Not through their own fault, mind you. They also had to contend with political repression on a rather vicious scale (Lenin’s brother, for example, and as an example to those who would follow, was executed for political activity. He was far from the only one). But once the cracks started showing, things fell apart rather quickly (though not overnight- let us not forget the 1905 Revolution and the Menshevick February 1917 Revolution- both of which failed for a very simple reason which is that they were not prepared to *re-build*, and had no clear, stable theory from which they were working).

It is unique in that it did not follow the “accepted” revolutionary path- First you overthrow the king and install a bourgoise (middle class) ruling class (as we had in the States, and as France also had to an extent). Second you have a Workers’ Revolution. No, it was realised by the Bolsheviks (Lenin, Trotsky) that this was not necessary - that to skip the first and go straight for the Workers’ Revolution was the only way to really do it. And they did. (Which is why they overthrew the February Revolution with the October one, in a nutshell.)

But when it comes to what will be put up with- yes, quite a lot. Revolution is no small undertaking, and people are all too often willing to wait and see if things will change with the next administration, or whathave. *I* think it clear that the next administration, as with the Democrats in Congress now, offer no such hope. That, however, is a whole other topic, and you may subscribe to my newsletter if you want to hear more .

107512 Actually Miriam, Jefferson released only 5 of his slaves. His wishes however were to release all of them once he was free of debt. That day never came. Only his most loyal servants, upon his death were released. The rest were sold to pay off his creditors.

Also what Ernest has suggested is not what I would necessarily call a gentleman’s agreement but simply being rational. We can defend or criticize the forefathers all we wish but they were but the beginning of the great experiment. It is up to the rest of us to carry on and make things better, then pass the torch to the next generations by giving them the same opportunities.

Also one other point in mind. Had the United States never existed would all of the evils of the world stopped existing as well? I think not. I also think most of the world would have probably been monarchical as it was prior to the American Revolution.

You are, correct, Ernest.

I would like to see a return to the promise, but do not expect to see it till we understand fully what the obstacles are, and even then it will be difficult to remove power from the corporation.

107451 Christie I am in complete agreement. Oppression leads to revolution. What is interesting though is how much oppression people put up with before they act and particularly when we look at Russia. The American revolutionaries never had to contend with what those folks did. The centuries of serfdom they endured and finally it taking a world war to anger the masses enough to take that step. Yes we had indentured servants and even slaves but never did we endure the hardships of the Russians.

I’m glad you brought up the dems wanting to stay in Iraq till 2013. Actually that is Hilary’s idea. Makes me wonder if she will hold on the the extreme rendition which started with her husband and what Bush uses so readily in his war on terror.

As for Iran, one point of interest is Putin. He is getting tough and frankly if numb nuts hits Iran we’re liable to see WW3. I think the Russians have had enough oppression, in fact about 600 years of it and they are not about to stand down to a punk like George W. Bush. They after all had Stalingrad while Bush had Kennebunkport.

107510 Good points Ernest(as always) and I am in full agreement.

Gentleman’s Agreement, Go Along To Get Along, You Scratch My Back and I’ll Scratch Yours.......

June 20: With his plan under heavy attack in Congress, Hamilton dines at the New York home of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and there strikes a deal with Madison which will ensure Virginia’s support for federal assumption of state debts in exchange for Hamilton’s agreement to encourage northern members of Congress to move the nation’s capital to Philadelphia for 10 years, and then to a Southern site on the banks of the Potomac River.

Hamilton’s next milestone report was his “Report on Manufactures.” Congress shelved the report without much debate, except for Madison’s objection to Hamilton’s formulation of the General Welfare clause, which Hamilton construed liberally. Nevertheless, The Report on Manufactures is a classic document heralding the industrial future America would soon inhabit. In it Hamilton counters Jefferson’s vision of an Agrarian American nation of farmers and gives a clear vision for a dynamic industrial economy, subservient to manufacturing interests.

A standing army, (as Madwoman Halfbright said, “Why have that wonderful military and not use it?"), SUBSERVIENT to manufacturing intrests!

Sounds to me like the man would be right at home with the Bushes if their manners were refined a bit....after all, He was a wannabe aristro so I expect his manners were very good as is the case when one is wanting very badly to join a clique one apes their manners and manner of speaking and thinking.

I will make you a bet that the manners in the inner circles of government have changed considerably in the last 6 years.

Miriam and Michael:  I have watched from a distance the intriguing dialectic amongst yourselves regarding the qualities and short comings of one Thomas Jefferson, Third President of these United States.  It is fair to say that Jefferson, like so many of us, did not live up to the ideals embodied in perhaps one of the history’s most profound egalitarian statements he authored, the Declaration of Independence.  While Miriam is correct in noting that we should not look back through an idyllic lens, ignoring the hypocrisy of a slave owner, Michael is also correct in focusing on the unfulfilled, egalitarian “promise” that is the embodiment of our common understanding of Jeffersonian democracy.  It is that unfulfilled promise we should all be pursuing as we seek to counter the anti-egalitarian madness of the 21st Century American hard-right.

In his lifetime Jefferson owned hundreds, maybe thousands as he owned as many as 200 at a time, but regularly sold off people when he needed the money, and never freed but 7 slaves/people, 2 while he was alive and his children AFTER HE WAS DEAD!

He only owned slaves/people because he needed the money like the corporations only have us pay the bill for their looting of other countries and killing the citizens because they need the money to keep their game going.

