President Kerry

[gHari]

I saw him. At last Americans will become civilized and offer everyone medical support. A nation without compassion at this basic level is simply backwards. He will be President.

 

I liked the way he and his wife often offered folded hands to various people and the audience in general.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

a Vaishnava {whistles to himself}

[Guest guest]

He is not a vaisnava. Even many Cathlic churches won't give him commune do to his being a leader in the pro-abortion movement. Rather that is right or wrong is beside the point.

 

He even voted against the ban on partial birth abortion.

 

I am a supporter of universal healthcare but you should know by now that canidates will say anything when they are running for election.

 

Healthcare is the next big domestic issue and he is just getting out ahead on that.

 

I choose on issues. And that in order of priority. Abortion trumps healhcare in my book. BTW I am uninsured with major health problems and no $ to see a doctor. I could use some help. But it's not there for me at this point so I just chalk it up to past karma. But what are my problems compared to children being aborted at the last moment of pregnancy by having a sharp instrument shoved into their brains and then having those brains sucked out. There is a law that if the head comes out first they call it a live birth so to get around this this turn the baby around in the womb, moments from birth, and then kill it by sucking out its brains.

 

Even most Democrats oppose this. Congress passed a law to ban this tweice in the Clinton administration by Clinton vetoed it.

 

I hate the Democratic party.

 

I have no love for the Republicans but Bush signed this ban into law.

 

I am not against Kerry because he is a illionaire. I only get sickened by seeing him sitting in a fast food joint eatting $3 meals and mugging it up for the cameras to impress upon everyone how he is just one of us common folk.

 

Hold your nose and vote Bush. If you intend on voting that is. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

OK i see I screwed up that post. I meant to embolden only the b in billionaire.

 

Sings "If I only had a brain" - Wizard of Oz /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Try this link to learn a little more about two-faced John Kerry. http://home.att.net/~trackitdown/abortion.html

[Guest guest]

ALL these guys are liars but Kerry has taken it to a new level. For instance he says he admits life begins at conception but is still pro-abortion. What????

 

He wants the Catholic vote as well as the abortion lobby's apparently, either that or he is the dumbest or coldest sucker around.

 

No doubt the pro-choice devotees will flame me by the time I check in in the morning.

 

Oh well us "nazi's" are used to it.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

gHari is dreaming about America electing John F'in Kerry. Once the people get to know him, he is going down. Check out

http://www.trentonrevolution.com/ker_bio.html

[Guest guest]

On Thursday July 29, 2004, Senator John Forbes Kerry gave his acceptance speech before the 2004 Democratic National Convention at the Fleet Center in Boston, Massachusetts. It is my intention to illuminate certain truths underlying Mr. Kerry's speech which might otherwise go unnoticed by the majority of voters in this country. Each statement made by Senator John F. Kerry will be in italics, prefaced with the * symbol, and followed by information that Mr. Kerry would, I suspect, rather you were not privileged to.

 

* ''I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty.''

 

''In a survey of 500 Bay State voters conducted last Sunday and Monday, 59 percent said they 'are concerned' that Kerry 'missed 70 percent of the votes in the Senate over the last two years' and 45 percent say he should resign his Senate seat'' - Brian Mooney (The Boston Globe, 07/24/04)

 

* ''And I am determined now to restore that pride to all who look to America.''

 

''A Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi. A snapshot of the display in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum – formerly known as the 'War Crimes Museum' '' - WorldNetDaily (06/01/04)

 

* ''We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals - and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.''

 

''There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.'' - John F. Kerry (Testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 4/22/71)

 

''I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.'' - Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

 

''I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done. This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight.'' - William Shumadine

 

''In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage. When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family--my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors--he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities.'' - David Wallace

 

''He served four months in Vietnam while I served five years in Vietnam, I think that I had the opportunity to witness any possible atrocities a lot more then him as I was directly involved in the ground action, I saw None! The vast majority of American fighting Servicemen did an Honorable Performance with just a few malcontents who were dealt with harshly and punished accordingly. Kerry on the other hand, came home to portray himself as our spokesman, able to play the 'Chameleon' as politics dictated to fit his needs and reinvent himself to satisfied his political aspirations.'' - Pascual R. Meza

 

''I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness.'' - Richard O'Mara

 

* ''Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so.''

 

''The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.'' - John F. Kerry (Congressional record10/09/02)

 

''If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.'' - John F. Kerry (Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

 

''Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror...'' - John Kerry (12/15/03)

 

* ''I ask you to judge me by my record.''

 

John Kerry voted against the B-1 Bomber, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the AV-8B Harrier Jet, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Patriot Missiles, the Aegis Air Defense Cruiser, the Trident Missile System, the M-1 Abrams Tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. - Congressional Record

 

* ''And here at home, wages are falling, health care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking.''

 

''Wages and benefits for U.S. workers rose a moderate 0.9 percent in the April-June quarter this year, down slightly from the previous quarter's increase, as price pressures for benefits like health insurance eased significantly.'' - Associated Press writer Martin Crutsinger citing data from the U.S. Department of Labor

 

* ''We can do better and we will. We're the optimists.''

