COMMENTS
new
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 20:18 pm
Good article, but
it lacks acknowledgement of the fact that our elected representatives are the
responsible parties. They have ratified the potential dictator that we elected
(whatever his party). They also have the power to reverse it and don't. They
have neither ethics or responsiblity and we have no recourse. Don't blame
the dictator. He's just doing what he wants and he is allowed to do. Blame
those that enabled him and continue to do so. We are guilty, but the Congress
is responsible.
Tom
_____________________________________________
Answer by R. T.
Nothing would have happened if Congress had not given blank check upon
blank check to the Bush-Cheney administration. And why is Congress behaving
that way? It is because they need the Big Money to finance their political
campaigns and they sell their souls to the same special interests.
new
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 00:24 am
My question to you is who will help the American people
from their own neglect of reason. When the terrorist (Bush False flag) attack
this August and the USA goes into lock down - remove your shoes please - who
will help us? There is a small
underground republican libertarian democrat independent movement but no
revolution in history has had to face this type of advanced technology
before....
I am afraid we are on our own and this will become very
ugly before we have our bill of rights restored.
Dan
Answer by
R. T.:
There are a lot a
good people in the U.S. In fact, it is the majority. Polls show that two thirds
of Americans are appalled by what's going on.
I am afraid the
immediate answer lies in the U.S. Congress and in a genuine free press. Already,
some senior Republican senators (Hagel, Lugar, Domenici, even Warner,...etc.)
are speaking out. Even the New York Times is raising its voice after having
been the tool of official propaganda.
If only the Democrats
under Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi could overcome the paralysis that
their own Neocons impose upon them, Bush II and Cheney would be impeached in a
hurry. Let us hope that thinking and responsible Democrats will prevail and
form a coalition with the enlighthened senators mentioned above. —Things
need not turn for the worse.
new
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007, 21:31 pm
Very good
article, professor. Please allow me to add a few comments, if I may.
Another
very important hallmark of the fascist state is the national embracing of
emotion over reason (a characteristic mostly absent in the communist
dictatorship). This is quite prevalent in the US today.
We
certainly have the imperial model in place, no doubt about it.
But domestic
fascism, which has idealogical roots in the Pope's decree of 1892 as a response
to communism, I don't believe is here yet.
I believe
the domestic model today in the US more closely resembles a conservative authoritarian regime such
as Brazil, or Chile in the 70's and 80's, or perhaps Austria prior to the
Anschluss. Perhaps Spain in the
latter Franco years.
And as
you mentioned, the "legal" structure is in place, but the secret
police are not yet arresting for political reasons on a large scale, such as
after Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, or Franco's declaration of Fascist
Spain.
Mike
_____________________
Answer by
R.T.:
I agree with you that things have not yet
degenerated into a police state. And that is a good reason not to despair.
Hopefully, things are not as bleak as they may look. Sometimes, and hopefully
this will be the case this time, the worst does not happen. Congress, for
example, and that includes leading Republicans, may reign in the Bush-Cheney
administration.
As to fascism, here is how Robert Paxton [in "The Anatomy of Fascism"]
defines it:
1. a sense of overwhelming crisis
beyond reach of traditional solutions;
2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action
without legal or moral limits;
3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the
superiority of his instincts;
4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral
restraint;
5. fear of foreign "contamination."
I let you decide if it applies or not to the present situation.
new
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007, 20:59 pm
What we have is Trotsky's permanent
revolution that never ended. The US has been used as a proxy to continue this
menace. History proves it. Lenin said so himself. It's Jewish Zionism
through and through.
Go back
in history and read Douglas Reed's book entitled "The Controversy of Zion". The so-called Neo-cons are really
Trotskyites, they openly revere his doctrines and so does Kissinger. For God's
sake, the famous Bush saying, "You are either with us or against us" can be found in the Torah
and the Jewish Talmud. ....
Search
your history, you will find these facts. Who do you think is behind this new
merging of our nations to be fused into a union, do you really think there are
fascists behind this stupid mess.
