PDA

View Full Version : People or Sheeple On JFK and 'The Whole Mess'



Peter Lemkin
01-26-2010, 06:47 AM
The People aren't quite as stupid as it sometimes seems....but they are as lazy as they seem. On the 40th Anniversary of President Kennedy's death in 2003, a Gallup Poll verified that twice as many people believed that the CIA was responsible for the assassination as believed that Oswald, a man without a motive, acted alone. So, why is there no movement to deal with this reality [or partial reality, as the CIA, SS, anti-Castro Cubans, CIA-related Mafia, Ultra-Rightists and others involved were only working for the real movers in the assassination/coup]. I must say, I've never been more pessimistic about America as I am today. The author of the Trojan Horse Obama after the mean Bush was as clever as evil. But the Sheeple barely bleat. What's on TV tonight and what's for dinner are the most important questions of the day....while the Nation moves toward a total neo-fascist [corporate/military/oligarchy] controlled prison-nation. Never in my memory have there been more things to protest and act against and never in my memory such a passive populace....beaten-down into submission, apparently. I hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm correct. I plan to go down swinging...but have no sense of a movement. Yes, on this Forum and a few other places on the internet one can find insightful analysis and clear thought...but where is there ACTION?!

Ed Jewett
01-26-2010, 09:31 AM
I share your frustration, concern, angst, anger, and all the rest of it. I've been blogging about it for years as well as trying to talk with others, and the situation is actually getting worse: the totalitarian war-mongers and plutocratic thieves are succeeding at increasing pace, matched only by the speed and depth of the nation's somnambulance. Is it being poorly educated, being poorly informed, being unable to discern, not caring, moral lassitude, or spiritual numbness? Okay, don't answer that. I am quite upset with the nation's people, and don't even talk to me about their leadership. I just happened to be at that point in the Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable" when he wounds me again with the memory and the statement that, while we were in shock that weekend -- me at the age of 15 away at boarding school watching the elders -- and Douglass telling us what we know now -- that the nation's security agencies were busy fashioning the cover-up. The nation was put to sleep. Did the US Air Force dust the atmosphere with propofol? We not only fell asleep for the surgery, it was painless and we forgot that it took place.

Peter Lemkin
01-26-2010, 10:17 AM
I share your frustration, concern, angst, anger, and all the rest of it. I've been blogging about it for years as well as trying to talk with others, and the situation is actually getting worse: the totalitarian war-mongers and plutocratic thieves are succeeding at increasing pace, matched only by the speed and depth of the nation's somnambulance. Is it being poorly educated, being poorly informed, being unable to discern, not caring, moral lassitude, or spiritual numbness? Okay, don't answer that. I am quite upset with the nation's people, and don't even talk to me about their leadership. I just happened to be at that point in the Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable" when he wounds me again with the memory and the statement that, while we were in shock that weekend -- me at the age of 15 away at boarding school watching the elders -- and Douglass telling us what we know now -- that the nation's security agencies were busy fashioning the cover-up. The nation was put to sleep. Did the US Air Force dust the atmosphere with propofol? We not only fell asleep for the surgery, it was painless and we forgot that it took place.

Thanks Ed. I know you 'waz 'juz trying cheer me up. :banghead:
I'm old enough to remember several interlaced social/political movements - and was active in several of them. Today, people seem to feel the best they can do is to do it on the internet. That is certainly our means of getting the message and the truth out. But unless people at some point are willing to get off their asses and away from the screen and keyboard and go out in the streets - to demonstrate; to stage a general strike; to draw a line in the sand; to hammer in their picket-pins and not retreat we don't have a prayer and not much time left, IMO, to hold on to what LITTLE democracy, freedoms and quality (sic) of life we still have. The bad guys have become stronger and more emboldened and are now looking, I believe, at their endgame moves in just a couple of years...the beginnings of that end all too many already feel - and it hurts....and is only going to get a lot uglier and a lot more painful for almost all - everywhere. You would think the Sheeple would wake up....Dallas, OKlahoma City, 9/11, London self-bombings, 1000s of assassinations, covert ops, government takeovers, electronic spying on everyone, war with drugs, war with poor, war against education, war against medical care and just plain endless WARs! Not to leave out torture, mind-control, consumerism as a lifestyle, poisoned food, water, air, soil, ecosphere...and we could go on and on and on and on and on...and I will [later]. We HAVE to build a movement again. I know exactly how they worked to infiltrate and destroy our leaders and our movements in the past. Well forewarned is forearmed and it is our Country. I say, take it back! The FEW who run it as their own fiefdom are the treasonous ones who belong in the dock and then in jail - with the keys thrown away.

"In dictatorships we are more fortunate that you in the West in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and nothing of what we watch on television, because we know its propaganda and lies. We've learned to look behind the propaganda and to read between the lines, and unlike you, we know that the truth is always subversive."-Urbanek
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Burke
"Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will."-Frederick Douglas
"There comes a time, when silence becomes betrayal." -MLK
"Let them hate us, as long as they fear us!" Emperor Calligula
"Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism,"- MLK.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -E. Abbey
"Hope has two beautiful daughters, their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see they do not remain the way they are." -Augustine
"Although tyranny, because it needs no consent, may successfully rule over foreign peoples, it can stay in power only if it destroys, first of all, the national institutions of its own people."-H. Arendt
"Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid. Did you hear that? - stupid." - Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Sec. of Defense for Public Affairs, 1965
"Those who own the country ought to govern it." - John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S., 1787
“Never believe anything until it’s officially denied,” - Claud Cockburn
"History is the lie commonly agreed upon," - Voltaire.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
"It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - H. Ford

Bruce Clemens
01-26-2010, 12:31 PM
There is a loose organization of folks called "Beyond Ballots or Bullets" of which I am one of the first wave of members.

http://freeamerica.ws/BBB1/index.html

I took part in the initial organizational conference some years ago in Utah (as Cato Craft). The upshot of the "group" is to promote education and practical techniques to deal with the next phase of the agenda of those in power, based on Gandhi's and King's non-violence, non-compliance model.

We were unable to get much going at the time, but perhaps things have come to a point where we can now. We need to train leaders all over the country to be ready to take the reigns and organize a confused and fearful populace in a non-violent uprising of resistance.

Politics won't work, and you can't fight an ever more militarized domestic police force with force.

We are in a very critical window of opportunity to develop this infrastructure. Our rights of assembly and relatively free communication are being eroded so quickly that we soon will not be able to organize a resistance. It is critical that we get this going now.

Perhaps we should move this spur over to the activism category and try to flesh things out?

Ed Jewett
01-26-2010, 07:12 PM
These last two posts are the most refreshing things I've seen and read in weeks. Thanks, Bruce, for the BBB link; I will spend devour it shortly and report back when re-arise from its depths. It strikes me as just the kind of thing I've been looking for.

Peter Lemkin
01-26-2010, 08:18 PM
When I say 'take it back'....I don't want what America 'was'; I want what America could be...its promise.....[in all senses of the word]. I want it with the wisdom of the Native Americans and a HUGE apology to them and recognition of the genocide and imperialism, slavery, torture and other horrors we visit[ed] upon them. I want equality and justice and peace and for people to understand [and live] knowing that capitalism is in direct opposition to democracy and a whole new set of paradigms must be set up to replace the old ones that failed [I'm being kind]. I want the beauty of the land and the People to prosper and be happy - not fat zombies believing in the synthetic propaganda, history, values. Real education and extending a friendly and equal hand to all others - be they other humans or other species. Nothing like America ever was - but what it could have been and still [just] can be. If not....it will not be...soon...nor will anything much else be living...and the transition will not be 'pretty'....but it will be poetic justice, perhaps cosmic justice given the way the majority have played ostrich for all too long. An end to the domination model and a change to the cooperation model; ecocentric not anthropocentric thinking and acting; worship of the feminine wisdom that was suppressed and dominated by men [along with the domination of just about everything some 15,000 years ago - read Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade]; an end to wars and conflicts; living as if life mattered - all life; It is not going to be an easy task.......so roll up your sleeves and lets get going....time is short, the task gargantuan, the stakes ultimate. Jensen's ideas of dismantling of the worst of 'civilization' also resonates with me. And if most don't want to follow, I personally want to find some spot to declare free of the other tyrannies, to live out the last few of my years, with a few sane and moral persons. :shakehands:

Ed Jewett
01-26-2010, 08:33 PM
Well, Bruce, I'm far enough into your gift to the conversation to know that I will spend some time listening, to have downloaded that two-page pdf of Sharp's 198 ways (loved the Paul Simon send-up), to have bookmarked the book (and its companions) at Amazon... I will re-visit soon to purchase one or two to begin with ... and to know that, when I am done, I will add the juicy bits to my thread on "Winning The Battle for Hearts and Minds" which has a sub-thread on nonviolence which mentions the gifts of King, Gandhi, Douglass, Sharp et al: http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Unum/index.php?showforum=165 .

So I will continue to built that online library, and I will learn how to use my new handi-cam so maybe I/we can get creative and get something to put up on YouTube.

What I need is perhaps what I have just found, or what you have given me: a way to do something, no matter how ineffective it might be in the early going, just to keep me active, focused, feeling energized and hopeful.

Here's what I'd like to do here, in this thread or on this web site, subject to ... (I do some cross-over posting and communicating to other places):

I'd like to have a conversation about how to find, coalesce and energize others (whether online or face-to-face).

And I'd like to suggest that we go through that list of 198 ways and begin to brainstorm the examples, what's, how's, ideas, etc.

And, of course, I'd like to enlarge this conversation to enroll others ...

Thank you, Bruce. And thank you, Peter. And thank you again, Magda.

:party:

Bruce Clemens
01-27-2010, 01:15 AM
Here's what I'd like to do here, in this thread or on this web site, subject to ... (I do some cross-over posting and communicating to other places):

I'd like to have a conversation about how to find, coalesce and energize others (whether online or face-to-face).

And I'd like to suggest that we go through that list of 198 ways and begin to brainstorm the examples, what's, how's, ideas, etc.

And, of course, I'd like to enlarge this conversation to enroll others ... I am pleased to see this, Ed. It's stuff I have been thinking about for a long time. Here are some points that I think need to be considered before progress can be made on this front:

First, Dr. King and Gandhi, indeed all civil rights and human rights leaders, spoke to a population who knew they were oppressed. Most of the people we will encounter have to learn that they are oppressed, or have to be made to understand that oppression is coming.

That process must be handled carefully. The Powers That Be have been working hard for 40 years to create an illusion that "we are a free people with self determination" who need the "authorities" more and more for the "protection of our liberties." Most people I work with, live with and encounter daily have bought into the line that the things we discuss everyday on this forum and elsewhere just can't be. By the time most people see the truth that was so clearly evident to African Americans in the 60s and to Indians in the 40s we may well have fewer freedoms than King or Gandhi had to work with.

Secondly, the cultural situation in King's case was much different than ours today- King had church congregations and community leaders as a nucleus around which to build a movement. When oppressed people share common social and communication networks, and have a respected leadership structure already in place building a movement can happen relatively quickly and efficiently.

The social framework we have today is much different. If we are going to build a successful movement we will be breaking new ground. We will need, early on, the help of people who know how to fully use today's social media. We'll need cell-phone videos of campaigns on you-tube, we'll need Twitter and viral marketing of the message, etc, etc. Hell, I can hardly use a cell phone. We'll need to be decentralized yet all part of the same philosophy. Sort of like the structure of that famous middle eastern organization I am afraid to mention ;)

Thirdly, and this was the subject of much discussion at BBB, once people understand what the truth is around them and have fully internalized it (how long did that take for you? I spent years before I could really accept it), we then have to convince them that non-violent non-compliance is the only possible strategy. That may be the most difficult part for some people to accept. It takes a long time to accomplish things and the defeats are very difficult to stomach.

Violent confrontation gets people killed needlessly. Militias will become an excuse for the government to simply ratchet up the ante. You can't out gun a multi-trillion dollar military industrial complex that will be turned loose on its citizens. But non-violent non-compliance forces the oppressors to behave outwardly where all can see the oppression. The general population will quickly demonize a tax protester holed up in his house with guns when the government comes to take him out- but they will look on a poor defenseless grandmother who has chained herself to the doors of an IRS office as a moral hero. Especially if they see 6 o'clock news footage of a gov't official abusing her. Is N-V N-C safe? No. Will people get hurt? Yes. But in the long run fewer people will get hurt and the outcome will be more successful than any other approach. That is the message of BBB and the web resources there.

I am glad you are exploring it. There is a lot of information and tips on further research into the tactics that have been successfully used to stand up to repression for a hundred years. We have much work to do. I am glad to see this seems to be giving you some hope and direction. Me too...

Peter Lemkin
01-27-2010, 01:37 PM
Neo-fascism in America
by Jim Macgregor
Information Clearinghouse

Some time ago, The Herald newspaper, Glasgow, Scotland, published a letter in which I criticised the war in Iraq and suggested that the neo-cons in the US were a ruling neo-fascist elite. A trail of letters followed with one correspondent stating that I was making a serious error labeling them neo-fascist. He called them "tragically over-zealous apostles of liberal democracy." Following the lively Herald debate, I was invited by The Surface to contribute this article.
Jim Macgregor