Hamilton was a paranoid who feared anarchy where as Jefferson once said he was not in favor of a very energetic government. They were polar opposites. I fail to see where Jefferson caved in to Hamilton. In fact ultimately Jefferson’s(Madison’s) papers were adopted as opposed to Hamilton’s federalist papers. Also it does not seem strange that two opposites would actually be the ones to form a two party system. Both fought in the revolution and both supported ratification of the new federal constitution though both also felt it needed improvement. Of course when it came to trade with te mother country, Jefferson and Madison opposed it whereby Hamilton and Washington supported it. I believe in this case Hamilton was right though I can understand Jefferson’s reasoning. Also Hamilton and his federalists actually helped Jefferson to be elected president, considering him the lesser of two evils.  The major evil of course being none other than Arron Burr.

Shay’s rebellion is one point of interest. Jefferson didn’t see it as a big deal whereas Hamilton the reactionary said the people are turbulent and changing and seldom judge or determine right. In fact much of what began with these two men is still unresolved to this day. An example lies in the first amendment which allows free speech but also allows a free press to manipulate the political process. Some might call this a trap. I call it freedom.

I also call it the ying and yang of democracy. There were no winners or losers here. I see this ying and yang struggle to this day. I will admit that in more contemporary times Hamilton’s philosophy seems to hold precedent. However, were he alive today even Hamilton would be appalled with what Bush has done to the constitution.

Your summations concerning Jefferson and slavery are not entirely complete. Indeed Jefferson was a man of his times. Much of the reasons he had slaves in the first place was because of his accumulative debt. He also at one point did in fact fear slaves and believed it nearly impossible to integrate them into society. However he later changed his mind and did much to put an end to it.  It is true he owned numerous slaves, however during his long career in public office, Jefferson attempted numerous times to abolish or limit the advance of slavery. In 1796 while in the House of Burgesses he proposed to that body to emancipate slaves in Virginia, but that proposal was shot down. In the first draft to the declaration of Independence Jefferson condemned the royal crown for bringing slavery to the new world. This language was dropped however by the delegates of Georgia and South Carolina. In 1778 Jefferson helped pass a bill that prevented the import of slaves to Virginia. He drafted the Northwest Ordinance which forbade slavery and forced servitude. In 1807 he signed a bill abolishing the slave trade.

M Shaw- History has patterns. And if you oppress to hard, people will finally stand up. Trotsky said (I paraphrase, because I do not have the book to hand) that the mind is a very conservative thing, changing only when objective forces make it impossible not to change.

It’s true, one can see when looking at history (even in looking at one’s own personal history)- we are seeing it today- between the last election, where the Democratic Party was seen as the last great hope for ending the war, and today, where we have their repeated history of funding the war and declaring that the war will last at least until 2013. (And one of the Democratic party front runners declaring that Iran is a terrible threat, and many of them voting to declare the Iranian Army a terrorist organization, which neatly paves the way to further invasion.) People now are not so sure, to say the least. But it took a lot for people to start considering this.

Things do change, people do wake up. I doubt any one of us can find a perfect hero- someone without blemish who always made the right decision, did the right thing *as seen from our advanced point of view*. It is our duty to face the facts and do the right thing. It is also very possible that we will fail on some accounts and be judged harshly in the future. One hopes to do enough right as to tip the balance away from villain, eh?

Eventhough Jefferson thought he envisioned a different circumstance than did Alexander Hamilton whose vision is alive today, he backed off and allowed his ideas to be first diluted and then changed as far as the man in the street was concerned because it was an agreement AMONG GENTLEMEN and, as such, did not involve the man in the street any more that did the building and shaping of the government for the future. This, and his living one life and “envisioning” another when the freeing of his slaves was something he could have done (and, no, the old “he was a man of his time” will not wash, as there were many against slavery, but they were not in the “aristocracy")but did not do as it would have affected his position.

And I did not even address the position, or lack thereof, of the other half of humanity, and I might add, arguably, the most important half, the control of whom, was absolutely necessary to build the society envisioned by these rich white men.

So, the man was suffering from the same moral depravity that has been sold to the citizens of the country he helped build “GO ALONG TO GET ALONG”. THE SEEDS WERE THERE, it was a cabal of rich white men who designed a system for rich white men. There was no place for men of any other color or social status except as they had value to the rulers as workers or farmers or enablers of one stamp or another, which left the native peoples out for starters as they were in the way and were not going to be workers or enablers of any kind, so the answer was to exterminate. The beginning of this country was a resource war to the death and the entire history has followed suit. The seeds were there.

The folks in the Carribbean, Central and South America can read and come to the same conclusions. THERE IS A PACK OF WOLVES LIVING NORTH OF US. THEY ARE AFTER TERRITORY AND HUNTING GROUNDS......LOOK LIVELY NOW, AND PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE CURLY WHITE HAIR ON THE HEADS AND THE LAMB-LIKE BLEATS, LOOK AT THE EYES AND TEETH!

107374 Christie, Great post! Please refer to my previous post to Miriam(who also had a great post) 397390

What we’re talking about here is causality. Cause and effect. Though the environments are different and there are always radical tangents(chaos), the rules generally remain the same. This is how I account for your “results were different yet in” commentary. Of course like a slap in the face, there is generally found the same old sets in human reaction. In the most general sense it boils down to treating others as you would have them treat you. That is one thing with little doubt that all people have in common, regardless of their respective environs. Of course then again it depends on how hard the slap is, how much damage it causes, who is administering it and whether people might even enjoy that slap or not. Cause and effect mixed in chaos and you have the human animal, the most and least predictable creature on the planet.