Carmen
_____________________
Answer
by R.T.:
Political
extremisms, either from the far left or from the far right, do touch each other
ideologically: they are both totalitarian and they both aim at concentrating
power in the state.
You are right that
the Neocons around GWB are former Marxist Trotskyists who went straight from
the far left to the far right in becoming Fascist Neocons. They no longer
advocate "proletarian revolution" and "permanent
revolution", but rather "military imperialism" and a state of
permanent war in order to sustain the military-industrial complex.
You can read above Robert Paxton's definition [in "The Anatomy of
Fascism"] of fascism. His definition seems to fit pretty much the
ideological underpinnings of the Neocon Bush-Cheney administration and its
sycophants. The Neocons advocate a succession of wars, foreign conquests,
especially in the Middle East, real or imaginary national threats to keep the
nation in a continuous state of fear, plus a permanent state of anxiety and
patriotic hypertension.
I wrote a few articles about the
Neocons' influence on the Bush-Cheney administration and on the U.S. Congress.
You can check them at:
"The Neocons' Grand
Plan: Oil, Israel, Military Bases" (February
14, 2006)
"The Vast and Messy
Neocon Experiment in Iraq and the Middle East" (June 17, 2007)
new
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 01:11, am
I just
read your article on globalresearch.com. I thought the Presidential
Directive was signed 9 May, not 4 May. Was that a typo?
Sobering
thoughts indeed.
David
_____________________
Answer
by R.T.:
I checked the dates.
It seems that the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security
Presidential Directive HSPD-20) was signed by United States President George W.
Bush on May 4, 2007, but that it was posted on the White House website only on
May 9, 2007, without any further announcement or press briefings.
new
Posted Monday, July 9, 2007, 23:31 pm
"This
is not to deny that we live in dangerous and taxing times, but Americans should pray that no major
catastrophic event occur under George
W. Bush's watch, because all the necessary apparatus has been set
into place to suspend liberties
and freedoms and impose a fascist-like
regime upon the American people when the pretext presents itself. This
is a sobering thought."
An economic
recession can be launched in the US quite rapidly by easing off or stopping
support of the dollar. That could be a trigger given the subprime and
hedgefunds debacle.
I wanted
so much a decent life for my children and grand children, hope is all but gone.
Michel
_______________
Answer by R.T.:
Well,
let's not despair. Things are not as bleak as they may look. Sometimes, and
hopefully this will be the case this time, the worst does not happen. Congress,
for example, and that includes leading Republicans, may reign in the
Bush-Cheney administration. They have already started doing so.
Economically,
I wrote an article last May 7 warning that
interest rates may begin to rise soon to stop the dollar decline. So, I believe
it is time to be prudent.
new
Posted Monday, July 9, 2007, 17: 44 pm
As one
who has seen close to a half century of U.S. insanities, I can tell you that it
is not on the rise, merely out of the closet. The U.S. never was what it has
been portrayed as being. They have always had the best marketing reps the world
has ever seen.
This has
always been their goal: world dominance. Not a bad rise in 231 years.
Dave
Answer
by R. T.:
You
are right, in the sense that since WWII, the need to fight Nazi Germany,
Imperialist Japan and the Communist Soviets put the USA on the side of
international law. However, the McKinley-Teddy Roosevelt administration, at the
turn of the 19th Century, was truly imperialistic (Cuba, Porto Rico, the
Phillippines, Panama, Dominican Republic, etc.). Before that, of course, going
back to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine against Latin America and the following Indian
wars starting earnestly with the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the following
1846-48 Mexican wars, a similar attitude prevailed.
When I
say it is presently on the rise, I mean it is a throwback to previous pre-1945
periods. —Bush II is only a new McKinley.
new
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, 21:04 pm
I thought
you might like to see my article in which I referred to yours. I'll be
getting a new website in a few days, but meanwhile, the article is at:
http://carolynbaker.org/archives/happy-independence-dayyou-have-no-government-by-carolyn-baker
Carolyn
______________
Answer by R. T.:
Congratulations on your article.