My interest in America began on the day after my 16th birthday; November 22, 1963, when President John F. Kennedy was driven along Dealey Plaza to his death. Within days I watched Lee Harvey Oswald being led out to his execution before the assembled media, and I was completely hooked on American politics. Four decades, thousands of books, and a million conspiracy theories later, we still don't know the truth about those astonishing events in Dallas. Like the all-too-many assassinations played out in front of the rolling cameras, American politics can be difficult to comprehend.
My own comprehension of American politics was helped enormously by a profound little essay, Escaping the Matrix, written by American, Richard K. Moore. [1] Moore, parallels the political situation in America with the Wachowski brothers' film, The Matrix: "The defining dramatic moment in the film occurs just after Morpheus invites Neo to choose between a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill promises 'the truth and nothing more.' Neo takes the red pill and awakes to reality - something utterly different from anything Neo, or the audience, could have expected. What Neo had assumed to be reality turned out to be only a collective illusion, fabricated by the Matrix and fed to a population that is asleep, cocooned in grotesque embryonic pods. In the Matrix world, true reality and perceived reality exist on entirely different planes."
In Moore's Matrix metaphor, doses of 'red pill' allow us to comprehend the true reality of what is happening as opposed to an illusion deliberately created by the wealthy, ruling elite. As Morph tells Neo, "The Matrix is the world that was pulled down over your eyes to hide you from the truth As long as the Matrix exists, humanity cannot be free." Television and radio stations, news channels and most newspapers are owned by the ruling, wealthy elite who control the matrix. They dispense "blue pills" in the form of matrix propaganda, deliberately formulated to conceal the truth. While there are honourable journalistic exceptions, generally we have to look elsewhere for the 'red pill'. Thankfully, it is becoming more readily available and less difficult to find. In this article I will quote from, and refer to, numerous 'red pill' articles and books.
It has personally taken many years of slow awakening from the matrix narcolepsy for me to find an inverted reality where what I thought was the truth was a dream, and what I have awakened to is the reality of a true nightmare. Too many people believe fascism is only about goose-stepping, jack-booted Nazis. Too many people believe that American democracy is so strong that fascists could never take control of America. If you are sympathetic to those views, I invite you to consider the possibility that you are mistaken - invite you to sample a small dose of 'red pill'.
My first dose of 'red pill' came in the early 1970s when I returned from voluntary service in Central Africa. I had worked alongside American Peace Corps volunteers and would sit with them under the beautiful African night sky, discussing that devastated continent and the reasons for the starvation and death that surrounded us there. On my returned from Malawi, I discovered that a number of those supposedly dedicated Peace Corp volunteers were US intelligence agency personnel. What they were doing in Africa was not, in actual reality, delivering American aid or goodwill, but fermenting huge trouble with their clandestine activities. I later read the 'red pill' book, Killing Hope, [2] about US Military and CIA Interventions since WWII and realised it was describing American activities which exhibited the very worst elements of fascism.
Perhaps the only one way to understand fascism in America today is to trace its historical development there over the last century. "History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived. But if we rise up to meet it head-on, then history need not be re-lived. When we as a people fail, or worse yet, refuse to stand up to the injustice of historical past, then that injustice becomes an ever-present constant in our daily lives." - Cia Bannar, film maker and human rights activist.
According to the matrix, powerful men of wealth who controlled America in colonial days, were replaced after the revolution by genuinely democratic representatives of the people. Every American school-child is taught that the fifty five "Founding Fathers" prepared a solid foundation of democracy upon which the Great Republic was built, and that Abraham Lincoln's stirring Gettysburg address on "government of the people, by the people, for the people" meant what it said.
'Red pill' reality is very different, however as Richard K. Moore writes [3]: "The legislatures, unfortunately, mostly appointed their delegates [Founding Fathers] from among their local wealthy elite. The delegates then ensconced themselves in secret session and proceeded to betray the charter under which they had been assembled. They discarded the Articles, and began debating and drafting a wholly new document, one that transferred sovereignty to a relatively strong central government. The delegates reneged on the States that had sent them, and took it upon themselves to speak directly for "We the People". Thus begins the preamble to their Constitution. In effect they accomplished a coup d'etat. They managed to design a system that would enable existing elites to continue to run the affairs of the new nation, as they had before under the Crown, under a Constitution that for all the world seems to embody sound democratic principles. The system was consciously designed to facilitate elite rule and that is how it has functioned ever since."
It was not until 1850 that most white adult males could vote; a time when the ideal of the "poor boy made good" was coming to be seen as the American dream. One such dreamer was John D. Rockefeller, born in the US in 1839, the son of a quack conman who sold expensive "miracle cures" (Seneca oil) to people with cancer. Rockefeller inherited his father's business ethics and became a war profiteer during the Civil War. While hundreds of thousands were dying for their cause, he amassed wealth by selling liquor at vast profit to Federal troops. With the proceeds Rockefeller bought into small oil concerns and by 1870, had enough money to set up the Standard Oil Company.
Over the next thirty years, Rockefeller also bought up railroads and banks and acquired a near monopoly of the US petroleum industry. By the turn of the century, he was counted among the richest men in the world. He financed numerous fine churches and institutions, including the University of Chicago. Matrix perception was of an extremely generous, Christian benefactor and philanthropist, but actual 'red pill' reality was very different. Journalist Ida Tarbell wrote that Rockefeller was involved in many illegal activities and in her book, The History of The Standard Oil Company, published in 1904, [4] exposed how big corporations were controlling the press and government. "Its power [Standard Oil] in state and federal government, in the press, in the college, in the pulpit, is generally recognized."
In the early 20th century, President George W. Bush's great grandfather, Samuel Bush, owned a steel factory producing rail-car parts. His son, Prescot Bush, attended the prestigious Yale University where in his final year in 1917, he was inducted into the secret society known as "The Order of Skull and Bones". To this day a mere fifteen young men of "good birth" are pre-selected each year to Skull and Bones from the entire 11, 250 student population of Yale. Rockefellers were also members of Skull and Bones.
Skull and Bones has its roots in the teachings of German philosopher, George Hegel. The Nazis loved Hegel's philosophy and Hitler used it, along with Nietzsche and others, to begin creating his "New World Order." In the US in the 1920s, Hegelian philosophy was supported by John D. Rockefeller, who funded the notorious Eugenics Records Office, with its idea of mass sterilisation of blacks and other "inferiors" as a means of social control.
Prescot Bush was a member of Skull and Bones with his friend, Roland "Bunny" Harriman, son of the massively wealthy Harriman family. This Harriman - Bush connection is discussed in George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, [5] "The Harrimans would become the sponsors of the Bushes, to lift them onto the stage of world history."
Several years after leaving Yale, Prescot Bush was made director of Harriman's bank; Brown Brothers Harriman. It was the largest private investment bank in the world (the bank's website today boasts reserves of almost $3 billion). In the early 20th century, John D. Rockefeller and his friends, including Harriman, had taken control of American politics and politicians. Using their wealth from banking, oil, railroads and weapons manufacture, Rockefeller and Harriman had politicians in their pocket. They placed individuals such as Samuel Bush in senior government positions, enabling the siphoning off of huge amounts of federal funds.
With World War 1 raging in Europe, large profits were there for the taking. Sam Bush, the rail-car parts manufacturer, with no relevant experience whatsoever in weapons procurement, was made chief of ordnance for the War Industries Board. Bush was handed government control of small arms and ammunition purchasing and liaised with big armaments firms to supply the war effort. Rockefeller owned the Remington Arms Company and received huge government orders from Bush. Remington supplied over half of the ammunition and 69% of the rifles used by the US in World War 1. Tarpley and Chaitkan [5]write: "The US and British arms companies owned by these international financiers, poured out weapons abroad in deals not subject to the scrutiny of any electorate back home. The same gentlemen later supplied weapons and money to Hitler's Nazis."
In 1921, the elite founded the American branch of the Council on Foreign Relations - CFR - an organisation which, to this day, controls the world economy and most of its politics. According to its website, CFR is "A non-partisan center dedicated to a better understanding of the world and the foreign policy choices facing the US and other governments." In 'red pill' reality it is a front for the elite to use their wealth to subvert nation states. In the 1930s they invested in German corporations which began building Hitler's war machine. Walter Lipmann, a young man on President Woodrow Wilson's team was charged with running the CFR. Lipmann, a man of extreme views, spoke of "the rascal multitude" of the people as "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders, a herd which has to be controlled by an intellectual specialist class."
President Wilson also appointed John Edgar Hoover as Assistant Attorney General. Hoover was another man with extreme views and instigated the war on the "red scare" where espionage and sedition acts were used to launch a campaign against radicals and any left wing organizations. Thousands of innocent citizens were arrested and many forcibly shipped to Russia. J. Edgar Hoover was later appointed Director of the national police organization the FBI, and served as such from 1924 until his death in 1972. The US newspaper industry was controlled by the elite and Hoover ensured that the newly emerging radio stations would voice no opinion critical of the government - Hoover controlled the issue of broadcasting licences.
In 1926, Prescot Bush was made vice president of Harriman's Union Banking Corporation of New York. It was becoming a Bush family affair - President of the bank was Bert Walker (George W. Bush's maternal great-grandfather). Union Banking had been set up by Harriman in partnership with the immensely wealthy Thyssen family of Germany. Funds were transferred back and forth to Germany through a Thyssen subsidiary bank in Holland. Fritz Thyssen was the prime sponsor of Adolf Hitler's Nazi movement.
"Hitler who promised a "New World Order" had the backing of banks, industrialists, and transnational corporations, including those controlled or directed by America's leading families, and the father of George H. W. Bush." R. Joseph, America Betrayed [6].
Tapley and Chaitkan write [5], "In May 1933, just after the Hitler regime was consolidated, an agreement was reached in Berlin for the coordination of all Nazi commerce with the USA. The Harriman International Co was to head a syndicate of 150 firms and individuals, to conduct all exports from Hitler Germany to the United States. This pact had been negotiated in Berlin between Hitler's economics minister, Hjalmar Schacht, and John Foster Dulles, international attorney for dozens of Nazi enterprises."
John Foster Dulles and his brother, Allan Dulles, were the lawyers looking after Bush family fortunes and investments in Nazi Germany. John Dulles would later become the US Secretary of State and the great power in the Republican Party of the 1950s. Allen Dulles would become head of the CIA.
Rockefeller's Standard Oil Co. built large oil refineries in Germany for the Nazis and continued to supply them during the Second World War. In October 1942 the Bush banking operations in New York were investigated by the US government under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The capital trading stock of the Union banking Corporation, owned by Prescot Bush, Bunny Harriman and three German Nazi executives, was seized.
A number of prominent and wealthy Americans, including the Bush and Rockefeller families, helped support and build the fascist regimes of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, with nearly 70 percent of the money that flooded into Germany during the 1930s coming from investors in the US. Henry Ford was building cars and trucks in his German factories for Hitler's war effort, while simultaneously making huge fortunes at home in America. Hitler awarded Ford the German Grand Cross for his efforts. IBM was similarly involved.
In the inter-war years the Kennedy clan, another of America's rich elite families, was making huge fortunes on the stock market and through bootlegging. Joseph Kennedy, multi-millionaire father of president to be, John F. Kennedy, was a friend of President Roosevelt and made large contributions to his election funds. Roosevelt appointed Kennedy Ambassador to Britain in early 1938 and while there, he befriended Viscountess Nancy Astor, the Nazi supporter. As fiercely anti-communist as they were anti-Semitic, Astor and Kennedy, like so many of their contemporaries, looked upon Hitler as a possible solution to both these "world problems."
A small cabal of immensely wealthy families, friends and golf acquaintances who had either financed and armed Hitler or otherwise supported his rise to power, would go on to dictate almost every facet of American politics and global economics in the second half of the 20th century.
In 1951, Prescot Bush reclaimed Union Bank from the US Alien Property Custodian and went off to the Senate as the Republican for Connecticut. (He was re-elected in 1956 and again in 1963.) In 1953, Dwight Eisenhower, yet another old friend and favorite golf partner of Prescot Bush, became President and filled his government with Rockefeller men. His first Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles, the Bush family lawyer from the Nazi days. Brother, Allen Dulles, who had legally represented the Nazi Thyssen bank in Holland, was appointed US Intelligence chief in post war Germany. Back in 1937, Dulles had been hired by Prescot Bush to "cloak" his Union Bank accounts. Effectively, any information in post-war Germany regarding Bush and American complicity with the Nazis was now silenced.
Eisenhower's vice president, Richard Nixon, was groomed for Presidency from early days by the elite. In 1950 Nixon chaired the House Un-American activities committee investigating "The Communist threat" in America and with great relish re-commenced the "red scare" witch hunt of earlier years. This witch hunt, where thousands of decent, honest citizens were hounded unmercifully, was enthusiastically continued by Senator Joe McCarthy.
In the election following Eisenhower's two terms, Joe Kennedy's son, John F. Kennedy, defeated Richard Nixon. Kennedy immediately drafted Rockefeller men in to his administration. Dean Rusk, head of the Rockefeller Foundation, was installed as Secretary of State. His vice president, Lyndon Johnson, was a close friend of J. Edgar Hoover.
Kennedy seriously upset plans the elite had to "neutralize" President Castro of Cuba. The elite blamed Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs disaster and told him to "muster his courage" for both a second attempt at invading Cuba, and an escalation in Vietnam. Kennedy appeared reluctant on both counts and fired Allen Dulles director of the CIA and his CIA deputy, Charles Cabell. Cabell's brother, coincidentally, was mayor of Dallas in 1963 when Kennedy was shot. One commentator wrote, "Kennedy was beginning to act like a man who thought he was President of the United States." Lyndon Johnson was sworn in immediately after Kennedy's assassination and, incredible as it now seems, drafted the sacked Allen Dulles onto the controversial Warren Commission to "investigate" Kennedy's assassination.
Johnson served as President until 1969, when Richard Nixon was installed. (JFK's brother, Bobby Kennedy, who had a good chance of taking the Presidency in '69, was also assassinated.)
Five years later, in 1974, Richard Nixon's Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign following trumped up charges allegedly organised by Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller, Governor of New York. (Rockefeller had been "elected" Governor in 1958 and re-elected in '62, '66 and '70. He unsuccessfully sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 1960, '64 and '68.) Nelson Rockefeller's ego was straining the elite's most precious asset of anonymity to its limit. He believed the Presidency should be his and, despite being constantly advised otherwise, made every attempt to get it. Nixon, under pressure to nominate him as his Vice President, refused and chose Gerry Ford instead.
Prescot Bush's son, George W. H. Bush, a Yale Skull and Bones member like his father, was an insider and member of the Nixon administration. Bush, who had his own off-shore oil company in the Gulf of Mexico, was made director of the CIA.
Nixon resigned the Presidency after the Watergate affair blew up. (Numerous commentators now suggest that he had no involvement with the break in at Democratic Party offices and believe that Watergate was nothing more than a contrivance designed by the elite (Rockefeller) to be found and to point the blame at Nixon and bring him down.) Gerald Ford was installed as President of the United States without ever having faced the electorate. He chose Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. Two unelected individuals were now running the country with Rockefeller now a mere heartbeat away from the position he so coveted. During his time as President, Ford survived two assassination attempts.
Throughout the Nixon and Ford presidencies, Henry Kissinger, a Rockefeller man and influential council member of Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations, was in charge of US foreign policy. Kissinger had been on the private payroll of Rockefeller as his personal "foreign policy adviser" for many years.
Jimmy Carter (Democrat) followed Gerald Ford from 1977-81, then Ronald Reagan (Republican) from 1981-89. Prescot Bush's son, George W. H. Bush, a Yale Skull and Bones man, followed Reagan from 1989 until '93.
Bill Clinton, Democrat, followed Bush from 1993 to 2001 and he too filled his cabinet with the elite's place-men. Clinton was taught in the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, by his favorite historian, Professor Carroll Quigley. In 1966, Quigley had written a book [7] on the elite's control of world affairs which had caused them a considerable degree of anxiety. While Quigley's book was entirely sympathetic to their aims of world domination, the elite were extremely upset that it allowed ordinary people a forbidden glimpse of the workings of the matrix:
"The powers of financial capitalism have another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. The system is controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert and by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. I know of the operations of the network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life been close to it and many of its instruments My chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
The elite reacted quickly when the book was published, ensuring it was pulled from the bookshelves nationwide and "recalled faster than exploding Easter bunny" Although it was never published again, second hand copies are available from Amazon.com.
Following two-term Clinton, came the grandson of Prescott Bush (and son of President George H. W. Bush); Skull and Bones member George Walker Bush. Four years later, Bush became a second term president when he defeated Democrat Senator John F. Kerry. Kerry, almost unbelievably, is yet another member of Skull and Bones.
In the US Presidential elections it matters little to the elite if the successful candidate is Democrat or Republican; indeed it is all part of their absurd deception and pretense of democracy since they control both. The deception does not come cheap; during the most recent presidential primary season, $360 million of elite money went to George W. Bush, and $318 million elite money to John Kerry. (Each received a further $74.6 million from the public purse.) A candidate independent of the elite has no chance whatsoever of reaching the White House. Ralph Nader in 2004, for example, had the relatively paltry sum of $4 million dollars to launch and conduct his campaign.
Interesting though the background of each of the individual millionaire US Presidents might be, the real power in America lies with the Rockefeller dynasty and the three organizations it controls: The Council on Foreign Relations, which helped build the Nazi war machine in the 1930s - Chairman emeritus; David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller. The Bilderberg club formed in 1954 - most active member, David Rockefeller.
These three organizations are interlinked and, in 'red pill' reality, work in tandem to achieve world domination by the elite. Members of each have been listed by Robert Gaylon Ross in his book, Who's Who of the Elite [8]. He writes: "They occupy key positions in government, the mass media, financial institutions, multinational corporations, the military, and the national security apparatus." The two families who are really in charge are the Rockefellers and, in the UK and Western Europe, the House of Rothschild. In 1998 Rockefeller was reputedly worth $11.5 trillion and Rothschild over $100 trillion.
The Bilderberg club (named after the hotel in which its first meeting was held) is the high chamber of the high priests of capitalism. Every member pledges absolute secrecy on what has been discussed at annual meetings. The online Asia Times, 2003, provides a very rare glimpse into the Bilderberg club in a column headed "The Masters of the Universe" [9]: "Expert strategists attend to polish and reinforce a virtual consensus; an illusion that globalization, defined under their terms - that what's good for banking and big business is good for everybody else - is inevitable and for the greater good of humankind. Bill Clinton in 1991 and Tony Blair in 1993 were invited to attend and duly 'approved' by the club before they took office.
"The club mingles central bankers, defense experts, press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty and international financiers. Guests this year, along with Rumsfeld and Perle (US Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is also a member) included David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Queen Beatrix, Queen Sofia and King Juan Carlos of Spain. The Bilderberg does not invite - or accept - Asians, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans, or Africans." (Prime Minister Tony Blair attended when Shadow Home Secretary and his close friend, adviser and confidant, Peter Mandelson now attends the Bilderberg club. Mandelson, now Britain's man in Europe, is also a member of Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission.)
David Rockefeller and his long time right hand man, Henry Kissinger, are the major players in this cabal. It has been said of Kissinger that "only the ignoramus and sycophant can glorify this man whose heartlessness and guile wrought terrible agony and human loss in the third world." A small, but typical example of Kissinger's contempt for humanity came when he was Secretary of State in the Ford administration in 1976; a time when the slaughter of so-called Marxists in Argentina, and the erasure of much of Argentina's left, was at its height. Trade union organizers, student activists and their families and sympathizers were systematically tortured and by the end of the dictatorship, about 30,000 people had been disappeared. The US gave both money and high-level political endorsement to the generals in their murderous campaign. Kissinger congratulated the Junta on their "very good results": "Our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old fashioned view that friends ought to be supported The quicker you succeed the better."
In his book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchins [10] has pieced together some of the most odious of Kissinger's actions which "merit the basis of prosecution for crimes against humanity, war crimes and offenses against International Law."
This then, is the man who has had such incredible power and influence in America, indeed the entire world, for the best part of forty years. Perhaps the fact that President George W. Bush appointed him chairman of the commission instructed to investigate the September 11 attacks, tells us something. (Kissinger quickly resigned when he learned it would require giving details of his business connections.)
Today, Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission web pages present the following mission statement on its website [11]: "The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Europe, Japan and North America to help think through the common challenges and leadership responsibility of the democratic industrialized area in the wider world."
Apart from this matrix lie, the website provides some interesting reading and unwittingly gives us a small dose of 'red pill' reality: on the 25th Anniversary meeting on December 1, 1998, tributes and toasts to David Rockefeller were the order of the day. I have edited the worst excesses, but they can be read on the website, if so desired, in their full, sycophantic glory.
George Berthoin, former European Chairman of The Trilateral Commission: "We know, for sure now, that the future will involve more than the three corners of our triangle [North America, Western Europe, Japan]. Technology has abolished time and space as the traditional basis of governance. A new form has to emerge and with more actors. The qualities of innovation we demonstrated for the last twenty-five years are challenged again. The moment is coming when it will be clear to all, in particular to us - friends and members of the Trilateral Commission - that the best, maybe the only way, to defend the interests, traditions, and hopes we cherish will be to place them resolutely within the context offered by the disciplines and opportunities of a genuine world order, genuine because created and recognized by all as fair and legitimate. The first global history of mankind is about to start. A new window is opening. The challenge is clear."
Henry Kissinger: "David [Rockefeller], he is now over 80, has done great things in his life, but he is a little bit naïve. He believes that any good idea can be implemented. And, by God, you have to be a little bit innocent to do great things. Cynics don't build cathedrals. David's function in our society is to recognize great tasks, to overcome the obstacles, to help find and inspire the people to carry them out, and to do it with remarkable delicacy David, I respect you and admire you for what you have done with the Trilateral Commission. You and your family have represented what goes for an aristocracy in our country - a sense of obligation not only to make it materially possible, but to participate yourself in what you have made possible and to infuse it with the enthusiasm, the innocence, and the faith that I identify with you and, if I may say so, with your family. And so I would like to propose a toast that this be preserved to us for a long time."
On a separate occasion, David Rockefeller stated: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government. The super national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
Perhaps the best description of how the elite operate comes from the late Senator Barry Goldwater, Presidential candidate of the Republican Party back in 1964. Senator Goldwater, a close friend of both JFK and Joe McCarthy, was considered a saber rattling, extreme right wing conservative. Following his death, the Washington Post wrote: "Unlike nearly every other politician who ever lived, anywhere in the world, Barry Goldwater always said exactly what was on his mind. He spared his listeners nothing." This eulogy appears to be confirmed in one of Goldwater's books, With no Apologies, [12] in which he presents an astonishingly frank exposé of the unfettered power and aspirations of the elite:
"The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F Byrnes, has been a member of the council. Almost without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. I believe that the Council on Foreign relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy - it's all the same to them.
"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy. There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé.
"Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe, Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.
"Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate in shaping and administering the proposed New World Order The Trilateral organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate - its members selected by Rockefeller, its purpose defined by Rockefeller, its funding supplied by Rockefeller Examination of the membership roster establishes beyond question that all those invited to join were members of the power elite, enlisted with great skill and singleness of purpose from the banking, commercial, political and communications sectors In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.
"The Trilateral Commission even selects and elevates its candidates to positions of political power. David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be an ideal candidate, for example. They helped him to win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency [1977]. To accomplish their purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community - which is subservient to the wealthy of the great tax-free foundations - and the media controllers represented in the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It was no accident that Brzezinski and Rockefeller invited Carter to join the commission in 1973. But they weren't ready to bet all their chips on Carter. They made him a founding member of the commission but to keep their options open they also brought in Walter Mondale and Elliot Richardson, a highly visible Republican member of the Nixon administration, and they looked at other potential nominees."
Goldwater's testimony is all the more astonishing coming from a man with considerable knowledge of the core of the matrix and who was no radical of the left. Goldwater was the only Republican Presidential candidate not to be the CFR choice for the presidential nomination in the last 50 years.
The elite inner-circle members of the Bilderberg club, Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, conspire to politically, and economically, dominate the entire world under their New World Order, or Globalisation as they now prefer to name it.
Since the Second World War, Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations has filled key positions in virtually every administration. Since Eisenhower, every man who has won the nomination for either party (except Goldwater in 1964) has been directly sponsored by Rockefeller's CFR.
Before defining the characteristics of fascism, we should look at the neo-conservatives who run the US government on behalf of the elite. In her book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, [13] Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Calgary, Canada, names current politicians, political advisers, administration and Supreme Court officials, who were followers of the teachings of the fascist Leo Strauss.
Leo Strauss (1899- 1973) was a philosopher at the University of Chicago (built by Rockefeller money) where he taught many of those currently involved in the US administration. Strauss left Nazi Germany in 1934 having been given a Rockefeller Foundation bursary and is considered to be the "fascist godfather" of today's neo-cons.
According to Jeffery Steinberg in Executive Intelligence review [14]: "A review of Leo Strauss' career reveals why the label 'Straussian' carries some very filthy implications. Although nominally a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany (he actually left for a better position abroad, on the warm recommendation of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt), Strauss was an unabashed proponent of the three most notorious shapers of the Nazi philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt. Recent biographies have revealed the depth of Heidegger's enthusiasm for Hitler and Nazism.
"The hallmark of Strauss's approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run by 'philosophers' who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish 'populist' mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude."
Professor Shadia Drury [15] provides a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the neocons "Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States - the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaeda and the Iraq regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz [Straussian] and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
"The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss's disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it. The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine A second fundamental of Strauss's ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons - to spare the people's feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave and the wise few over the vulgar many.
"I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realized in the political life of a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny."
Shadia Drury is by no means alone in her desperate concern. Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois law school writes [16]: "I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago's Political Science Department by Strauss's foremost protégé, co-author, and literary executor Joseph Cropsey. Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago I concur completely with Professor Drury's devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process by Chicago's Straussian cabal.
"Chicago routinely trained me and numerous other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte neo-con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago became the 'brains' behind the Bush Jr. Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1967. Many of his 'lawyers' at the Department of Injustice [sic] are members of the right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, and totalitarian Federalist Society (aka 'Feddies'), which originated in part at the University of Chicago.
"According to his own public estimate and boast before the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush Jr. hired about 20 Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration Just recently the University of Chicago officially celebrated its Bush Jr. Straussian cabal. Only the University of Chicago would have the Orwellian gall to publicly claim that Strauss and Bloom [a Strauss protégé] cared one whit about democracy let alone comprehend the 'ideals of democracy'.
"Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz or totalitarians like Ashcroft! The neo-con cabal, currently ruling America and in charge of pursuing the New World Order agenda is, according to Professors Drury and Boyle, "a tyranny of warmongers and unscrupulous elites from an intellectual and moral cesspool."
What are the implications of this "New World Order", or "Globalization" as it is now called? Richard K. Moore [17] writes: "The course of world events, for the first time in history, is now largely controlled by a centralized global regime. This regime has been consolidating power ever since World War II and is now formalising that power into a collection of centralised institutions and a new system of international 'order'. Top western political leaders are participants in this global regime, and the strong Western nation state is rapidly being dismantled and destabilized. The global regime serves elite corporate interests exclusively. It has no particular regard for human rights, democracy, human welfare, or the health of the environment. The only god of this regime is the god of wealth accumulation.
"In two centuries the Western world has come full circle from tyranny to tyranny. The tyranny of monarchs was overthrown in the Enlightenment and semi-democratic republics were established. Two centuries later those republics are being destabilized and a new tyranny is assuming power - a global tyranny of anonymous corporate elites. This anonymous regime has no qualms about creating poverty, destroying nations, and engaging in genocide.
"Humanity can do better than this - much better - and there is reason to hope that the time is ripe for humanity to bring about fundamental changes We can oust the elites from power and reorganize our economies so that they serve the needs of the people instead of the needs of endless wealth accumulation. This is our Revolutionary Imperative. Not an imperative to violent revolution, but an imperative to do something even more revolutionary - to set humanity on a sane course using peaceful, democratic means."
Bottom line, are the neo-cons driving this agenda neo-fascist? Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, published research on fascism [18] in which he examined the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each fascist State:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarceration of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military are glamorized.
5. Rampant sexism - The government of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are intertwined - Government in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation are often the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated, or are severely restricted.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassinations of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Benito Mussolini - who knew something about fascism - had a more straightforward definition: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Abraham Lincoln stated, "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed."
The small, but ruthless, group of men, the "money power" described by Lincoln, has stolen democracy from the American people. An ever-growing number of informed Americans, however, are fighting a brave, but desperate rear-guard action to retrieve that democracy. Will we give them our total support now, or simply sit back and watch as the entire planet is taken back to the dark ages? "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."
Jim Macgregor is a 57 year old retired doctor. For many years he was a family practitioner and visiting Medical Officer to Glenochil Prison, one of Scotland's high security prisons. Through his prison work, he developed a special interest in miscarriages of justice and is a member of the Miscarriage of Justice Organisation. MOJO (Scotland). You can contact Jim at gairmoj@aol.com
This article was first published at www.surfaceonline.org
References
1 Richard K. Moore, Escaping the Matrix, www.cyberjournal.org
2 William Blum, Killing Hope, US Military & CIA Interventions since World War II, Zed Books, London. www.zedbooks.demon.co.uk
3 Richard K. Moore, Escaping the Matrix - Global Transformation: Why we need it and how we can get it, www.cyberjournal.org
4 Ida Tarbell, The History of the Standard Oil Company, 1904, McClure, Phillips and Co., (out of print). Converted to electronic format by Nalinda Sapukotana, University of Rochester. www.history.rochester.edu/fuel/tarbell/main.htm
5 Webster G. Tarpely & Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorised Biography, (currently in reprint). Electronic format: www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
6 R Joseph, PhD. America Betrayed: Bush, Bin Laden, and 9/11. University Press.
7 Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. Macmillan company 1966. Out of print.
8 Robert Gaylon Ross, Who's who of the Elite: Members of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, Ross International Enterprises.
9 Pepe Escobar, The Roving Eye, Asia Times online, May 22nd 2003 www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html
10 Christopher Hitchins, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Verso press, 2001.
11 Trilateral Commission website, www.trilateral.org
12 Barry Goldwater, The Personal and Political Memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater, New York: Morrow, 1979.
13 Shadia Drury, Professor of Politics, University of Calgary, Leo Strauss and the American Right, May 1999 Isbn; 0333772296.
14 Jeffrey Steinberg, Executive Intelligence Review, March 21, 2003. www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3011profile_strauss.html
15 Shadia Drury, May 2003 interview transcript: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm
16 Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois. 2003 interview, CounterPunch.com, August 2, 2003.
17 Richard K. Moore, www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles.html
18 Dr. Lawrence Britt article in Free Inquiry journal of secular humanist thought http://www.secularhumanism.org