107363

For conversation sake I’ll admit I’ve been playing a bit of the devil’s advocate, but I never said Jefferson was a saint Miriam. In fact I’ve never met a saint, even when I look in the mirror.(Well maybe then!:) I would add however that he was not a devil either and perhaps the greatest of all of the forefathers, defects and all. He even saved our national archives by replacing the books burned by the British in the war of 1812 with his own personal library. He had a great love of country and I most certainly do consider him one of America’s greatest heroes. The fact is he was!

We must also realize the time frame. The mindset was completely different then. We were a small and vulnerable country taking its first steps. Expansion was a necessity to our own defense(and a growing population). We should certainly not be proud of what we did to Native Americans. That said, of all the colonial powers, France, Spain and Portugal were by far the grandest culprits when it came to exterminating indigenous peoples. They also threatened our sovereignty along with Britain.

As for your statements pertaining to the civil war, I have to disagree. Although it is true that war was fought for the most part over taxation and the rights of states, to say that war was unnecessary is at best speculative and at worse a misnomer. Slavery may have been on the back burners but it wouldn’t have remained there forever. It was the beginning at least in recognizing that all peoples who lived under this flag were to be treated equally and granted the same inalienable rights. Though the battle continues, for the most part it has in fact been realized.

As for Lincoln, you are painting him as a tyrant whose only role was to make the railroads rich. The fact Lincoln needed the railroads to transport troops and supplies to preserve the union is not even implicated! Neither is the significance of Emancipation Proclamation or the fact Lincoln was the last casualties of the war! Another little known fact was that as a child he had a head injury causing partial brain damage. Add that to a crazy wife and the loss of a son and you have the makings of a real heart felt tragedy and also an example in great courage and perseverance. Still he prevailed in preserving the union, even though Britain at the time was financing the south and hoping for a stalemate to enable their grand ambition to reconquer its now richer and larger former colony.

Also most of the blacks were killed generally by the confederates and while in the blue uniform. The only real killings of blacks by northerners took place in NYC during the great city riots, where many were attacked and some even lynched. Troops fresh from Gettysburg later came in to quell the rebellion, shooting down men, women and children, many of whom in fact were not even rioting. That of course came as a result in the negligence of the poor and the rich buying their way out of the draft, then corporations hiring the newly immigrated blacks at the cost of jobs to the mostly Irish and English population. This was the time of the 5 points gangs and the “poor unfortunates’, the children left to starve on the streets as urchins because their families couldn’t afford to feed them.

Had the wealthy landowners of the south given up slavery and had Lincoln presented a fairer tax plan, it is true the war might never have happened. But the fact is neither side was willing to budge. This is why it is so much better to learn from history as it happened rather than to second guess it. Habeas corpus or not,and right or wrong, Lincoln preserved the union and that ultimately led to our nation’s survival. 

Lincoln was not my favorite president and in fact for me there aren’t too many favorites, but I do see him as a great president at a time this nation needed one most. Unfortunately and in Bush’s case I see the opposite. In these two men there is no viable comparison. The same is true regarding the forefathers.

107191- “So, when I say that if you compare the resulting societies of the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Cuban Revolution, it is plain that the seeds of the results were different and in at the beginning.”

The revolutions you cite took place in very different times and places, with each studying to some degree those which went before. (The French studied the America, the Russian the French, and Castro to a degree the Russian.) The circumstances of the resulting societies do not happen in a vacuum, however, which is often a point that is lost. In each case, conscious of it or not, the society is made of elements of what was overthrown. There is no such thing as a “clean slate”.

So, if you study the first five years after the Russian Revolution, for example, you see a very concerted efort to rebuild. You also saw, in one of the most backward countries of Europe/Asia, a stunning leap in growth- for example, going from roughly 5% literacy to about 95%. It is interesting to think what would have happened if Lenin had not died and Trotsky been exiled and then killed (because he was the leader of the Left Opposition). Certainly, after War Communism (necessitated by the Civil War) had ended (which it was clearly intended to do) and things had been allowed to settle, it would have been, if not perfect, at least very different than what it became.

(Think of that the next time you hear Bush or his fellow-travellers decry funding education as “too expensive”. If Russia could do it in not only the immediate aftermath, but in the middle of a civil war (funded in large part by the imperialist powers of Europe), then what’s our excuse?)

After the French Revolution you had a serious situation which very rapidly devolved. About the only good thing to come out of it (not that it’s a small thing, mind you) was the getting rid of the royals. Still, the place was not doing so well.

Cuba’s revolution happened at a time and in a place which was very much caught up in the capitalist system (ie, its markets and resources had been effectively captured by US companies). Their ousting of these companies was stunning, considering the forces arrayed against them. But, given the times (which we are still in, really) of superpowers and cold war, there was not room for a truly socialist country so close to the US, and certainly not with the exploitable resources it had. This lead to a begnign dictatorship. I actually do think Castro has the best interests of his citizens at heart, and has for at least most of the time.

In other, shorter, words- yes, the seeds and the fruits were very different.

A word about the Founding Fathers. Looking at the time in which they lived (Enlightenment), and especially the class they mostly came from, they acomplished something pretty darned egalitarian. Not perfect, but with the acknowledgement of that - “in order to form a *more perfect* union...” Meaning they knew there was work to be done. We can fault them now with not seeing the value in immediate equality, but given the time they inhabited that would have been quite the leap indeed. NOW it would be unforgivable, but that’s because we have made huge strides in society that we cannot imagine being unmade- or having never been made. At their time the King Was King, and Everyone Knew Their Place. Society was viewed before that as static. They injected the idea of social maleability into things which had not existed before.