Regarding
9/11, I also question the official version of events. However, I am still
searching for hard and direct evidence to complete the picture. I know there
are many theories and some indirect evidence. But I need real and direct
evidence.
Do
you know any such hard evidence?
______________
Answer
by Carolyn:
The very
hardest evidence is Michael Ruppert's CROSSING THE RUBICON and Nafeez Ahmed's
WAR ON FREEDOM followed by WAR ON TRUTH.
Also read
David Ray Griffin's NEW PEARL HARBOR and his book on the 9/11 COMMISSION
REPORT.
What
makes Ruppert's book superb is that he doesn't get caught up in the
circumstantial evidence only but looks at other issues behind the scenes and puts
9/11 in context like no one else has.
new
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, 19:38 pm
J’aime
lire la plupart de vos écrits.
Cependant, croyez-vous sérieusement
que la ‘’vraie’’ attaque sur le World Trade Center a
été planifiée et exécutée par Bin Laden et
ses ‘’punks’’!??
Franchement….
Louis
new
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, 10:00 am
There
seems to be a confusion here between "pre-emptive war" and
"preventive war."
Many
people refer to the US invasions incorrectly as pre-emptive wars. Noam Chomsky,
for one, always argues on the incorrectness of such language. A pre-emptive war
is one launched in anticipation of an attack by a foe. It is nor predicated on
regime change or other rationale. You can check this at Wikipedia.
Kim
_____________________
Answer by R.T.:
In
my book "The New American Empire", pp 138-139, I make the distinction
between a pre-emptive and a preventive war. I agree that Bush's March 20, 2003,
Iraq War was a preventive war, not a pre-emptive war.
However, the Bush
administration, in its September 19, 2002, so-called "Bush Doctrine"
document asserted that they were ready to "act preemptively" ...
"to forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries." Also,
when they raised the issue of the "mushroom cloud", they justified
(wrongly, I agree) their coming war as a pre-emptive one, not only as a
preventive one.
So, in its official
vocabulary, the Bush-Cheney regime has pretended that the Iraq War was a
pre-emptive one.
In fact, in my book, I refered to the 1837 "Caroline Clause"
in international law (pp 142 and 292n) as justifying "pre-emptive"
attacks, but not unprovoked "preventive wars". I still think it is an
important distinction, even if the Bush-Cheney administration does not.
Moreover, the "Caroline Clause" requires a situation of
"imminent" threat, not a vague future threat. Therefore, the Iraq War
does not classify as a "pre-emptive war".
In 1981, under President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. government reaffirmed
the validity of the Caroline Clause in international law that says that no
country can launch an attack against another, merely because it is the
stronger, if it is not in a situation of self-defense. Indeed, when Israel
launched a strike against Iraq's Tamuz 1 reactor, under construction, on June
7,1981, this was an example of an unlawful preventive war. With American
support, Resolution 487 of the U.N. Security Council was adopted unanimously,
on June 19, 1981. It condemned Israel because it considered that its move
endangered peace and was contrary to international law, and was a violation of
the Charter of the United Nations.
The war that GWB initiated on March 20, 2003, was not a pre-emptive
war, but a preventive one, and was therefore illegal.
new
Posted Monday, July 1, 2007, 12:45 pm
Thanks
for the news consolidation--someone had to do it.
It looks
like someone is preparing for a takeover. Who are these people and what is
their agenda,--as it relates to the NWO. Have they attempted this kind of
process before—in other countries, in different time periods?
Who benefits by selling out the USA and who
would do such a thing? What's your position on 9/11 [that's critical] and you
seem to agree that there is fanatical islamic faction that we must recognize.
You make no reference to israel despite this tiny country's considerable
influence on the US.
You seem
to imply that the USA is now a rogue nation which must be undone. Who will
take over in this vaccum?
Check out
the attached movie. It's the best I've seen yet [Christianity, federal reserve,
911, etc.].
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html
Gary
Nota
Bene: For other comments regarding this article, please check the Dissident
Voice site.
(Home: TheNewAmericanEmpire.com)