Magda Hassan
01-27-2010, 01:53 PM
The Wobblies or International Workers of the World (One Big Union for All) are always happy to discuss strategies and tactics and they have a very good track record:
http://www.iww.org/organize

Environmental field guide to monkeywrenching here:
http://omnipresence.mahost.org/inttxt.htm

Down load ACT-UP's complete training manual for civil disobedience here:
http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/CDindex.html

The Troublemaker's Teaparty, A Manual for Effective Citizen Action

Lots of good links here too.
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/

Magda Hassan
01-27-2010, 02:04 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Sabcat2.svg/150px-Sabcat2.svg.png
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/01nvc/nvcp08.pdf (http://www.uow.edu.au/%7Ebmartin/pubs/01nvc/nvcp08.pdf)
http://libcom.org/tags/sabotage
http://www.reachoutpub.com/osh/
I'll see if I can find a copy of the CIA sabotage manual.

Bruce Clemens
01-27-2010, 04:41 PM
Neo-fascism in America
by Jim Macgregor
Information Clearinghouse


An excellent read, Peter. Some of this was new to me. It's a great "Brief History" of the red-pill U.S. past.
Thanks!

Peter Lemkin
01-27-2010, 05:28 PM
Neo-fascism in America
by Jim Macgregor
Information Clearinghouse


An excellent read, Peter. Some of this was new to me. It's a great "Brief History" of the red-pill U.S. past.
Thanks!

Welcome [or sorry - don't know which]. Read some of the references. I know even more devastating such articles, but hesitate to post them.....

Ed Jewett
01-27-2010, 06:16 PM
When I say 'take it back'....I don't want what America 'was'; I want what America could be...its promise.........

[and all those things I can endorse...]

It is not going to be an easy task.......so roll up your sleeves and lets get going....time is short, the task gargantuan, the stakes ultimate. Jensen's ideas of dismantling of the worst of 'civilization' also resonates with me. And if most don't want to follow, I personally want to find some spot to declare free of the other tyrannies, to live out the last few of my years, with a few sane and moral persons. :shakehands:




Can't agree more, Peter... And I think that it was that link to/from Jensen that first made me aware of this place... Jensen's ultimate challenge may perhaps be taken as a metaphorical challenge, and somewhere in "Endgame" there is a list of other things people and ought to tbe doing, all of which fall into your list. That's more appealing, and Bruce's commentary is suggestive that organizing [I]nvcd and wokring in soup kitchens and community garden/distribution enterprise may be as revolutionary an act as any (aside from telling the truth). I am especially focused on the human element here.

But I have a question for Peter and about his post, which is this: As good as all that sounds, isn't all that in the 'deep objectives' category?

It seems to me that we have much preliminary work to be done before we can dream of such things becoming reality; we need to learn the tools, build the bridges, fashion the packets of truth to be shipped out, etc.

We need a larger supra-guild of elves, monks, scribes, and others, some to do the research, some to feed the hopper of information to be sifted and sorted, some to re-package or re-write, some to maintain the external distribution system, some to act as hawkers and marketeers, some to function as strategists, and -- of course -- the fiscal and administrative necessities. Maybe that's what we're beginning to do. But we can't all be generalists, moving from function to function; at the risk of generating the same thing we are fighting, maybe we need more functional organization based on interests and skills and quality output. Speaking for myself, I only wish to be harnessed effectively.

Peter Lemkin
01-27-2010, 06:32 PM
When I say 'take it back'....I don't want what America 'was'; I want what America could be...its promise.........