Thomas Jefferson, though a brilliant man, was not a candidate for canonization....this from Greg Warnusz…

But at the same time this writer is drawn to the conclusion that Jefferson didn’t think the American experiment was robust enough to support a multi-racial society. And too much was at stake. Providence had placed the Indians here first, then led the English hither. This may be what made Jefferson speak with forked tongue about the red people; praising them and their potential for membership in republican society, while dealing them out of their lands. Providence had had no part in the arrival of the Africans. And nature--whether Jefferson’s science proved it or not, he believed it--had ordained insurmountable and unmixable differences between the black and white races. Jefferson could be inconsistent in attributing some conditions among the blacks to nature, and some to the conditions imposed on them. Consider his notion that the improvement shown by blacks upon their “mixture” [miscegenation] with whites proved it was nature, not environment, that rendered unmixed blacks inferior. But he could attribute to them no deficiency of moral sense. He could be similarly inconsistent about the Indians

He really did mean white men of property.....would like to have it different, but really did not believe in a mulitcultural society being a possibility. Remember, while he was president the indians were being displaced and murdered, and he made no move to change it. In fact, he bought the Louisana Territory from France and started making plans to take more Indian land and lives.

In fact he never even frees any of his own slaves, with the exception of Heming’s children. He has no serious qualms about selling slaves, provided he can justify the action as necessary to preserve his estate.

Jefferson speaks constantly about reform, but he himself refuses to risk his social status in order to bring it about. He made the choice of living, and, for a time, thriving on slave labor, priding himself on his benevolent treatment of blacks during times of wealth and selling them off like cattle during times of financial strain

Sorry, Michael, this is not the portrait of someone we would want our children to emulate.

The history is also one to give pause to any country or society being encouraged, by whatever means, to do as we say we do......not as we really do.

107336

My argument to that would be to compare those stats with those of any other nation. I’m not disagreeing with you entirely Miriam. In fact I do realize that many of the forefathers, including John Adams, wanted to establish a new monarchy. But Washington, then the country’s richest landowner and the guy who put up his entire fortune to finance the revolution, said no. Others like Jefferson demanded a Bill of Rights and particularly a separation of church and state. He also proposed a 13th amendment that would have limited the power of corporations and banned monopolies but lost that battle since at the time the argument against it proclaimed most states already had similar laws in their own respective constitutions. Well we’ve seen what’s happened to that. The infamous Santa Clara vs the Union Pacific Railroad led us down to a prefabricated lie which has remained virtually unchallenged from the McKinley Era to this day. As you’ll recall the lie was perpetuated by using of all things, the 14th amendment, enabling the robber barons to proclaim that corporations were living entities, thus entitled to the same rights as living, breathing persons. They claimed the supreme court gave them those rights which is a baldfaced lie. Though historically stifled by such events as the New Deal, it has once again floated to the surface, reemerging with Reagan and growing rampant under Bush, which comes as no surprise since his brain, “turd blossom” considered the McKinley era his favorite period in US history. I guess they forgot to consider that McKinley was ultimately assassinated. I believe many of the contrived wars we’ve encountered are a direct result of this lie and had Jefferson been alive at the time they would never have gotten away with it. There was a challenge made recently in the state of Pennsylvania. Hopefully this trend will continue. It is up to us to see that it does!

I would also point out that not every war we fought in was unjustifiable. Several in fact were provoked and some simply unavoidable. In my view things really began going downhill with the war with Spain and the ensuing wars that followed it like in Guatemala and the United Fruit company and other such Imperialistic ventures. Wilson’s involving us in Europe’s Imperial War was a travesty. Victoria’s grandchildren all vying for world domination with the human cost in the tens of millions. Of course we also realized the further consequences. First in the Russian Revolution, then the Second World War, then Britain losing its world dominance status and becoming a second rate power. Then the cold war and the near brink to nuclear destruction.

You are right though, some things never change. While the rest of the world suffered, the Duponts, the JP Morgan’s and the Rothschild’s continued to prosper. Krupp’s war machine now sells us coffee makers. When I see how major media has manipulated an entire nation into war, I see a repeat of the sinking of the Maine. Randolf Hearst did as much to involve us in that war as Fox News did in this one.

Still there is little mention of those of us who traditionally oppose these outrages and have done so at great personal risk. The unsung heroes do not often end up in the history books(or the pages of the corporate media), but by all accounts they are the conscience and soul of this nation. Often like the real heroes in any war, they end up left behind on the field of battle either forgotten or chastised just like Adlai Stevenson or Eugene McCarthy.

1775-1783...Rev War; 1798-1800...Quasi War; 1816,,1st Barbary war; 1784-1811 &1815;-1838...Indian Wars; 1812-1815...War of 1812& Creek war; 1815-1838 2nd Barbary War; 1835...Alamo; 1846-48 Mexican Amer War; 1861=65 Civil War; 1898 Spanish/Am War; 1899-1902 Phillippines; Invaded Haiti..1915-1934; Nicaragua..1912 & 1926-33; Cuba...1898-1902; Mexico 1914-1916; Hondorus 6 invasions 1911-25; Panama 1903-1914; Russia 1918-21; China during Boxer Reb.

1907 quote from Woodrow Wilson....
Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer
insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation
must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed
against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by
financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the
sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.
Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful
corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.

Territorial acquisition, as with
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Panama Canal Zone.