[and all those things I can endorse...]

It is not going to be an easy task.......so roll up your sleeves and lets get going....time is short, the task gargantuan, the stakes ultimate. Jensen's ideas of dismantling of the worst of 'civilization' also resonates with me. And if most don't want to follow, I personally want to find some spot to declare free of the other tyrannies, to live out the last few of my years, with a few sane and moral persons. :shakehands:




Can't agree more, Peter... And I think that it was that link to/from Jensen that first made me aware of this place... Jensen's ultimate challenge may perhaps be taken as a metaphorical challenge, and somewhere in "Endgame" there is a list of other things people and ought to tbe doing, all of which fall into your list. That's more appealing, and Bruce's commentary is suggestive that organizing [I]nvcd and wokring in soup kitchens and community garden/distribution enterprise may be as revolutionary an act as any (aside from telling the truth). I am especially focused on the human element here.

But I have a question for Peter and about his post, which is this: As good as all that sounds, isn't all that in the 'deep objectives' category?

It seems to me that we have much preliminary work to be done before we can dream of such things becoming reality; we need to learn the tools, build the bridges, fashion the packets of truth to be shipped out, etc.

We need a larger supra-guild of elves, monks, scribes, and others, some to do the research, some to feed the hopper of information to be sifted and sorted, some to re-package or re-write, some to maintain the external distribution system, some to act as hawkers and marketeers, some to function as strategists, and -- of course -- the fiscal and administrative necessities. Maybe that's what we're beginning to do. But we can't all be generalists, moving from function to function; at the risk of generating the same thing we are fighting, maybe we need more functional organization based on interests and skills and quality output. Speaking for myself, I only wish to be harnessed effectively.

I have no idea of your age or your experiences. You are aware, whatever they are. Jensen, as I said before, is a friend of mind and someone I admire greatly. A focus on humans is important, but it is not the broader spectrum needed. The enemy is entirely human, however. As to all the pre-preparation you seem to speak of...I can only remember the chaos and seamless flow of the '60s and '70s movements......where people grew decades in a day - with an epiphany of a talk, touch, gesture, kindness. heart-felt kindness and so many other things. I think 1] we don't have the luxury of the time for all this nice preparation and 2] don't need it. In a revolution, things just happen and they happen at a more rapid rate that at normal times. We desperately need a revolution of immense proportions and one that completely obliterates the old paradigms and finds new ones [really the old ones] again. I have to say for the NSA monitoring this that I believe the 'revolution' must be peaceful, but I also believe that. I am totally against violence and it is our enemies, our Nation, our Oligarchy, our corporations and our system that worship and practice violence - physical, economic, moral, political, class, sex, race, speciest, and warfare for profit and empire. Basta! We end that - or it ends all of us. That simple.

Ed Jewett
01-27-2010, 06:37 PM
Here's what I'd like to do here, in this thread or on this web site, subject to ... (I do some cross-over posting and communicating to other places):

I'd like to have a conversation about how to find, coalesce and energize others (whether online or face-to-face).

And I'd like to suggest that we go through that list of 198 ways and begin to brainstorm the examples, what's, how's, ideas, etc.

And, of course, I'd like to enlarge this conversation to enroll others ...

I am pleased to see this, Ed. It's stuff I have been thinking about for a long time. Here are some points that I think need to be considered before progress can be made on this front:

First, Dr. King and Gandhi, indeed all civil rights and human rights leaders, spoke to a population who knew they were oppressed. Most of the people we will encounter have to learn that they are oppressed, or have to be made to understand that oppression is coming.


I will have to return to this post and this thread regularly but, for now, let me zero in on the comment quoted above; I think it is the very tip of our spear, the task that most needs our attention -- but then this feeds into the comments previous about guild et alia because the efforts of the people like Douglass, Drago and his mentor, Jack White, the founders of DPF et al -- the list is long so forgive me for leaving out names -- is the sine qua non. Wondering what happened in Dealey Plaza is what started most of us down this road, and the research into deep politics, current events et al.

I am also going to note your comment about tweeting on twitter and the use of social media. I have been concerned about that kind of stuff, having read about how it is both monitored and used (and therefore, almost by definition if not in fact) corrupted by the state security apparatus and the purveyors of yuck.

in addition, it takes time. But I also read John Robb's blog GlobalGuerrillas regularly to learn more about tactics in our day and age. Robb's commentary on "the super-empowered individual" may be useful to those active in non-violent movements as well. I do now have a cell phone with camera capability, though I don't tend to find myself (yet) on the scene of action that would need to be recorded. I can't afford an iPhone or a Blackberry. I also take note of the arrest of those at the G20 behind-the-scenes who were using such technologies. But we must learn to use their tools against them, I guess, and labor on with the sure knowledge that we may be called on to pay a price (the message of Douglass' books).

Here's a side note, though: Given Cass Sunstein's recent pronouncements about taxing and/or banning certain thouights and projections, the founders here at DPF ought to provide some clear direction on where this conversation should take place, if it should at all under their aegis, and -- if so -- where.

Peter Lemkin
01-27-2010, 07:11 PM
While real face-to-face meetings/discussions will NEVER replace the internet, I think given current technology and the 'diaspora' , we can create pseudo groups via webcameras and the right software that can make it feel as if all in separate locations can see and speak with one another in real time. This is SO much more important than just text on a screen for social action. Of course, now, all is monitored - especially something of political import and potential. **** 'em! If you won't take the risk, stay in bed and we'll start the Revolution without you. The journey of a thousand miles/kilometers starts with a single step...and don't forget, they wouldn't spy on us if the weren't AFRAID of us....so we start out with the advantage....morality/legally/constitutionality/humanity/truth [and even THEY know that] is on our side...and that is exactly why they fear us. [Their greatest vulnerability is that they know they are liars, cheats, thugs, murderers, usurers, propagandists, slavers, extortionists, exploiters, out-of-touch with Nature and Natural values and philosophy - even their own religions]. Only by keeping most from being aware of this, using coercion, force, thuggery, propaganda, lies, false-values, etc. as well as other [I]negative actions, can they temporarily maintain their physical/financial/political/military (never moral) advantage. Never forget this! :ridinghorse:

Ed Jewett
01-27-2010, 09:25 PM
Peter, it doesn't matter what my age or experience is -- though I'll provide a brief explanation below. Personally, I am not afraid. I've already lived fullly, loved much, been loved, and more. Jensen is not my friend, though I've corresponded, so much as he is my educator, a provocateur of my mind and heart, a teacher, a fellow being. He -- and, I am guessing, you -- correctly point to the larger vessel of life. I am an exile right here where I am. I agree with the need for speed and urgency, and the need to socially connect despite surveillance -- I raised the point because some get scared away from even dialoguing with anyone who will get their name listed as having peaked at a web site or e-mailed someone who -- gasp! -- thinks and feels.

My story is to some extent available on my blog, or elsewhere... I am 60, have two kids and two grandchildren, roomed with a CO* and SDS member while I was enrolled in state university ROTC Special Forces unit (talk about an awakening!), spent my life in the field of EMS (focused on saving lives), have assembled a library on mind/body/spirit empowerment, am an ecumenical who is a baptized Presbyterian, raised Methodist/Congregational, lapsed away from it all, and gravitates back and forth between the Gospel according to Thomas, Taoism, Buddhism, native American sources, and jazz. I have had two major specific and memorable 'peak experiences' and a few minor ones that showed me -- without ingestible impetus -- the mysterium tremendum. You rightly called them epiphanies; I've studied Ken Ravizza.

I died once, briefly [phew!], during a chemical stress test, and hovered near death post-op open heart for days, and then got up -- very slowly -- over a period of months to recover from a peri-operative complex multiplex mostly-motor, mostly-left-sided stroke. So some state security boogeymen don't particular frighten me.

I don't have much time left myself -- that's not grim, just reality -- my docs tell me I'm good for another 12-15 years easy... but I want those remaining years to have been well and fully invested in support of my grandkids' possibilities. I think our greater task is to insure that time capsules that insulate the future against such depradation and degradation are buried where they can easily be found -- in the hearts and minds of the youth of the world.

* I named my first-born after him, and his first-born will carry the name as a middle name.

Bruce Clemens
01-27-2010, 09:50 PM
One form of activism that is safe and relatively easy to sell is the concept of serving on juries...and hanging trials when a defendant is on trial unjustly. All it takes is one juror to not agree, and be steadfast, and they can't convict.

A person can make a hobby of getting on juries in trials where the State is prosecuting (persecuting?) an individual for a "crime" that has no victim and has harmed no one. Heaven knows we have plenty of those kinds of trials these days, and they will increase as the War on (people who choose to use) Drugs and the "War on Terrorism" continue to escalate.

http://fija.org/

Ed Jewett
01-28-2010, 12:01 AM
"Another even colder hour on the street corners yesterday, and I have a relatively new thought: organizing is a shade different from protesting.
Maybe it's because I have a union organizer in my new novel, who can't understand why protesters meekly submit to arrest. His motto is "cut and run to fight another day. There was a time when protesters wore jail time like a feather in their hat. They quit that after a while and settled on solidarity, a more social goal."

~~


"I overstep to the extent that I often suggest to the person I'm conversing with to "Join us." Some offer excuses, some say they're thinking about it. The prize remark was from a black woman who asked why we were just standing around with posters. I tried to respond, asked her to join us, make a difference. She refused and went away. She wanted more action, fewer words on plain white poster paper.

That might have been the moment when I saw us protesters in a slightly different light. One of us always has a fistful of little folders stating the Veterans for Peace point of view. He's an organizer. A surprising number of pedestrians we talk to are veterans. Usually they accept the leaflets. Some like to talk, some don't. Regardless, it is up to us to be friendly, even when under verbal fire, able to listen carefully and also pitch our own point of view. It all depends on what we hear the other person say. That's organizing. Protesting is putting you body where your mouth is and that is honorable and necessary. But listening and then replying is something to be learned and learned again. That's organizing."


Excerpts from "Protests And Organizing" by Martin Murie (http://swans.com/library/art16/murie86.html#author)


http://swans.com/library/art16/murie86.html
(http://swans.com/library/art16/murie86.html#author)

Ed Jewett
01-29-2010, 03:04 AM
Well, folks, I'm working through this stuff slowly, and it's delicious.

I want to thank Peter for that James Macgregor bit which is juicy, agreeable, and eminently useful when broken into chunks and dropped into discussion threads. Magda, I haven't even gotten to your stuff yet, but I promise I will. Right now, I'm still working through the "198", and I will have to do the listening at a time when audio playback conditions in my domestic arena are more suitable.

Here's a quick question for Bruce: Are all those Force More Powerful books, DVD's and PC games still available? Those tools look mighty intriguing, being an old game-player and game-designer myself. I sense what you were talking about in terms of their potential as group training tools, certainly in a face-to-face setting or a seminar/colloquium but perhaps even online.

I'd like to spend some time talking about this in depth: "Most of the people we will encounter have to learn that they are oppressed, or have to be made to understand that oppression is coming." How? Where? With what tools (written, videos, audio, podcasts, pre-packaged documentaries -- there's a good library here -- )? Some of this is obvious: I guess what I'm asking for is some better understanding of how to approach and enroll someone into that discussion when they clearly are disinterested, unmotivated, zoned out, comfortable amongst the herd, or -- egads! -- involved or complicit. Well, those last ones are hopeless. If we are the wolves, how do we identify those lambs who are open to learning more? How do and where do we drop hints, tags, leaflets, or whatever?

Okay, so moving on... What struck me from within the list of "the 198" that we could work on easily even in a displaced global asynchronous discussion is the development of slogans, caricatures and symbols. How and where they would be used in fairly obvious, but "coining" a powerful phrase can work. Some call it memetic engineering. I'd rather focus on giving someone a good transformative or eye-opening experience; perhaps that's what those Force More Powerful tools do.

Street and guerrilla theater (43 and 178) always appealed to me as being effective. The use of swarming, particularly for items 144, 1622 ff, 175-176 seem to be pretty powerful if well-aimed. Social non-cooperation, withdrawal, renunciation and withholding allegiance are where some are now, but we need to sell more of it.

We clearly have some people who can and like to write, so perhaps we ought to fashion some plays, scripts or videos of mock trials or reverse trials, something easily done in an asynchronous digital world.

I'd envisioned briefly a Post-It notes campaign since apparently the FBI has been ordering up surveillance of journalists with Post-It note requests; maybe we ought to devise a Post-It note campaign to ask for what we want.

The delivery of symbolic objects seems to offer up a lot of promise; someone has already envisioned a campaign involving children, diapers and the Pentagon; it'd probably be more legal if the diapers weren't pre-loaded.

On that note, I'll leave you with these two quotes that have been sitting on my desk, written down from a source at least momentarily forgotten, although my brain is telling me it's connected to a movie made in the Derrick Jensen milieu....

"We've been too busy pretending that the system will willingly undergo some kind of magical transformation....

The task of the activist is not to navigate the systems of power with as much personal integrity as possible; the task is to dismantle the system."

Or at least slow it down and make it think and feel and acknowledge humanity, soul, sanity et al.

More later...

Peter Lemkin
01-29-2010, 06:36 AM
One form of activism that is safe and relatively easy to sell is the concept of serving on juries...and hanging trials when a defendant is on trial unjustly. All it takes is one juror to not agree, and be steadfast, and they can't convict.

A person can make a hobby of getting on juries in trials where the State is prosecuting (persecuting?) an individual for a "crime" that has no victim and has harmed no one. Heaven knows we have plenty of those kinds of trials these days, and they will increase as the War on (people who choose to use) Drugs and the "War on Terrorism" continue to escalate.

http://fija.org/

I lived most of my life back in the good 'ol US of A and never once got called for jury duty. Had I been [there is a certain control mechanism used, however, which filtered me out], I'd likely have be challenged and excused as biased, due to my beliefs and/or political work. That said, it is possible for those without a progressive 'past' - only a progressive 'heart' to make it into juries and there do some good.

Peter Lemkin
01-29-2010, 08:06 AM
Well, folks, I'm working through this stuff slowly, and it's delicious.

I want to thank Peter for that James Macgregor bit which is juicy, agreeable, and eminently useful when broken into chunks and dropped into discussion threads. Magda, I haven't even gotten to your stuff yet, but I promise I will. Right now, I'm still working through the "198", and I will have to do the listening at a time when audio playback conditions in my domestic arena are more suitable.

Here's a quick question for Bruce: Are all those Force More Powerful books, DVD's and PC games still available? Those tools look mighty intriguing, being an old game-player and game-designer myself. I sense what you were talking about in terms of their potential as group training tools, certainly in a face-to-face setting or a seminar/colloquium but perhaps even online.

I'd like to spend some time talking about this in depth: "Most of the people we will encounter have to learn that they are oppressed, or have to be made to understand that oppression is coming." How? Where? With what tools (written, videos, audio, podcasts, pre-packaged documentaries -- there's a good library here -- )? Some of this is obvious: I guess what I'm asking for is some better understanding of how to approach and enroll someone into that discussion when they clearly are disinterested, unmotivated, zoned out, comfortable amongst the herd, or -- egads! -- involved or complicit. Well, those last ones are hopeless. If we are the wolves, how do we identify those lambs who are open to learning more? How do and where do we drop hints, tags, leaflets, or whatever?

Okay, so moving on... What struck me from within the list of "the 198" that we could work on easily even in a displaced global asynchronous discussion is the development of slogans, caricatures and symbols. How and where they would be used in fairly obvious, but "coining" a powerful phrase can work. Some call it memetic engineering. I'd rather focus on giving someone a good transformative or eye-opening experience; perhaps that's what those Force More Powerful tools do.

Street and guerrilla theater (43 and 178) always appealed to me as being effective. The use of swarming, particularly for items 144, 1622 ff, 175-176 seem to be pretty powerful if well-aimed. Social non-cooperation, withdrawal, renunciation and withholding allegiance are where some are now, but we need to sell more of it.

We clearly have some people who can and like to write, so perhaps we ought to fashion some plays, scripts or videos of mock trials or reverse trials, something easily done in an asynchronous digital world.

I'd envisioned briefly a Post-It notes campaign since apparently the FBI has been ordering up surveillance of journalists with Post-It note requests; maybe we ought to devise a Post-It note campaign to ask for what we want.

The delivery of symbolic objects seems to offer up a lot of promise; someone has already envisioned a campaign involving children, diapers and the Pentagon; it'd probably be more legal if the diapers weren't pre-loaded.

On that note, I'll leave you with these two quotes that have been sitting on my desk, written down from a source at least momentarily forgotten, although my brain is telling me it's connected to a movie made in the Derrick Jensen milieu....

"We've been too busy pretending that the system will willingly undergo some kind of magical transformation....

The task of the activist is not to navigate the systems of power with as much personal integrity as possible; the task is to dismantle the system."

Or at least slow it down and make it think and feel and acknowledge humanity, soul, sanity et al.

More later...


I think the two persons who have guided me most in how to form a movement are Martin Luther King Jr. and Howard Zinn. There have been others, but listen to the talks of these two men and you will soon see how it can be done. It doesn't take long.

No, you are correct, the 'system' will never correct itself.....in its own mind it is exactly where it wants to be and intends to stay there - and in control. Any changes it makes from here on out will only be to the right and with more control, less freedom, more serfdom, etc.

What is amazing to me is that all the information needed to make an informed and 'aha' picture of what has really been happening and is happening now is in books and on the internet. More than can be read - yet most don't find it or can't trust themselves to decide if it is worthy of consideration [of course there are also much propaganda for the system and just pain insane websites and books too]. People have lost the ability to IMO think 'naturally', along the lines of natural philosophy, the wisdom that has guided all good peoples for tens of thousands of years - no hundreds of thousands. They mostly have become sheep, trusting in those who guide them this way and that, or fearful to think or act for themselves. They don't want trouble and they don't want to make waves....while they are dealt more trouble than they can take and nearly drowning in other's 'waves'.

It takes some anger at the injustice and then funneling it in productive ways. I think that kind of righteous anger is infective and spreads naturally. It did in all the great movements the People have won. But the Oligarchy always kills the leaders, infiltrates the groups and tries to co-opt them to make them powerless, or gives some concessions - only to withdraw them over some fake emergency imperative (war, terrorism, drugs, criminality...etc.).

We BEAT them over Vietnam. The Civil Rights Movement WON a lot of turf. Once Unions had made some progress. And on and on...but now there is a period I feel they [THEY] are taking it all back....what few concessions they were forced into are all to disappear soon - most have already been. Yet the average sheeple doesn't notice...or do they?....I think they do!...yet they are misdirected as by a magician to blame the wrong source of their problems. Its the terrorists. Its the inner city drug addicts. NO! Its the bankers and the policy makers, the engines of war and hate, and the destruction built into the system and the big corporations! In America, people are even taught to blame themselves. (If you're not rich and happy - it is your own damn fault!)

We are, IMO, at a turning point in history. Not the first, but perhaps nearly the last if we don't make the correct choices.

As to Macgregor's article, I think it has much merit, but he oversimplifies a bit and leaves out some of the forces and players - but it is only a short piece and generally is good for a wake-up call. Read Zinn. Read Bill Blum. Look at that list of traits of fascist nations and tell me it doesn't start to look like things today. Read Klein's End of America. Read Jensen. Listen to MLK.

Peter Lemkin
01-29-2010, 08:14 AM
HOWARD ZINN: Well, we thought bombing missions were over. The war was about to come to an end. This was in April of 1945, and remember the war ended in early May 1945. This was a few weeks before the war was going to be over, and everybody knew it was going to be over, and our armies were past France into Germany, but there was a little pocket of German soldiers hanging around this little town of Royan on the Atlantic coast of France, and the Air Force decided to bomb them. Twelve hundred heavy bombers, and I was in one of them, flew over this little town of Royan and dropped napalm—first use of napalm in the European theater.

And we don’t know how many people were killed or how many people were terribly burned as a result of what we did. But I did it like most soldiers do, unthinkingly, mechanically, thinking we’re on the right side, they’re on the wrong side, and therefore we can do whatever we want, and it’s OK. And only afterward, only really after the war when I was reading about Hiroshima from John Hersey and reading the stories of the survivors of Hiroshima and what they went through, only then did I begin to think about the human effects of bombing. Only then did I begin to think about what it meant to human beings on the ground when bombs were dropped on them, because as a bombardier, I was flying at 30,000 feet, six miles high, couldn’t hear screams, couldn’t see blood. And this is modern warfare.

In modern warfare, soldiers fire, they drop bombs, and they have no notion, really, of what is happening to the human beings that they’re firing on. Everything is done at a distance. This enables terrible atrocities to take place. And I think, reflecting back on that bombing raid and thinking of that in Hiroshima and all the other raids on civilian cities and the killing of huge numbers of civilians in German and Japanese cities, the killing of 100,000 people in Tokyo in one night of fire-bombing, all of that made me realize war, even so-called good wars against fascism like World War II, wars don’t solve any fundamental problems, and they always poison everybody on both sides. They poison the minds and souls of everybody on both sides. We’re seeing that now in Iraq, where the minds of our soldiers are being poisoned by being an occupying army in a land where they are not wanted. And the results are terrible.

HOWARD ZINN: No matter what we’re told, no matter what tyrant exists, what border has been crossed, what aggression has taken place, it’s not that we’re going to be passive in the face of tyranny or aggression, no, but we’ll find ways other than war to deal with whatever problems we have, because war is inevitably—inevitably—the indiscriminant massive killing of huge numbers of people. And children are a good part of those people. Every war is a war against children.

So it’s not just getting rid of Saddam Hussein, if we think about it. Well, we got rid of Saddam Hussein. In the course of it, we killed huge numbers of people who had been victims of Saddam Hussein. When you fight a war against a tyrant, who do you kill? You kill the victims of the tyrant. Anyway, all this—all this was simply to make us think again about war and to think, you know, we’re at war now, right? In Iraq, in Afghanistan and sort of in Pakistan, since we’re sending rockets over there and killing innocent people in Pakistan. And so, we should not accept that.


We should look for a peace movement to join. Really, look for some peace organization to join. It will look small at first, and pitiful and helpless, but that’s how movements start. That’s how the movement against the Vietnam War started. It started with handfuls of people who thought they were helpless, thought they were powerless. But remember, this power of the people on top depends on the obedience of the people below. When people stop obeying, they have no power. When workers go on strike, huge corporations lose their power. When consumers boycott, huge business establishments have to give in. When soldiers refuse to fight, as so many soldiers did in Vietnam, so many deserters, so many fraggings, acts of violence by enlisted men against officers in Vietnam, B-52 pilots refusing to fly bombing missions anymore, war can’t go on. When enough soldiers refuse, the government has to decide we can’t continue. So, yes, people have the power. If they begin to organize, if they protest, if they create a strong enough movement, they can change things. That’s all I want to say. Thank you.

A lot of people are troubled by civil disobedience. As soon as you talk about committing civil disobedience, they get a little upset. That’s exactly the purpose of civil disobedience: to upset people, to trouble them, to disturb them. We who commit civil disobedience are disturbed, too, and we mean to disturb those who are in charge of the war.

Yeah, it’s true that people have asked that question again and again. You know, should we tell kids that Columbus, whom they have been told was a great hero, that Columbus mutilated Indians and kidnapped them and killed them in pursuit of gold? Should we tell people that Theodore Roosevelt, who is held up as one of our great presidents, was really a warmonger who loved military exploits and who congratulated an American general who committed a massacre in the Philippines? Should we tell young people that?


And I think the answer is: we should be honest with young people; we should not deceive them. We should be honest about the history of our country. And we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes.


Instead of Theodore Roosevelt, tell them about Mark Twain. Mark Twain—well, Mark Twain, everybody learns about as the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, but when we go to school, we don’t learn about Mark Twain as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League. We aren’t told that Mark Twain denounced Theodore Roosevelt for approving this massacre in the Philippines. No.


We want to give young people ideal figures like Helen Keller. And I remember learning about Helen Keller. Everybody learns about Helen Keller, you know, a disabled person who overcame her handicaps and became famous. But people don’t learn in school and young people don’t learn in school what we want them to learn when we do books like A Young People’s History of the United States, that Helen Keller was a socialist. She was a labor organizer. She refused to cross a picket line that was picketing a theater showing a play about her.


And so, there are these alternate heroes in American history. There’s Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses. They’re the heroes of the civil rights movement. There are a lot of people who are obscure, who are not known. We have in this Young People’s History, we have a young hero who was sitting on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to leave the front of the bus. And that was before Rosa Parks. I mean, Rosa Parks is justifiably famous for refusing to leave her seat, and she got arrested, and that was the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and really the beginning of a great movement in the South. But this fifteen-year-old girl did it first. And so, we have a lot of—we are trying to bring a lot of these obscure people back into the forefront of our attention and inspire young people to say, “This is the way to live.”
--------------------------
"Beyond Vietnam"
Address delivered to the Clergy and Laymen
Concerned about Vietnam, at Riverside Church
4 April 1967
New York City





Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it's always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit.

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement, and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people?" they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, "What about Vietnam?" They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read "Vietnam." It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that "America will be" are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954.* And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances.

But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men -- for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

Finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. Because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 -- in 1945 rather -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of a new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.

Unquote.

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement. [sustained applause]

Part of our ongoing [applause continues], part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary. Meanwhile [applause], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. [sustained applause] I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. [applause] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. [applause] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [applause], and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. [sustained applause] So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." [applause] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained applause]

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [applause] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy [applause], realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low [Audience:] (Yes); the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I'm not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word." Unquote.

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message -- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:
Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever `twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet `tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. [sustained applause]

*King says "1954," but most likely means 1964, the year he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Peter Lemkin
01-29-2010, 08:33 AM
I'm quite sure MLK signed his own death warrant with the love and truth in the speech above. It was the one move too far for the Oligarchy and their profits from war and hate. They killed the dreamer. But not the Dream. Dream.

Bruce Clemens
01-29-2010, 03:22 PM
Are all those Force More Powerful books, DVD's and PC games still available? Those tools look mighty intriguing, being an old game-player and game-designer myself. I sense what you were talking about in terms of their potential as group training tools, certainly in a face-to-face setting or a seminar/colloquium but perhaps even online.

Yes.

http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/images/game170.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/ (http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/images/game170.jpg)

The game is very good, especially for being at this point somewhat dated. Unfortunately it is highly cerebrial, a very good simulation of how activist operations under a tyrannical regime can be done and the challenges they face. It has little visual action. It is definately not a first-person-shooter type game and therefore has, in my opinion, little appeal to someone who isn't actively using it to train themselves.

However to an organized group willing to put in the time the game is a valuable tool of training.

What would be much better, in my opinion, to attract newcomers to the cause would be rich on-line environment like Second-Life where people can adopt avatars and interact with others in real time, using a USA of 2030 (complete with everything we envision it to be) as a basis in which to survive. The game would require a successful player to overcome the tyranny using similar tools and techniques taught in A Force More Powerful and could also include the same hints of truth about all the things we deal with every day on this forum. Peter's "red-pill truth" would slowly be unveiled to the participant over time.

Wish I had the money and connections to develop something like that.

The other items at the web site are also excellent, especially the documentaries.

Bruce Clemens
01-29-2010, 03:59 PM
I'd like to spend some time talking about this in depth: "Most of the people we will encounter have to learn that they are oppressed, or have to be made to understand that oppression is coming." How? Where? With what tools (written, videos, audio, podcasts, pre-packaged documentaries -- there's a good library here -- )? Some of this is obvious: I guess what I'm asking for is some better understanding of how to approach and enroll someone into that discussion when they clearly are disinterested, unmotivated, zoned out, comfortable amongst the herd, or -- egads! -- involved or complicit.

I'd like to add an additional category of person, those preemptively in denial. Back when I first discovered the material on Jim Fetzer's great Scholars for 911 Truth (http://911scholars.org/)site I approached an acquaintance whom I knew had an engineering background and whose intellegence I greatly respect. After we spoke a while about the things that that site brings out so well he got rather quiet and I could see him withdrawing. Then he looked at me and, almost in a whisper said "When I saw those buildings come down I knew it couldn't have been what the government was telling us. It is physically impossible for a black-smoke jet fuel fire to do that...but...I just can't allow myself to go there." His discomfort was palpable. We changed the subject and I have never brought it up with him again. As far as I know, he lives his life today just as if he never understood the truth. You can take some people to the precipice and they just can't look in.

I don't know what it takes to lead someone to their own realization and acceptance that everything they think about their world is upside down. It is a stage by stage process exactly like the five stages of grief. Your whole world paradigm has to die and a new one established.

Again my point about establishing resistance movements in populations who are already firmly repressed- that paradigm switch has already taken place and they are ready to do something.

In our case, I think the most sensible thing would be to strategize with people whose paradigm is already where it needs to be (like we are starting to do here) and try to establish an infrastructure within which to employ tactical moves when "mainstream" people's paradigms are forced to change. If they can't yet see the glaring events of 9/11 (for just one example) as the event it really was, maybe they will change their minds when the camps begin to fill... :(

Bruce Clemens
01-29-2010, 04:17 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=uVhKr2bPl7cC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1

...could be a useful paradigm-changer. This is the graphic-novel version of Dr. Zinn's excellent history. I found it fun to read and engrossing. Certainly it is of necessity a little less deep and detailed than his scholarly works but I think it becomes very accessible to the average person.
Graphic novels depicting the true events of JFK, 911, etc. might be valuable tools to develop.

I recall as a youth my father (a technical illustrator) in California worked with a gentleman who developed small, cheaply produced comic-book type religious tracts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_T._Chick

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/Devils_22.png/180px-Devils_22.png

They were very successful and his Spanish versions were extremely popular within the Southern California Hispanic community.

I could see a very useful niche here for truthers...and we may want to seriously consider the growing Hispanic population as a target market for this...they may have an easier time accepting the paradigm of truth albiet may be less powerful in instituting change...

Just brainstorming here.

Ed Jewett
01-29-2010, 08:14 PM
[QUOTE]

"I just can't allow myself to go there." ....

You can take some people to the precipice and they just can't look in.

I don't know what it takes to lead someone to their own realization and acceptance that everything they think about their world is upside down. It is a stage by stage process exactly like the five stages of grief. Your whole world paradigm has to die and a new one established.

Again my point about establishing resistance movements in populations who are already firmly repressed- that paradigm switch has already taken place and they are ready to do something.

In our case, I think the most sensible thing would be to strategize with people whose paradigm is already where it needs to be (like we are starting to do here) and try to establish an infrastructure within which to employ tactical moves when "mainstream" people's paradigms are forced to change.
Thanks for your many responses and contributions, significant enough that I can't begin to respond in much detail but rich enough so as to provide fuel and fodder for my further outreach and work. I especially like the idea of "technically-illustrated" comic books combined with the idea of plays, scripts, mock trials (or Congressional hearings?) and the like. (There is such a person, a cartoonist, who has collaborated with Jensen.)

Perhaps one of the things we ought to do is, individually or collectively, to post links and invitations to readers and consider inviting, as contributing members to DPF and this discussion, key people from other groups, movements, research, etc.

Peter Lemkin
01-30-2010, 12:58 AM
AMY GOODMAN: Howard Zinn is one of this country’s most celebrated historians. His classic work, A People’s History of the United States, changed the way we look at history in America. First published a quarter of a century ago, the book has sold over a million copies and is a phenomenon in the world of publishing, selling more copies each successive year.

After serving as a bombardier pilot in World War II, Howard Zinn went on to become a lifelong dissident and peace activist. He was active in the civil rights movement and many of the struggles for social justice over the past half-century. He taught at Spelman College, the historically black college for women in Atlanta, and was fired for insubordination for standing up for the women.