There is nothing truly consensual about government. It is always and everywhere based on force, intimidation, and violence. When the founding generation formed a confederacy with the Articles of Confederation, and later the Constitution, it was at least a voluntary union of the states. The citizens of each state understood that their state, and all others, was free and independent and sovereign. They were free to participate in the union, or not.

The union of the founders was destroyed in 1865. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians explains in great detail how, in addition to killing some 300,000 dissenters to rule by Washington, D.C. on the battlefield, the U.S. Army, under the micromanagement of Abe Lincoln, also murdered tens of thousands of Southern civilians, including thousands of slaves and free blacks, while stealing tens of millions of dollars of their private possessions as well. None of it was necessary, of course, for the purpose of ending slavery; all other countries on earth ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century. This included the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Danish colonies, where 96 percent of all the slaves in the Western Hemisphere once existed. The purpose of the war was to finally realize the Hamiltonian dream of a consolidated, monopolistic government that would pursue what Hamilton himself called “national greatness” and “imperial glory.” The purpose of the war, in other words, was a New Birth of Empire, one that would hopefully rival the Europeans in the exploitation of their own citizens in the name of the glory of the state. Thomas J DiLorenzo about War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco.

So, I have to say, it does not look like Reagan and the Bushes did much more than their predessors, they are arrogant enough to brag about it and tell us we can like it or lump it.......and they are right.

I’d like to add Miriam the greed that has led us into war after war has plagued not only us but the rest of the entire world. It has been going on since the beginning of the international banking system(and before). To coin a phrase from the Baron De Rothschild, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.”

107228 Miriam, regardless of the fact the Forefathers were for the most part property owning, educated individuals, thanks to them most of those who are not wealthy today have been able to become as readily educated. Also some of them actually did come from more humble beginnings like Benjamin Franklin.

Back then for the most part only the privileged had an education. Could back woodsmen have come up with a constitution or a Bill of Rights? I think not! I also think there comes a time when all of us must begin to shed our prejudice and judge people by the content of their character rather than the size of their pocketbook.

FDR was wealthier than Bush, far wealthier and yet he managed to overcome his own status to enact a new deal and a more leveled playing field, something his much poorer and most recent predecessor has done his best to overturn. Just because people happen to have money and an education doesn’t mean they worship the devil. Coming from a humble background myself I can tell you there are poor uneducated people out there who make Bush look like Saint Nicholas.

107290 Hey Ernest, when it comes to the emperor having no clothes, there’s one salesman whose out of business!

107283

Well that is because of the unconstitutional presidential privilege act which came with Kennedy and was granted by a republican congress. It began with our quick defense ploy in an age of nuclear threat and cold war. It was later enhanced once Reagan became president, in affect when the cold war ended. If you’ll recall that was when all the chatter of an Imperial Presidency began to emerge. Shortly later came all the scary new world order crap from daddy Bush. He first used his presidential privilege to invade Panama to shake off his wimpy image. Then of course came Desert Storm. Still didn’t work!

Presidential pardons should not be allowed in partisan situations, especially when it concerns his own staff. It opens the door to executive lawlessness which is essentially what we have. Bush took it a step further with Libby. He didn’t pardon him but rather commuted his sentence. Had Libby been pardoned he would not have been able to hide behind the 5th amendment. With the commute he can since he’s already been tried and convicted and under the constitution, to do otherwise would be double jeopardy. This in essence works the same way in the ACLU saving Larry Flint from prison. To save free speech for all, they had to save the pornographer. Civil Laws protect everyone, even the bad guys. In these cases it worked for the bad guys. To abandon it one would have to realize it would hurt everyone, even the good guys.

As for treaties, under the constitution all become the law of the land. Bush broke that law when he disregarded the Geneva Conventions and created a new definition for torture. Preemption also breaks these laws, as Bush did(along with congress) when he invaded Iraq.

As for congress having the power to appropriate and only the president having the power to spend or not, congress can simply not appropriate him funding and what he does after that is meaningless. They also have the same veto powers as the president. The problem of course is political. Especially when you’re nearing an election and your opponent is using the fear card as a weapon.

The president does not have the power to legislate. As we see however Bush found a way to skirt around that. Those signing statements take the cake! That is also against the law. What also takes the cake is that all of these are impeachable offenses but the democrats do not have the 2/3’s necessary(or the balls) to throw him out of office. That is shameful to all of the members of congress who fail to do their duty.

Every president has a right to appoint his own staff.  Granted we have secretaries for everything but peace. Kucinich has the right idea. A department for peace.

Supreme Court Justices should be elected, not appointed. Same for attorney generals!

Executive power as is, is unconstitutional and can only be blamed on congress for allowing it to happen. The answer is to vote them out and support representatives who are in favor of overturning these powers and reestablishing democracy.

The US Constitution, like any piece of legislation is not perfect and the people who work under it and who swear to protect it are even less perfect and occasionally downright criminal. Legal bribery is still bribery. Actual campaign finance reform is paramount! All of it boils down to accountability. Now matter where you are and regardless of the nature of the beast, without accountability you essentially have nothing.

That said, calling Jefferson Orwellian, my God! The man is no doubt rolling in his grave along with most of the rest of the forefathers. He’s the author of the Declaration of Independence and leading force behind the Bill of Rights. An intellectual idealist(though not a Mason), he risked being hanged for his efforts and now he’s Orwellian? I think not! Even the king of England called him a red, a subversive. The reason? Because he was fighting against Orwellian authority, the same kind that is once again rearing it’s ugly head under Bush.