Howard Zinn has written numerous books. He’s Professor Emeritus at Boston University. He recently spoke at Binghamton University, Upstate New York, a few days after the 2008 presidential election. His speech was called “War and Social Justice.”

HOWARD ZINN: Why is all the political rhetoric limited? Why is the set of solutions given to social and economic issues so cramped and so short of what is needed, so short of what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights demands? And, yes, Obama, who obviously is more attuned to the needs of people than his opponent, you know, Obama, who is more far-sighted, more thoughtful, more imaginative, why has he been limited in what he is saying? Why hasn’t he come out for what is called a single-payer system in healthcare?

Why—you see, you all know what the single-payer system is. It’s a sort of awkward term for it, maybe. It doesn’t explain what it means. But a single-payer health system means—well, it will be sort of run like Social Security. It’ll be a government system. It won’t depend on intermediaries, on middle people, on insurance companies. You won’t have to fill out forms and pay—you know, and figure out whether you have a preexisting medical condition. You won’t have to go through that rigamarole, that rigamarole which has kept 40 million people out of having health insurance. No, something happens, you just go to a doctor, you go to a hospital, you’re taken care of, period. The government will pay for it. Yeah, the government will pay for it. That’s what governments are for.

Governments, you know—they do that for the military. Did you know that? That’s what the military has. The military has free insurance. I was once in the military. I got pneumonia, which is easier to get in the military. I got pneumonia. I didn’t have to fool around with deciding what health plan I’m in and what—you know. No, I was totally taken care of. I didn’t have to think about money. Just—you know, there are a million members of the armed forces who have that. But when you ask that the government do this for everybody else, they cry, “That’s socialism!” Well, if that’s socialism, it must mean socialism is good. You know.

No, I was really gratified when Obama called for “Let’s tax the rich more, and let’s tax the poor and middle class less.” And they said, “That’s socialism.” And I thought, “Whoa! I’m happy to hear that. Finally, socialism is getting a good name.” You know, socialism has been given bad names, you know, Stalin and all those socialists, so-called socialists. They weren’t really socialist, but, you know, they called themselves socialist. But they weren’t really, you see. And so, socialism got a bad name. It used to have a really good name. Here in the United States, the beginning of the twentieth century, before there was a Soviet Union to spoil it, you see, socialism had a good name. Millions of people in the United States read socialist newspapers. They elected socialist members of Congress and socialist members of state legislatures. You know, there were like fourteen socialist chapters in Oklahoma. Really. I mean, you know, socialism—who stood for socialism? Eugene Debs, Helen Keller, Emma Goldman, Clarence Darrow, Jack London, Upton Sinclair. Yeah, socialism had a good name. It needs to be restored.

And so—but Obama, with all of his, well, good will, intelligence, all those qualities that he has, and so on—and, you know, you feel that he has a certain instinct for people in trouble. But still, you know, he wouldn’t come out for a single-payer health system, that is, for what I would call health security, to go along with Social Security, you see, wouldn’t come out for that; wouldn’t come out for the government creating jobs for millions of people, because that’s what really is needed now. You see, when people are—the newspapers this morning report highest unemployment in decades, right? The government needs to create jobs. Private enterprise is not going to create jobs. Private enterprise fails, the so-called free market system fails, fails again and again. When the Depression hit in the 1930s, Roosevelt and the New Deal created jobs for millions of people. And, oh, there were people on the—you know, out there on the fringe who yelled “Socialism!” Didn’t matter. People needed it. If people need something badly, and somebody does something for them, you can throw all the names you want at them, it won’t matter, you see? But that was needed in this campaign. Yes.

Instead of Obama and McCain joining together—I know some of you may be annoyed that I’m being critical of Obama, but that’s my job. You know, I like him. I’m for him. I want him to do well. I’m happy he won. I’m delighted he won. But I’m a citizen. I have to speak my mind. OK? Yeah. And, you know—but when I saw Obama and McCain sort of both together supporting the $700 billion bailout, I thought, “Uh-oh. No, no. Please don’t do that. Please, Obama, step aside from that. Do what—I’m sure something in your instincts must tell you that there’s something wrong with giving $700 billion to the same financial institutions which ruined us, which got us into this mess, something wrong with that, you see.” And it’s not even politically viable. That is, you can’t even say, “Oh, I’m doing it because people will then vote for me.” No. It was very obvious when the $700 billion bailout was announced that the majority of people in the country were opposed to it. Instinctively, they said, “Something is wrong with this. Why give it to them? We need it.”

That’s when the government—you know, Obama should have been saying, “No, let’s take that $700 billion, let’s give it to people who can’t pay their mortgages. Let’s create jobs, you know.” You know, instead of pouring $700 billion into the top and hoping that it will trickle down to the bottom, no, go right to the bottom, where people need it and get—so, yes, that was a disappointment. So, yeah, I’m trying to indicate what we’ll have to do now and to fulfill what Obama himself has promised: change, real change. You can’t have—you can say “change,” but if you keep doing the old policies, it’s not change, right?

So what stands in the way of Obama and the Democratic Party, and what stands in the way of them really going all out for a social and economic program that will fulfill the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Well, I can think of two things that stand in the way. Maybe there are more, but I can only think of two things at a time. And, well, one of them is simply the great, powerful economic interests that don’t want real economic change. Really, they don’t. The powerful—I mean, you take in healthcare, there are powerful interests involved in the present healthcare system. People are making lots of money from the healthcare system as it is, making so much money, and that’s why the costs of the healthcare system in the United States are double what the healthcare costs are—the percentage, you know, of money devoted to healthcare—percentage is double, administrative costs in the United States, compared to countries that have the single-payer system, because there are people there who are siphoning off this money, who are making money. You know, they’re health plans. They’re insurance companies. They’re health executives and CEOs, so that there are—yeah, there are interests, economic interests that are in the way of real economic change.

And Obama so far has not challenged those economic interests. Roosevelt did challenge those economic interests, boldly, right frontally. He called them economic royalists. He wasn’t worried that people would say, “Oh, you’re appealing to class conflict,” you know, the kind of thing they pull out all the time, as if there isn’t, hasn’t always been class conflict, just something new, you know. Class conflict. “You’re creating class conflict. We’ve never had class conflict. We’ve always all been one happy family.” You know, no. And so, yeah, there are these interests standing in the way, and, you know, unfortunately, the Democratic Party is tied to many of those interests. Democratic Party is, you know, tied to a lot of corporate interests. I mean, look at the people on Obama’s—the people who are on Obama’s economics team, and they’re Goldman Sachs people, and they’re former—you know, people like that, you know? That’s not—they don’t represent change. They represent the old-style Democratic stay-put leadership that’s not good.

So, the other factor that stands in the way of a real bold economic and social program is the war. The war, the thing that has, you know, a $600 billion military budget. Now, how can you call for the government to take over the healthcare system? How can you call for the government to give jobs to millions of people? How can you do all that? How can you offer free education, free higher education, which is what we should have really? We should have free higher education. Or how can you—you know. No, you know, how can you double teachers’ salaries? How can you do all these things, which will do away with poverty in the United States? It all costs money.

And so, where’s that money going to come from? Well, it can come from two sources. One is the tax structure. And here, Obama [has] been moving in the right direction. When he talked about not giving the rich tax breaks and giving tax breaks to the poor—in the right direction, but not far enough, because the top one percent of—the richest one percent of the country has gained several trillions of dollars in the last twenty, thirty years as a result of the tax system, which has favored them. And, you know, you have a tax system where 200 of the richest corporations pay no taxes. You know that? You can’t do that. You don’t have their accountants. You don’t have their legal teams, and so on and so forth. You don’t have their loopholes.

The war, $600 billion, we need that. We need that money. But in order to say that, in order to say, “Well, one, we’re going to increase taxes on the super rich,” much more than Obama has proposed—and believe me, it won’t make those people poor. They’ll still be rich. They just won’t be super rich. I don’t care if there’s some rich people around. But, you know, no, we don’t need super rich, not when that money is needed to take care of little kids in pre-school, and there’s no money for pre-school. No, we need a radical change in the tax structure, which will immediately free huge amounts of money to do the things that need to be done, and then we have to get the money from the military budget. Well, how do you get money from the military budget? Don’t we need $600 billion for a military budget? Don’t we have to fight two wars? No. We don’t have to fight any wars. You know.

And this is where Obama and the Democratic Party have been hesitant, you know, to talk about. But we’re not hesitant to talk about it. The citizens should not be hesitant to talk about it. If the citizens are hesitant to talk about it, they would just reinforce the Democratic leadership and Obama in their hesitations. No, we have to speak what we believe is the truth. I think the truth is we should not be at war. We should not be at war at all. I mean, these wars are absurd. They’re horrible also. They’re horrible, and they’re absurd. You know, from a human, human point of view, they’re horrible. You know, the deaths and the mangled limbs and the blindness and the three million people in Iraq losing their homes, having to leave their homes, three million people—imagine?—having to look elsewhere to live because of our occupation, because of our war for democracy, our war for liberty, our war for whatever it is we’re supposed to be fighting for.

No, we don’t need—we need a president who will say—yeah, I’m giving advice to Obama. I know he’s listening. But, you know, if enough people speak up, he will listen, right? If enough people speak up, he will listen. You know, there’s much more of a chance of him listening, right, than those other people. They’re not listening. They wouldn’t listen. Obama could possibly listen, if we, all of us—and the thing to say is, we have to change our whole attitude as a nation towards war, militarism, violence. We have to declare that we are not going to engage in aggressive wars. We are going to renounce the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. “Oh, we have to go to”—you know, “We have to go to war on this little pitiful country, because this little pitiful country might someday”—do what? Attack us? I mean, Iraq might attack us? “Well, they’re developing a nuclear weapon”—one, which they may have in five or ten years. That’s what all the experts said, even the experts on the government side. You know, they may develop one nuclear weapon in five—wow! The United States has 10,000 nuclear weapons. Nobody says, “How about us?” you see. But, you know, well, you know all about that. Weapons of mass destruct, etc., etc. No reason for us to wage aggressive wars. We have to renounce war as an instrument of foreign policy.


AMY GOODMAN: That was Howard Zinn. He’s speaking at Binghamton University, Upstate New York. If you’d like a copy of today’s broadcast, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. Back to his speech in a minute.



AMY GOODMAN: We return now to the legendary historian Howard Zinn. This was his first speech after the 2008 election. He was speaking on November 8th at Binghamton University, Upstate New York. He called his speech “War and Social Justice.”

HOWARD ZINN: A hundred different countries, we have military bases. That doesn’t look like a peace-loving country. And besides—I mean, first of all, of course, it’s very expensive. We save a lot of money. Do we really need those—what do we need those bases for? I can’t figure out what we need those bases for. And, you know, so we have to—yeah, we have to give that up, and we have to declare ourselves a peaceful nation. We will no longer be a military superpower. “Oh, that’s terrible!” There are people who think we must be a military superpower. We don’t have to be a military superpower. We don’t have to be a military power at all, you see? We can be a humanitarian superpower. We can—yeah. We’ll still be powerful. We’ll still be rich. But we can use that power and that wealth to help people all over the world. I mean, instead of sending helicopters to bomb people, send helicopters when they face a hurricane or an earthquake and they desperately need helicopters. You know, you know. So, yeah, there’s a lot of money available once you seriously fundamentally change the foreign policy of the United States.

Now, Obama has been hesitant to do that. And it has something to do with a certain mindset, because it doesn’t have anything to do really with politics, that is, with more votes. I don’t think—do you think most Americans know that we have bases in a hundred countries? I’ll bet you if you took a poll and asked among the American people, “How many countries do you think we have bases in?” “No, I don’t know exactly what the answer is. What I would guess, you know, there’d be like five, ten.” But I think most people would be surprised. In other words, there isn’t a public demanding that we have bases in a hundred countries, so there’s no political advantage to that. Well, of course, there’s economic advantage to corporations that supply those bases and build those bases and make profit from those bases, you know.

But in order to—and I do believe that the American people would welcome a president who said, “We are not going to wage aggressive war anymore.” The American people are not war-minded people. They become war-minded when a president gets up there and creates an atmosphere of hysteria and fear, you know, and says, “Well, we must go to war.” Then people, without thinking about it, without thinking, you know, “Why are we bombing Afghanistan?” “Because, oh, Osama bin Laden is there.” “Uh, where?” Well, they don’t really know, so we’ll bomb the country. You know, if we bomb the country, maybe we’ll get him. You see? Sure, in the process, thousands of Afghans will die, right? But—so, people didn’t have time to stop and think, think. But the American people are not war-minded people. They would welcome, I believe, a turn away from war. So there’s no real political advantage to that.

But it has to do with a mindset, a certain mindset that—well, that a lot of Americans have and that Obama, obviously, and the Democratic leadership, Pelosi and Harry Reid and the others, that they all still have. And when you talk about a mindset that they have, which stands in the way of the declaring against war, you’re reminded that during the campaign—I don’t know if you remember this—that at one point Obama said—and, you know, there were many times in the campaign where he said really good things, if he had only followed up on them, you see, and if he only follows up on them now. But at one point in the campaign, he said, “It’s not just a matter of getting out of Iraq. It’s a matter of changing the mindset that got us into Iraq.” You see? That was a very important statement. Unfortunately, he has not followed through by changing his mindset, you see? He knows somewhere in—well, then he expressed it, that we have to change our mindset, but he hasn’t done it. Why? I don’t know. Is it because there are too many people around him and too many forces around him, and etc., etc., that…? But, no, that mindset is still there. So I want to talk about what that mindset is, what the elements of that mindset are.

And I have to look at my watch, not that it matters, not that I care, but, you know, I feel conscience-stricken over keeping you here just to hear the truth.

Here are some of the elements of the mindset that stand in the way, in the way for Obama, in the way for the Democratic Party, in the way for many Americans, in the way for us. One of the elements in our mindset is the idea, somehow, that the United States is exceptional. In the world of social science, in, you know, that discipline called social science, there’s actually a phrase for it. It’s called American exceptionalism. And what it means is the idea that the United States is unique in the world, you know, that we are different, that we—not just different, we’re better. Right? We are better than other people. You know, our society is better than other societies. This is a very dangerous thing to think. When you become so arrogant that you think you are better and different than other countries in the world, then that gives you a carte blanche to do nasty things. You can do nasty things, because you’re better. You’re justified in doing those things, because, yeah, you’re—we’re different. So we have to divest ourselves of the idea that, you know, we are somehow better and, you know, we are the “City on the Hill,” which is what the first governor of Massachusetts, John Winthrop, said. “We are the”—Reagan also said that. Well, Reagan said lots of things, you know that. But we are—you know, we’re—you know, everybody looks to—no, we’re an empire, like other empires.

There was a British empire. There was a Russian empire. There was a German empire and a Japanese empire and a French and a Belgian empire, the Dutch empire and the Spanish empire. And now there’s the American empire. And our empire—and when we look at those empires, we say, “Oh, imperialism! But our empire, no.” There was one sort of scholar who wrote in the New York Times, he said, “We are an empire lite.” Lite? Tell that to the people of Iraq. Tell that to the people in Afghanistan. You know, we are an empire lite? No, we are heavy.

And yes—well, all you have to do is look at our history, and you’ll see, no, our history does not show a beneficent country doing good all over the world. Our history shows expansion. Our history shows expansion. It shows us—well, yeah, it shows us moving into—doubling our territory with the Louisiana Purchase, which I remember on our school maps looked very benign. “Oh, there’s that, all that empty land, and now we have it.” It wasn’t empty! There were people living there. There were Indian tribes. Hundreds of Indian tribes were living there, you see? And if it’s going to be ours, we’ve got to get rid of them. And we did. No. And then, you know, we instigated a war with Mexico in 1848, 1846 to 1848, and at the end of the war we take almost half of Mexico, you know. And why? Well, we wanted that land. That’s very simple. We want things. There’s a drive of nations that have the power and the capacity to bully other nations, a tendency to expand into those—the areas that those other nations have. We see it all over the world. And the United States has done that again and again. And, you know, then we expanded into the Caribbean. Then we expanded out into the Pacific with Hawaii and the Philippines, and yeah. And, of course, you know, in the twentieth century, expanding our influence in Europe and Asia and now in the Middle East, everywhere. An expansionist country, an imperialist power.