Real persuasive post, John Banks.  Expletives strung between disjointed propaganda about “NPR/commies,” “terrorists” and “jihad”, illogically tied to a ‘60s revolutionary who was murdered in Bolivia after his capture by soldiers serving a military dictatorship under the direction of the CIA’s Felix Rodriguez. 

Did you erroneously click on the wrong site?  This isn’t a place for mindless, Rush Limbaugh “ditto heads” or the brainwashed automotons whose minds are locked inside the disinformation bubble erected by the Faux News from Fox.  If you want to have an intellectual discussion at a site called “Truth"-dig, best come armed with facts, knowledge and the ability to string a few sentences together without resort to four-letter words.

Mindless mumblings from hard-right “ditto heads” like you are cast aside by intellectuals posting at Truthdig like so much worthless trash.  Most who take the time to engage in intellectual dialogue at Truthdig are only interested in those who are willing to speak “truth” to power, irrespective of which side of the political ledger they come from.

Surely you must realize, John, that most people will never know how badly uninformed you are until you open your mouth.  Try improving on your third-grade education before you come back for more.

YOU DO NOT CREATE SOMETHING LIKE THIS BY MISTAKE.
WHO DID IT?

Popular myth aside, the 55 delegates who met in Philadelphia from May to September, 1787 were very ordinary self-serving, privileged, property-owning white men. They weren’t extraordinarily learned, profound in their thinking or in any way special. Only 25 attended college (that was pretty rudimentary at the time), and Washington never got beyond the fifth grade.

And rich white men were going to put together a government to guarantee the rabble like Daniel Shays any “rights”. I do not think so. From my experience, that is not the way it works. And, if they had, the resulting government would have been different.....more what we have always thought it was but has never been.

And what is the result? A country that has been involved in a war every year of its existence, most of them to wrest from someone else what they had that the powers here wanted...starting with the slaughter of the native peoples right on up to Iraq. If the people of the USA actually want to slaughter everyone in the world who has anything of value, then we deserve whatever befalls us for we are evil. If, on the other hand, these piles of bodies and looted societies are, in spite of what the population wants, then I rest my case.

-- is commander-in-chief of the military functioning as a virtual dictator in times of war; although Article I, Section 8 grants only Congress that right, the President, in fact, can do it any time he wishes “without consulting anyone” and, of course, has done it many times;

-- can grant commutations or pardons except in cases of impeachment;

-- can make treaties that become the law of the land, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate (not ratification as commonly believed); can also terminate treaties with a mere announcement as George Bush did renouncing the important ABM Treaty with the former Soviet Union; in addition, and with no constitutional sanction, he can rule by decree through executive agreements with foreign governments that in some cases are momentous ones like those made at Yalta and Potsdam near the end of WW II. While short of treaties, they then become the law of the land.

-- can appoint administration officials, diplomats, federal judges with Senate approval, that’s usually routine, or can fill any vacancy through (Senate) recess appointments; can also discharge any appointed executive official other than judges and statutory administrative officials;

-- can veto congressional legislation, and history shows through the book’s publication they’re sustained 96% of the time;

-- while Congress alone has appropriating authority, only the President has the power to release funds for spending by the executive branch or not release them;

-- Presidents also have a huge bureaucracy at their disposal, including powerful officials like the Secretaries of Defense, State, Treasury, and Homeland Security and the Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department;

-- Presidents also command center stage any time they wish. They can request and get national prime time television for any purpose with guaranteed extensive post-appearance coverage promoting his message with nary a disagreement with it on any issue;

-- throughout history, going back to George Washington, Presidents have issued Executive Orders (EOs) although the Constitution “nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a President (the) power (to make) new law” by issuing “one-man, often far-reaching” EOs. However, Presidents have so much power they can do as they wish, only constrained by their own discretion.

-- George Bush also usurped “Unitary Executive” power to brazenly and openly declare what this section highlights - that the law is what he says it is. He proved it in six and a half years of subverting congressional legislation through a record-breaking number of unconstitutional “signing statements.” - They rewrote over 1132 law provisions through 147 separate “statements,” more than all previous Presidents combined. Through this practice, George Bush expanded presidential power well beyond the usual practices recounted above.

-- Presidents are, in fact, empowered to do almost anything not expressively forbidden in the Constitution, and very little is; more importantly, with a little ingenuity and lots of creative chutzpah, the President “can make almost any (constitutional) text mean whatever (he) wants it to mean” so, in fact, his authority is practically absolute or plenary. And the Supreme Court supports this notion as an “inherent power of sovereignty.” If the US has sovereignty, it has all powers therein, and the President, as the sole executive, can exercise them freely without constitutional authorization or restraint.

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson’s Orwellian language meaning property); establishing justice; upholding the rule of law equitably for everyone; promoting the general welfare; or securing the blessings of freedom for “The People” unconsidered, unimportant and ignored by the three branches of government serving monied and property interests only, of which they are a part.

The Executive Branch

Lundberg’s theme is clear and unequivocal. Under US constitutional law, the President is the most powerful political official on earth, bar none under any other system of government. “The office he holds is inherently imperial,” regardless of the occupant or how he governs, and the Constitution confers this on him. Unlike the British model, with the executive as a collectivity, the US system “is absolutely unique, and dangerously vulnerable” with one man in charge fully able to exploit his position. “The American President (stands) midway between a collective executive and an absolute dictator (and in times of war like now) becomes, in fact, quite constitutionally, a full-fledged dictator.” Disturbingly, the public hasn’t a clue about what’s going on.