For what? To do good things for these other people? Or is it because we coveted—when I say “we,” I don’t mean to include you and me. But I’ve gotten—you know, they’ve gotten us so used to identifying with the government. You know, like we say “we,” like the janitor at General Motors says “we.” No. No, the CEO of General Motors and the janitor are not “we.”

So, no, we’re not—we’re not—exceptionalism is one part of the mindset we have to get rid of. We have to see ourselves honestly for what we are. We’re an empire like other empires. We’re as aggressive and brutal and violent as the Belgians were in the Congo, as the British were in India, and all these other empires. Yeah, we’re just like them. We have to face it. And when you face that, you sober up a little, and then you don’t think you can just go all over the world and say, “Ah, we’re doing this for liberty and democracy,” because then, if you know your history, you know how many times that was said. “Oh, we’re going into the Philippines to bring civilization and Christianity to the Filipinos.” “We’re going to bring civilization to the Mexicans,” etc., etc. No. You’ll understand that. Yeah, that’s one element in this mindset.

And then, of course, when you say this, when you say these things, when you go back into that history, when you try to give an honest recounting of what we have been—not “we,” really—what the government, the government, has done, our government has done. The people haven’t done it. People—we’re just people. The government does these things, and then they try to include us, involve us in their criminal conspiracy. You know, we didn’t do this. But they’re dragooning us into this.

But when you start criticizing, when you start making an honest assessment of what we have done in the world, they say you’re being unpatriotic. Well, you have to—that’s another part of the mindset you have to get rid of, because if you don’t, then you think you have to wear a flag in your lapel or you think you have to always have American flags around you, and you have to show, by your love for all this meaningless paraphernalia, that you are patriotic. Well, that’s, you know—oh, there, too, an honest presidential candidate would not be afraid to say, “You know, patriotism is not a matter of wearing a flag in your lapel, not a matter of this or not—patriotism is not supporting the government. Patriotism is supporting the principles that the government is supposed to stand for.” You know, so we need to redefine these things which we have come—which have been thrown at us and which we’ve imbibed without thinking, not thinking, “Oh, what really is patriotism?” If we start really thinking about what it is, then we will reject these cries that you’re not patriotic, and we’ll say, “Patriotism is not supporting the government.” [B]When the government does bad things, the most patriotic thing you can do is to criticize the government, because that’s the Declaration of Independence. That’s our basic democratic charter. The Declaration of Independence says governments are set up by the people to—they’re artificial creations. They’re set up to ensure certain rights, the equal right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. So when governments become destructive of those ends, the Declaration said, “it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish” the government. That’s our basic democratic charter. People have forgotten what it is. It’s OK to alter or abolish the government when the government violates its trust. And then you are being patriotic. I mean, the government violates its trust, the government is being unpatriotic.

Yeah, so we have to think about these words and phrases that are thrown at us without giving us a time to think. And, you know, we have to redefine these words, like “national security.” What is national security? Lawyers say, “Well, this is for national security.” Well, that takes care of it. No, it doesn’t take care of it. This national security means different things to different people. Ah, there’s some people—for some people, national security means having military bases all over the world. For other people, national security means having healthcare, having jobs. You know, that’s security. And so, yeah, we need to sort of redefine these things.

We need to redefine “terrorism.” Otherwise, the government can throw these words at us: “Oh, we’re fighting against terrorism.” Oh, well, then I guess we have to do this. Wait a while, what do you mean by “terrorism”? Well, we sort of have an idea what terrorism means. Terrorism means that you kill innocent people for some belief that you have. Yeah, you know, sure, blowing up on 9/11, yeah, that was terrorist. But if that’s the definition of “terrorism,” killing innocent people for some belief you have, then war is terrorism.


AMY GOODMAN: Howard Zinn, the legendary historian, author of A People’s History of the United States and much more, he was speaking at Binghamton University. If you’d like a copy of today’s broadcast, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. We’ll come back to the conclusion of his address in a minute.



AMY GOODMAN: We return to historian Howard Zinn’s first speech after the 2008 election. The author of A People’s History of the United States discusses the election, war, peace, and what this country symbolizes to the rest of the world.

HOWARD ZINN: We have to stop thinking that solutions to problems are military solutions, that you can solve problems with violence. You can’t really. You don’t really solve problems with violence. We have to change our definitions of “heroism.” Heroism in American culture, so far, really—when people think of heroism, they think of military heroes. They think of the people whose statues are all over the country, you know, and they think of medals and battles. And yeah, these are military heroes. And that’s why Obama goes along with that definition of military—of “hero,” by referring to John McCain, you know, as a military hero, always feeling that he must do that. I never felt he must do that. John McCain, to my mind—and I know that this is a tough thing to accept and may make some of the people angry—John McCain was tortured and bore up under torture and was a victim of torture and imprisonment, and, you know, it takes fortitude to that. He’s not a military hero. Before he was imprisoned, he dropped bombs on innocent people. You know, he—yeah, he did what the other members of the Air Force did. They dropped bombs on peasant villages and killed a lot of innocent people. I don’t consider that heroism. So, we have to redefine. To me, the great heroes are the people who have spoken out against war. Those are the heroes, you know.

[B]And so, well, I think—yeah, I think we have to change, change our mindset. We have to understand certain things that we haven’t maybe thought about enough. I think one of the things we haven’t thought about enough—because this is basic, and this is crucial—we haven’t realized, or at least not expressed it consciously, that the government’s interests are not the same as our interests. Really. And so, when they talk about the national interest, they’re creating what Kurt Vonnegut used to call a “granfalloon.” A granfalloon was, so, a meaningless abstraction and when you put together that don’t belong together, you see a “national security”—no—and “national interest.” No, there’s no one national interest. There’s the interest of the president of the United States, and then there’s the interest of the young person he sends to war. They’re different interests, you see? There is the interest of Exxon and Halliburton, and there’s the interest of the worker, the nurse’s aide, the teacher, the factory worker. Those are different interests. Once you recognize that you and the government have different interests, that’s a very important step forward in your thinking, because if you think you have a common interest with the government, well, then it means that if the government says you must do this and you must do that, and it’s a good idea to go to war here, well, the government is looking out for my interest. No, the government is not looking out for your interest. The government has its own interests, and they’re not the interests of the people. Not just true in the United States, it’s true everywhere in the world. Governments generally do not represent the interests of their people. See? That’s why governments keep getting overthrown, because people at a certain point realize, “Hey! No, the government is not serving my interest.”

That’s also why governments lie. Why do governments lie? You must know that governments lie—not just our government; governments, in general, lie. Why do they lie? They have to lie, because their interests are different than the interests of ordinary people. If they told the truth, they would be out of office. So you have to recognize, you know, that the difference, difference in interest.

And the—well, I have to say something about war, a little more than I have said, and what I say about them, because I’ve been emphasizing the importance of renouncing war and not being a war-making nation, and because it will not be enough to get us out of Iraq. One of these days, we’ll get out of Iraq. We have to get out of Iraq. We don’t belong there. And we’re going to have to get out of there. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to get out of there. But we don’t want to have to—we don’t want to get out of Iraq and then have to get out of somewhere else. We don’t have to get out of Iraq but keep troops in Afghanistan, as unfortunately, you know, Obama said, troops in Afghanistan. No, no more—not just Iraq. We have to get into a mindset about renouncing war, period, and which is a big step.

And my ideas about war, my thoughts about war, the sort of the conclusions that I’ve come to about war, they really come from two sources. One, from my study of history. Of course, not everybody who studies history comes to the same conclusions. But, you know, you have to listen to various people who study history and decide what makes more sense, right? I’ve looked at various histories. I’ve concluded that my history makes more sense. And I’ve always been an objective student of these things, yes. But my—yeah, my ideas about war come from two sources. One of them is studying history, the history of wars, the history of governments, the history of empires. That history helps a lot in straightening out your thinking.

And the other is my own experience in war. You know, I was in World War II. I was a Air Force bombardier. I dropped bombs on various cities in Europe. That doesn’t make me an expert. Lots of people were in wars, and they all come out with different opinions. Well, so all I can do is give you my opinion based on my thinking after having been in a war. I was an enthusiastic enlistee in the Air Force. I wanted to be in the war, war against fascism, the “good war,” right? But at the end of the war, as I looked around and surveyed the world and thought about what I had done and thought about—and learned about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and learned about Dresden and learned about Hamburg and learned things I didn’t even realize while I was bombing, because when you’re involved in a military operation, you don’t think. You just—you’re an automaton, really. You may be a well-educated and technically competent automaton, but that’s what you—you aren’t really—you’re not questioning, not questioning why. “Why are they sending me to bomb this little town? When the war is almost over, there’s no reason for dropping bombs on several thousand people.” No, you don’t think.

Well, I began to think after the war and began to think that—and I was thinking now about the good war, the best war, and I was thinking, “Oh.” And then I began to see, no, this good war is not simply good. This best of wars, no. And if that’s true of this war, imagine what is true of all the other obviously ugly wars about which you can’t even use the word “good.”

So, yeah, and I began to realize certain things, that war corrupts everybody, corrupts everybody who engages in it. You start off, they’re the bad guys. You make an interesting psychological jump. The jump is this: since they’re the bad guys, you must be the good guys. No, they may very well be the bad guys. They may be fascists and dictators and bad, really bad guys. That doesn’t mean you’re good, you know? And when I began to look at it that way, I realized that wars are fought by evils on both sides. You know, one is a little more evil than the other. But even though you start in a war with sort of good intentions—we’re going to defeat fascism, we’re going to do this—you end up being corrupted, you end up being violent, you end up killing a lot of innocent people, because you’ve decided from the beginning that you’re right, and then you don’t have to ask questions anymore. That’s an interesting psychological thing that you—trick that you play. Well, you start out—you make a decision at the very beginning. The decision is: they’re wrong, I’m right. Once you have made that decision, you don’t have to think anymore. Then anything you do goes. Anything you do is OK, because you made the decision early on that they’re bad, you’re good. Then you can kill several hundred thousand people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then you can kill 100,000 people in Dresden. It doesn’t matter. You’re not thinking about it. Yeah, war corrupts everybody who engages in it.

So what else can I say about war? Lots of things. But I took out my watch presumably because I care. And I don’t. But I—you know, people will present you with humanitarian awards. Oh, this is for a good cause. The thing about war is the outcome is unpredictable. The immediate thing you do is predictable. The immediate thing you do is horrible, because war is horrible. And if somebody promises you that, “Well, this is horrible, like we have to bomb these hundreds of thousands of people in Japan. This is horrible, but it’s leading to a good thing,” truth is, you never know what this is leading to. You never know the outcome. You never know what the future is. You know that the present is evil, and you’re asked to commit this evil for some possible future good. Doesn’t make sense, especially since if you look at the history of wars, you find out that those so-called future goods don’t materialize. You know, the future good of World War II was, “Oh, now we’re rid of fascism. Now we’re going to have a good world, a peaceful world. Now the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 50 million people died in World War II, but now it’s going to be OK.” Well, you’ve lived these years since World War II. Has it been OK? Can you say that those 50 million lives were—yeah, it had to be done because—because of what? No, the wars—violence in general is a quick fix. It may give you a feeling that you’ve accomplished something, but it’s unpredictable in its ends. And because it’s corrupting, the ends are usually bad.

So, OK, I won’t say anything more about war. And, you know, of course, it wastes people. It wastes wealth. It’s an enormous, enormous waste.

And so, what is there to do? We need to educate ourselves and other people. We need to educate ourselves in history. History is very important. That’s why I went into a little history, because, you know, if you don’t know history, it’s as if you were born yesterday. If you were born yesterday, then any leader can tell you anything, you have no way of checking up on it. History is very important. I don’t mean formal history, what you learn in a classroom. No, history, if you’re learning, go to the library. Go—yeah, go to the library and read, read, learn, learn history. Yeah, so we have an educational job to do with history.

We have an educational job to do about our relationship to government, you know, and to realize that disobedience is essential to democracy, you see. And it’s important to understand democracy is not the three branches of government. It’s not what they told us in junior high school. “Oh, this is democracy. We have three branches of government, kiddos, the legislative, the executive, judicial. We have checks and balances that balance one another out. If somebody does something bad, it will be checked by”—wow! What a neat system! Nothing can go wrong. Well, now, those structures are not democracy. Democracy is the people. Democracy is social movements. That’s what democracy is. And what history tells us is that when injustices have been remedied, they have not been remedied by the three branches of government. They’ve been remedied by great social movements, which then push and force and pressure and threaten the three branches of government until they finally do something. Really, that’s democracy.

And no, we mustn’t be pessimistic. We mustn’t be cynical. We mustn’t think we’re powerless. We’re not powerless. That’s where history comes in. If you look at history, you see people felt powerless and felt powerless and felt powerless, until they organized, and they got together, and they persisted, and they didn’t give up, and they built social movements. Whether it was the anti-slavery movement or the black movement of the 1960s or the antiwar movement in Vietnam or the women’s movement, they started small and apparently helpless; they became powerful enough to have an effect on the nation and on national policy. We’re not powerless. We just have to be persistent and patient, not patient in the passive sense, but patient in the active sense of having a kind of faith that if all of us do little things—well, if all of us do little things, at some point there will be a critical mass created. Those little things will add up. That’s what has happened historically. People were disconsolate, and people thought they couldn’t end, but they kept doing, doing, doing, and then something important happened.

And I’ll leave you with just one more thought, that if you do that, if you join some group, if you join whatever the group is, a group that’s working on, you know, gender equality or racism or immigrant rights or the environment or the war, whatever group you join or whatever little action you take, you know, it will make you feel better. It will make you feel better. And I’m not saying we should do all these things just to make ourselves feel better, but it’s good to know that life becomes more interesting and rewarding when you become involved with other people in some great social cause. Thank you.


AMY GOODMAN: Legendary historian Howard Zinn, speaking at Binghamton University, Upstate New York, just after the election, on November 8th. Howard Zinn is author of, among many other books, A People’s History of the United States.

Ed Jewett
01-31-2010, 06:56 PM
I especially like the idea of "technically-illustrated" comic books combined with the idea of plays, scripts, mock trials (or Congressional hearings?) and the like. (There is such a person, a cartoonist, who has collaborated with Jensen.)

Perhaps one of the things we ought to do is, individually or collectively, to post links and invitations to readers and consider inviting, as contributing members to DPF and this discussion, key people from other groups, movements, research, etc.

#1) Derrick Jensen has a book from Seven Stories [Press], called As the World Burns: Fifty Simple Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial. It’s a graphic novel done with Stephanie McMillan, who does the wonderful cartoon “Minimum Security.” http://minimumsecurity.net/blog/

#2) "For those who have worried that, living in this place of astonishing peace and beauty, I will lose touch with what is going on in the real world, and all the work that needs to be done, my post tomorrow will describe what I intend to do, from my quiet place, to make a real difference, and to help others coalesce in ways that will bring the brightest progressive minds to bear on ways in which we can undermine and end the industrial economy and the brittle, cruel and devastating industrial society that holds the world in thrall.”

http://howtosavetheworld.ca/

Dave Pollard's environmental philosophy, creative works, business papers and essays.

In search of a better way to live and make a living, and a better understanding of how the world really works.

Ed Jewett
02-01-2010, 04:29 AM
Design for community:


the art of connecting real people in virtual places

By Derek M. Powazek

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jhvfh6thHS8C&dq=virtual+communities+online&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=K-oZS8yuHpOxlAf1h7zyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13&ved=0CEYQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=virtual%20communities%20online&f=false

Ed Jewett
02-04-2010, 04:17 AM
In the Face of King Coal, Tree Sitters Triumph

By Kevin Gosztola

February 3, 2010

http://www.opednews.com/articles/In-the-Face-of-King-Coal--by-Kevin-Gosztola-100203-239.html

Ed Jewett
02-04-2010, 05:50 AM
Minnesotans arrested during WH anti-war protest | StarTribune.com

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/minnesotans-arrested-during-wh-anti-war-protest-startribune-com/

It's an embedded video (not YouTube)

Ed Jewett
02-04-2010, 05:55 AM
New England United Host Anti-War Conference at MIT (http://www.tnhonline.com/news/new-england-united-host-anti-war-conference-at-mit-1.1109854)

By Lauren Howland
On Saturday morning, around 300 people piled into a conference room at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to discuss the future of the anti-war movement in the New England area.
New England United, a regional anti-war network that was started in July of 2007, held a convention to address the ongoing war in the Middle East.
The crowd ranged from grey-haired men and women reflecting their fight to end the Vietnam War during their youth to Cambridge high school students wanting to voice their opinions.
Robert Hanson, an older man wearing a peace shirt was the first to speak. He warned the group that his generation had failed in continuing the peace movement, and now people see peace and anti-war activism the same way they see voting—something you only have to take part in once and awhile.
“If I can offer you some advice, if a suggestion comes up that sounds like the 60’s—put it on the backburner,” said Hanson.
The gathering lasted from 10:30 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., alternating between panels and workshops, and concluded with an organizational session to discuss ways to incorporate more people into a protest that will be held March 20 in front of the White House to support the return of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Glen Ford, editor of Black Agenda Report, an online journal of African American thought and action, was one of the first to speak.
“How did corporations, blacks, and leftist all end up on the same side?“ Ford comically asked the audience. Calling it a “trick of history” Ford expressed his dismay when in 2008 the capitalistic system started to fall apart and instead of people fighting, back they became completely demobilized.
The speakers covered a broad array of topics including the expansion of U.S. occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Palestine. They argued that this expansion uses resources, especially money, that could be better used in domestic and social issues. Lecturers also discussed the institution of new U.S. bases being set in Columbia and Honduras, and our nation’s decision on how and where to distribute money and aid to the people of Haiti after the earthquake devastated Port-Au-Prince and surrounding areas.
Ashley Smith, of the International Socialist Review, claimed that to end the wars, one needs to get the public to connect the dots between war spending and social progress.
“We should demand they do more then just talk about war opposition and block war spending,” Smith said of our government.
Workshops ensued where people broke off into smaller groups and held discussions about topics that were more closely related to the activist work they do, such as the war in Latin America, resistance within the military, global warming and its relation to current wars.
Seven UNH students attended the Student Organizing workshop in hopes of preparing themselves more thoroughly for the progression of the anti-war movement on and around campus.
“This is just the first step in connecting with the other students for peace and creating a more connected network of people working for peace in our world,” UNH junior philosophy major Vanessa Ruiz said after the conference.

Peter Lemkin
02-04-2010, 06:13 AM
As far as software...there are internet 'university' programs - some free - that allow a group to meet as if in the same room using standard computers. There are fancier ones, but very costly. :call:

Ed Jewett
02-05-2010, 06:33 AM
What Americans Really Have to Fear
Violation of Rights by Military
By Scott Fina

February 04, 2010 "Santa Barbara Independent (http://www.independent.com/news/2010/feb/02/what-americans-really-have-fear/)" --Feb. 02, 2010 - I was among the several people arrested on Sunday, January 31, while protesting outside the main gate of Vandenberg Air Force Base. The purpose of my protest was to criticize the development, maintenance, and potential use of nuclear weapons by the United States.

I believe the nuclear arsenal of the United States—the largest and most advanced in the world—contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Consider the perspective of countries like North Korea and Iran. If the most powerful nation in the world with the greatest military capability finds it necessary to maintain several thousand nuclear warheads, why shouldn’t they have some? Moreover, the more prevalent nuclear weapons become, the more likely terrorists are to obtain the materials needed to construct one.

On Sunday I was also protesting the American development of a space-based, anti-missile defense system. This system undermines our previous and future efforts at negotiating nuclear treaties with Russia and China. So my protest on Sunday, at heart, concerned the security of the United States and the world.

The story of my arrest on Sunday (along with six other people) outside the gate of Vandenberg Air Force Base, however, had nothing to do with the security of our country—although we were cited for a “violation of a security regulation” (50 USC Sec 797). If convicted, my fellow protestors and I face a potential fine of $5,000 and up to one year in prison. The real story of our arrests concerns the United States Constitution.

Most of us were arrested for refusing to present government identification to the military security officials. All of us were orderly and peaceful. None of us was interrupting base operations. Most were elderly (several in their 70s and 80s). We were simply standing quietly along the shoulder of Route 1 holding peace signs. We were protesting in a location and at a time pre-arranged with Vandenberg Base security. Base security officials were expecting us and knew our purpose.

If there was one group of people that Vandenberg security officials did not have to be concerned about, it was the 11 grey haired protestors standing outside the gate under the scrutiny of at least a dozen soldiers in a place and time known in advance by the base.

Nonetheless, shortly after the protest began, the soldiers came out through the main gate of Vandenberg, and, while filming us, requested that we each provide government identification under the threat of arrest and criminal charges. While they confronted us outside the gate along Route 1, the soldiers ignored numerous people in civilian clothing that drove past us through the gate and onto the base. The soldiers did not know the purpose of these civilians or the contents of their cars. In fact, had I not been part of the protest, I could have driven my car 50 yards past the protest site onto the base and left it in a parking lot without being confronted and ordered to present identification. People in civilian clothing can also walk past the protest site onto the base to wait for a public bus without being stopped and ordered to present identification.

I and my associates, holding peace signs, provided the soldiers with no reason to believe (i.e., no probable cause) that we were a threat to base security or operations. We did make it obvious that we were critical of nuclear weapons and space-based, anti-missile systems.

We refused to comply with the orders of the soldiers because, as peaceful and orderly citizens, we are afforded a right to privacy inherent in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By ordering us to present identification and then arresting us because we refused to do so—without probable cause that we were a security risk or were committing a crime—the soldiers violated our protection against unlawful search and arrests under the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the soldiers singled us out on the basis of our protest (while ignoring other civilians who actually penetrated the base gate) violated our right to free speech under the First Amendment.

When I was confronted by the soldiers, I declared that I had no intention of compromising base security and operations. I admitted that I had a government-issued identification on my person, but refused to present it because of my Constitutional protections. Ironically, no soldier or security official ever looked at my government issued identification while I was arrested, handcuffed, searched, had the contents taken out of my pockets (including my wallet with my identification); finger printed, photographed, and released. In fact, the soldier writing out my citation simply trusted me to state my correct name, age, address, and Social Security number.

If it was so vital for security purposes that my failure to present a government issued identification outside the base gate should lead to my arrest and possible imprisonment, why didn’t any Vandenberg base official look at my government-issued identification while I was in their custody for hours inside the base gate?

Nothing is more detrimental to American freedom and security than a military that ignores the rights of peaceful and lawful citizens. Americans don’t need intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads to keep them safe; they need their soldiers to uphold and defend the law of the land.

Scott Fina, of Santa Maria, is a former trooper with the New Jersey State Police. He served for several years on its special teams unit, where he worked with the Secret Service in protecting President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. Bush. He has a Ph.D. in political science from Temple University. This is the first time he has ever been arrested for anything.

Copyright ©2010 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24589.htm

Peter Lemkin
02-05-2010, 07:53 AM
Former State Trooper and worked with SS. Maybe there IS hope! But, given the way the military reacted, maybe there is NOT! I was at a number of demonstrations at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site and such nonsense went on. We were miles from the test site proper, outside the gate, peaceful, calm, and many arrested.....Another time at Dupont Circle in D.C. I was at an anti-Vietnam demonstration. We were near the S. Vietnamese Embassy, but peacefully assembled with signs doing nothing illegal [unless expressing one's opinions are illegal] with signs. I happened to be engaged in friendly conversations with a riot-gear armed policeman about things unrelated to the protest [things were that calm]. Suddenly, over his walkie-talkie I heard an order. He put down his faceshield, took out his truncheon and started to beat me and others. A tank just behind him pointed its canon directly in my face [about 3 yards from my face] and I was maced. Wonderful to live in a 'democracy' where one can freely express oneself and even petition the government for the address of grievances....not like in some nasty dictatorship where protest is not allowed or protesters beaten and mistreated. :ridinghorse:

Dawn Meredith
02-18-2010, 02:58 PM
I'm quite sure MLK signed his own death warrant with the love and truth in the speech above. It was the one move too far for the Oligarchy and their profits from war and hate. They killed the dreamer. But not the Dream. Dream.

Agreed Peter. Peace+power=murder. History repeats over and over. But we must never give up. Our purpose on earth is to fight for love, justice and peace. The struggle gets tiring and depressing, but giving up means they win.

All last week as I basked in the ocean and sun of lovely Costa Rica, where the military was abolished the year I was born, how tempting it was to just want to leave America and one day retire to a country of peace. But...if everyone who thinks like we do did this then the powerful warmongers would have no opposition. Our efforts seem so minor and futile compared to their power.
BUT then I read that great quote you highlighted above by Howard Zinn: "...when people stop obeying (the powerful) have no power". YES!

Dawn

Ed Jewett
02-28-2010, 03:44 AM
TRACKING A NEW KIND OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
By Kathleen Burge

Dodson concluded that Andrew and many like him were following the American tradition of civil disobedience - this time, against the economy - and creating a “moral underground.’’

Reprinted from BOSTON.COM (http://www.boston.com/yourtown/newton/articles/2010/02/18/bc_professor_lisa_dodson_tracks_economic_disobedie nce/)

(http://www.boston.com/yourtown/newton/articles/2010/02/18/bc_professor_lisa_dodson_tracks_economic_disobedie nce/) As Newton resident Lisa Dodson, a Boston College sociology professor in the thick of a research project, was interviewing a grocery story manager in the Midwest about the difficulties of the low-income workers he supervised, he asked her a curious question: “Don’t you want to know what this does to me too?’’

She did. And so the manager talked about the sense of unfairness he felt as a supervisor, making enough to live comfortably while overseeing workers who couldn’t feed their families on the money they earned. That inequality, he told her, tainted his job, making him feel complicit in an unfair system that paid hard workers too little to cover basic needs.

The interview changed the way Dodson talked with other supervisors and managers of low-income workers, and she began to find that many of them felt the same discomfort as the grocery store manager. And many went a step further, finding ways to undermine the system and slip their workers extra money, food, or time needed to care for sick children. She was surprised how widespread these acts were. In her new book, “The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy,’’ she called such behavior “economic disobedience.’’

As Dodson’s questions grew more pointed, she began to hear fascinating stories. Andrew, a manager in a large Midwest food business, said he put extra money in the paychecks of those earning a “poverty wage,’’ punched out their time cards at the usual quitting time when they had to leave early for a doctor’s appointment, and gave them food.

Andrew had decided that by supervising workers who were treated unfairly - paid too little and subjected to inflexible schedules that prevented them from taking care of their families - he was playing a direct role in the unfair system, and so he was morally obligated to act.

Dodson concluded that Andrew and many like him were following the American tradition of civil disobedience - this time, against the economy - and creating a “moral underground.’’

But her book, which came out late last year, has provoked debate about the morality of such acts.

After Dodson talked about her book on a radio program, American Public Media’s “Marketplace,’’ some listeners posted comments on the show’s website arguing that supervisors like Andrew are cheating their employers.
Referring to the show’s host, a listener from Leesburg, Va., wrote, “I was surprised that throughout the entire interview, neither Tess Vigeland nor Ms. Dodson touched on what would seem to me a rather crucial point - that these ‘Ordinary Americans’ are stealing from the companies who employ them.

“The examples Ms. Dodson gave . . . are acts of theft from the companies, yet they are described as if somehow moral and virtuous. It’s one thing for me to see someone in need and open my wallet; its quite another to address that need by giving something I’ve stolen from my neighbor.’’
Although Dodson makes clear where she stands - the subtitle of her book includes the phrase “unfair economy’’ - she said she believes the debate is important.

“I think that this is a really important conversation that we should have in this country,’’ Dodson said. “What is the worst wrong here? Is it to break a rule or to pass some food over, or is it that we have tens of millions of children and people in families that are working as hard as they can and they can’t take care of their families?’’
Not all supervisors felt troubled by the plight of those who worked under them. Dodson interviewed supervisors who said they had no obligation beyond the bottom line of their company; some complained bitterly about the work ethic of those who filled low-wage jobs.

Dodson has had an unusual career trajectory for an academic. She was a union activist and an obstetrical nurse in Dorchester before she began teaching, first at Harvard and now at Boston College. In her first book, “Don’t Call Us Out of Name: The Untold Lives of Women and Girls in Poor America,’’ Dodson studied how women and their families coped in the face of welfare reform as their safety net vanished.

This time, though, she was drawn largely to the stories of those Americans who worked with the working poor, suggesting that the difficulties of that group also affect the lives of those who intersect with them.
“I feel as though there’s this tendency is this society to kind of think about low-income people as those people over there,’’ she said, “as though it’s an experience that’s sort of marginal and distant from those of us who are not poor.’’

In her new book, some of the most wrenching stories are about women who cannot afford child care and leave their children unattended at home, asking older children to watch the younger ones. They feared social service agencies would investigate them for neglect, but they felt they had no choice if they were going to keep their jobs.

“It was very common for parents to tell me that their kids spent a lot of time all by themselves at home,’’ Dodson said. “That puts the parent into just an untenable position: You’re a bad worker or you’re a bad parent.’’

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/1535/1/

Peter Lemkin
02-28-2010, 06:30 AM
Yeah, The ammoral minority thinks of it as stealing from the rich. Nice to hear a few small Robin Hood deeds and persons. Having worked some real low pay, no security jobs in America I can also say there are slavedrivers too. I only met one once that might have fit in the lovely descriptions above. I had one who fired me when I had to drive half way across our huge nation to defend myself in court [it is ILLEGAL for an employer to do so!], but he did and to challenge it would have cost me more time and money than I had - I'd likely not have won as the system is rigged - got money: you get more; poor:you get poorer and screwed all along the way. When I grew up my father could work hard and feed a family of four and have a nice life with a nice home and even a summer home. Today that same job would need everyone in the house working more than 40 hours to maintain one small house - no vacation home and no vacations.

Ed Jewett
03-17-2010, 02:33 AM
March 12, 2010
Nonviolent Struggle (http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2010/03/nonviolent_struggle.html)

http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/photos/nonviolence.jpg (http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/mp3/EP2010.03.12.mp3)

It would be a truly wonderful thing if the American system of government were capable of reforming itself to become democratic. Most likely, it can't. We're on a downward spiral that will end either in collapse or revolt. There is a politically legitimate off-ramp — Article V of the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html) provides for amendments — but navigating great reforms through it won't be simple or easy or painless. Probably, at some point, nonviolent struggle will become necessary. To get a sense of nonviolent strategy from someone who doesn't agree with me but who has done more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp) work on the theory and on comparative studies than anyone, I turned to Dr. Gene Sharp (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations74c0.html). It was an eye-opener to talk with him and I hope he forgives me my impertinent questioning. Total runtime forty three minutes. Enjoy!
Permalink (http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2010/03/nonviolent_struggle.html) | Comments (0) (http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2010/03/nonviolent_struggle.html#comments)
http://www.electricpolitics.com/img/icons/download-wimpy.gif (http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/mp3/EP2010.03.12.mp3)http://www.electricpolitics.com/img/icons/listen-wimpy.gif