A single sentence, easily passed over or misunderstood, constitutes the essence of presidential power. It effectively grants the Executive a near-limitless source, only constrained to the degree he chooses. It’s from Article II, Section 1 reading: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Article II, Section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: “The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” without saying Presidents are virtually empowered to make laws as well as execute them even though nothing in the Constitution specifically permits this practice. More on that below.

To understand how the US government works, it’s essential to know what executive power is, in fact, knowing it’s concentrated in the hands of one man for good or ill. Also crucial is how Presidents are elected - “literally (by) electoral (unelected by the public) dummies” in an Electoral College. The scheme is a long-acknowledged constitutional anomaly as these state bodies are able to subvert the popular vote, never meet or consult like the College of Cardinals electing a Pope, and, in effect, reduce and corrupt the process into a shameless farce.

Once elected, it only gets worse because the power of the presidency is awesome and frightening. The nation’s chief executive:

107218 As for the American Revolution, I disagree Miriam. For one thing, our society was essentially created by the new enlightenment, the philosophy of Voltaire and others. It was also developed by the bulk of our forefathers who in fact were free masons. Nowhere in history could you find a society where government was free of religious or monarchical control and all its members were treated as equals under the law. A government of the people and by the people. These ideas are purely masonic. It was the most radical ideology of its day. In fact it is still radical.

Also and although with great effort by Jefferson and others, the articles of confederation were ultimately abandoned and replaced by a constitution with a bill of rights. Arguing over flaws and loopholes might explain why we are in trouble today, but to blame this on the forefathers is simply (at least in my view) unacceptable. Any law written can be twisted to suit a scenario. Bush has found an even better way by simply ignoring them under the so called guidelines in his war on terror. This in itself and among other things, like torture, domestic spying or arrest without judicial oversight is against constitutional law. If the phonies in congress… IE republicans and blue dog democrats did their job, Bush would be impeached by now and constitutional laws reasserted. Is it a perfect system? No! But it is still the best system on this planet when it functions as it was meant to function. It made us the greatest nation on earth and though it has certainly been abused and twisted at times in the course of history(especially now), we are still here and I believe there is still enough good people here to right our course on every level, particularly on our foreign and domestic policies.

As for the other major revolutions, I agree with most of what you’re saying. The causes were quite different, IE… initially the American colonists weren’t for the most part starving to death like their French and Russian counterparts or immersed in a large Imperial war, but rather over taxed, then decided to strike at their golden opportunity. However our victory over the greatest monarchy on earth was no small feat and despite of the elements that granted it success, like an ocean in separation and Britain’s war with France, it proved to anyone on earth that a powerful monarchy could be defeated by a small, determined group of men and a better system could be established. I would argue further that the US Constitution is the most copied and adapted form of legislation in the world.

I’d like to add the likes of Robespierre, who first killed Danton then started executing everyone, created a reign of terror worse than the monarchy! That played a large role in determining its outcome. That and the fluke of Napoleon who at first like Hitler, propelled the French into an age of glory, only to destroy it in the end. I would again argue that today France didn’t turn out all that bad, at least for the French. Yes they made the same mistakes in the past we are now doing, but all in all France saved herself, is democratic and still a world power.

As for Russia, there were many factors involved in undermining them. The infighting which led to the loss of Trotsky was one major blunder. Stalin more than anyone else ruined what was left, though in all fairness it could also be argued that Stalin saved Soviet Russia from Hitler. In a war of annihilation he had little choice. Western containment for 40 years(not Ronald Reagan)took care of the rest. I might point out that the revolution may not yet be over. Most Russians seem to be in favor of returning to socialism and as long as Bush sets up missile defense systems in former Eastern Block countries, pushing us closer and closer to another cold war, who knows?!?

Could it be called a successful workers revolution? No! But it is not a complete failure either. In every case, the story is still being written. Only time will tell.

Are we to assume from his post that Mr Banks is not J.A. Banks the clothier trying to sell us a suit?

...American revolution was nothing more than a minority of the colonists seceding from the British empire planning essentially the same type government repackaged under new management. Using high-minded language in Article I, Section 8 of the supreme law of the land, the founders and their successors ignored the minimum objective all governments are, or should be, entrusted to do - “provide for....(the) general welfare” of their people under a system of constitutional law serving everyone. But that’s not its only flaw build in by design....THIS FROM STEVE LENDEMAN AT http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=6594

French Rev....
The social and psychological burdens of the many wars of the 18th century, which in the era before the dawn of nationalism were exclusively the province of the monarchy. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the monarchy’s military failures and ineptitude, and the lack of social services for war veterans.
A poor economic situation and an unmanageable national debt, both caused and exacerbated by the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation.
The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, which levied a harsh tax on crops known as the dîme. While the dîme lessened the severity of the monarchy’s tax increases, it nonetheless served to worsen the plight of the poorest who faced a daily struggle with malnutrition.
The continued conspicuous consumption of the noble class, especially the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette at Versailles, despite the financial burden on the populace.
High unemployment and high bread prices, causing more money to be spent on food and less in other areas of the economy;
Widespread famine and malnutrition, which increased the likelihood of disease and death, and intentional starvation in the most destitute segments of the population during the months immediately before the Revolution.......Sound familiar?

The Russian Rev started in the 1880s as a class war without center or organization, which left it vunerable to people like Lenin, then Stalin, who never had anything in mind but power,as became evident.

The Cuban Rev, was a class war, but with the added problem of control of the economy from the outside.
Castro may have been young when he carried out the take-over of the government of Cuba, but he was apparently mindful of what had gone before, and tried to keep the same things from happening to the Cuban people. He knew enough to know that the revolution had to be fueled from the bottom up if it was to survive.

So, you see, the seeds were there from the beginning in every case.

107191 Don’t feel bad Miriam. LaRouche is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s a democrat and a virtual presidential candidate. He calls himself the New FDR on the one hand and admires folks like Adolf Hitler on the other.

As for respective revolutions, all of them were different though ironically inspired by the American Revolution. We tend to forget we were the first to successfully remove the yoke of a major monarchy, in fact at the time the world’s greatest power. It is sad that our own politicians have steered us away from this reality, intent instead in making us the very thing we fought against in the first place.

107181 Well I’m no fan of LaRouche. In fact when I quite accidentally stumbled upon him being involved in the 9/11 truth movement, I immediately became suspect. What really triggered me at first was the way some of these “truthers” who act and initially seem like liberals, began attacking good liberal journalists like Amy Goodman or Terkel, Fisk etc, saying they are involved in the conspiracy. That’s what Larouche did to liberal factions in the 70’s with his so called new left. The same kinds of tactics. So I investigated and sure enough LaRouche is entrenched in it along with several associates. Then after digging further came the ties to neo-Nazism and white supremacist groups. Surprise, surprise! Some people believe them because part of what they say is true. Well of course it is! It’s like Cheney quoting Roosevelt. Liars always latch on to elements of the truth to spin their fabrications.

One point in interest are those hi-fivers, two of which turned out to be MOSSAD. It’s reasonable to assume that since they were celebrating, that MOSSAD actually did it. Although I would question the character of anyone who would celebrate such an event(many Palestinians celebrated too) condemning an entire nation on one such incident is what I’d call jumping the gun. It’s like Tenant’s slam dunk and the fabrications linking Hussein to Bin Laden. Also even our own government admits Israel gave us 5 of the 19 conspirators. Israel has already stated publicly it informed us there were 50-200 al Qaeda operatives in this country and an imminent attack was coming, something the CIA denies. But what makes me believe their version is there were many other such warnings, not only from Israel, but Germany, Italy, Interpol, France, Britain and even Russia and from what I saw, Bush and company chose to ignore them. They even tried to suppress investigations until they were forced to do something. Then they set up that Warrenesque style, cherry picked commission where virtually no one was held accountable.

These guys wanted a 9/11. In fact they were praying for it. I think they knew an attack was coming and allowed it to happen. I also think if the opportunity hadn’t arisen they would have pulled off another Bay of Tonkin. But this was by far more subtle and a perfect scenario to establish their Project for a New American Century.

Also why would Israel risk its lucrative partnership with the US? To steal a few more patches of desert land? For oil? For power? Heck Israel already gets that from us and has been getting it from us for decades. Also if they did do it wouldn’t you think a nation that can blow up the surface of the planet several times over couldn’t take out Israel in the blink of an eye? Of course the argument to that would be Israel owns us and controls us. It’s AIPAC, Zionism and Bush is their puppet! Wolfowitz and Bremmer are the Zionists pulling the strings. Well if that’s the case then why is Bush going after animal activist groups instead of these neo-Nazi’s roaming the countryside? They are after all Israel’s greatest enemies.

Thanks Christie and Michael. What I know about LaRouche is only recent and only economic in subject. I remember him as a peripheral character that one heard of once in a while. I lived outside the USA for much of the time of the 70s and 80s so did not know much about what was happening here. It is the internet that has helped me know that my worst fears were always true and that the world I grew up in never existed.

So, now, I must learn about the world I live in with the handicap of having to un-learn lots of plain old crapola and decide how to discriminate.

BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM.....I grew up in a Baptist (fundamentalist) community so must make use of the narrow teachings, but this one is universally true. Look at the results of a policy or an idea, or philosophy and you can track the sowing of the seeds of that result......it is built in. So, when I say that if you compare the resulting societies of the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Cuban Revolution, it is plain that the seeds of the results were different and in at the beginning.

Michael- Anti-fascist is a very good start!

As for LaRouche- oof. I was living in DC for a while and was surprised beyond measure one day to be approached by two African-American young men with his paper. Obviously they had no memory of his inflammatory racist crap from the 1980’s (as I said, they were young). The man is unhinged, but he says some of the right things and people fall in line. I consider him a prime example of why you have to know the history of a movement and the figures therein.

107089 mdruss(Miriam) I understand what you’re saying and I by no means believe everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement are neo-Nazi’s. In fact I even respect some of them, like Howard Zinn for example. But I also believe we need to realize that neo-Nazi’s, Klansmen, racists, holocaust deniers and other extreme right elements are latching onto and exploiting this movement. Frankly I don’t wish to get in a long drawn out episode over this since I had more than my fill already in Robert Fisk’s 9/11 with Caution dig. The fact the website you presented(and you found disturbing) had similar ties however, compelled me to reiterate once again.

As for LaRouche, I lost any faith in him in the 1970’s when he sent out thugs to beat up on other leftist groups(As if he’s a leftist). Smart he may be, but twisted smart and perhaps even downright kooky. He once said the Beatles were a creation of MI-5 and that the Queen of England was the biggest dope dealer in the world. He also said the Brits were trying to assassinate him yet he’s still here after all that time, from the decades ago when he first mentioned it. Like bad weather he remains. He also loved Napoleon. But I digress.

Though MOSSAD, the CIA and neo-Nazies might, on a given day all be lumped into the same basic categ