 

''While the addition of new jobs to the economy is of course welcomed news for America's workers, America is still in the worst job recovery since the Great Depression.'' - Terry McAuliffe, head of the DNC

 

* ''I am proud that at my side will be a running mate whose life is the story of the American dream and who's worked every day to make that dream real for all Americans.''

 

''When I came back from Vietnam in 1969 I don’t know if John Edwards was out of diapers then. Well, I’m sure he was out of diapers.'' - John F. Kerry (New York Times, January, 2004)

 

''Edwards says he’s the only one who can win states in the South. He can’t win his own state.'' - John F. Kerry (New York Times, 2/03/04)

 

* ''And what can I say about Teresa? She has the strongest moral compass of anyone I know.''

 

Mrs. Heinz Kerry called for more civility in politics and added, ''We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics.'' Shortly afterward, she was asked by Colin McNickle, editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, what she meant by ''un-American.'' Instead of clarifying, Mrs. Heinz Kerry denied her statement. The AP reported, ''Heinz Kerry said 'I didn't say that' several times to McNickle. When Mr. McNickle asked her again, Mrs. Heinz Kerry declared, 'You said something I didn't say. Now shove it. Reuters reported the same series of exchanges.'' - Washington Times (7/27/04)

 

* ''We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older now, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.''

 

''They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.'' - John F. Kerry (Testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 4/22/71)

 

* ''Remember the hours after September 11th, when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up the stairs and risked their lives, so that others might live. When rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon. When the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation's Capitol."

 

''Bush is calling on the biggest disaster in our country's history, and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy for his campaign.'' - Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters which has endorsed John Kerry for president

 

* ''I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.''

 

''He (Saddam Hussein) cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation... This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.'' - John F. Kerry (Congressional Record, November, 1997)

 

* ''I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden.''

 

''Kerry speaks with contempt for allies such as Britain, calling Bush's "coalition of the willing" a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed... He speaks as if only those who oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect.'' - Dick Cheney (3/17/04)

 

* ''Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.''

 

''I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.'' - John F. Kerry (Harvard Crimson, 1970)

 

* ''To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way.''

 

John Kerry voted against the $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

* ''We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected.''

 

''Nine million containers arrive on those ships into our Nation’s 361 seaports every year.'' - Tom Ridge (6/21/04)

 

* ''In the end, it's not just policies and programs that matter; the president who sits at that desk must be guided by principle.''

 

''Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition... to the early use of military force by the U.S. against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.'' - John F. Kerry letter to constituent Wallace Carter (1/22/91)

 

''Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.'' - John F. Kerry letter to that same constituent Wallace Carter (1/31/91)

 

* ''We believe in the family value of caring for our children...''

 

John Kerry voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. - Congressional Record

 

* ''You don't value families by denying real prescription drug coverage to seniors...''

 

''In December 2003, President Bush signed legislation that will make prescription drug coverage available to 40 million seniors and people with disabilities through Medicare.'' -Bush/Cheney 04 website.

 

* ''As President, I will not privatize Social Security.''

 

'''The Social Security system is expected to begin running a deficit within only 15 years (paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes). Current estimates calculate that, without reform, it will be unable to pay promised benefits until around 2037... The size of the problem should not be underestimated. The government will owe an estimated total of about $9 trillion more to current workers when they retire than it will have collected from them in taxes. This Social Security liability is more than twice the official national debt. It is larger than the total value of the United States gross domestic product.'' - The Social Security Reform Center

 

* ''Family and faith.''

 

''A Catholic lawyer has filed heresy charges against Sen. John Kerry with the Archdiocese of Boston, accusing the Democratic presidential candidate of bringing 'most serious scandal to the American public' by receiving Holy Communion as a pro-choice Catholic.'' - The Washington Times (7/01/04)

 

* ''Hard work and responsibility.''

 

''In 2004, America will be faced with the second opportunity to elect a president who has no real work experience outside government. Worse yet, as my colleague Rabbi Shmuley Boteach pointed out in his most recent column, Kerry's main work experience seems to have been marrying extremely rich women.'' - Joseph Farah (5/27/04)

 

* ''Next, we will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field - because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's nobody in the world the American worker can't compete against.''

 

''In 1993, Kerry voted YES on the North American Free Trade Agreement. This agreement over time removes most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico... Opponents still maintain that NAFTA has launched a race-to-the-bottom in wages, destroyed hundreds of thousands of good U.S. jobs, undermined democratic control of domestic policy-making, and threatened health, environmental and food safety standards.'' - Dave Eberhart, writer for NewsMax (3/20/04)

 

* ''I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education.''

 

''A tax increase on the top one percent, means they: Will be less likely to create a new business or expand an existing one, and Will be aware that the increased risk of starting a new business outweighs its potential returns... CDA (Center for Data Analysis) analysts sought to estimate the economic effect of raising taxes to pay for new spending. Using the 2003 Global Insight U.S. Macroeconomic Model, economists at the Center for Data Analysis simulated an $87 billion tax increase in personal income taxes in 2004. The CDA simulation increased personal income tax rates and taxes on capital gains and dividends. The Center’s study found that from 2004 to 2008: $14.3 billion in potential economic growth would be lost each year. Over 174,000 potential jobs would fail to materialize each year. $52 billion less disposable personal income each year.'' - The Heritage Foundation (10/17/03)

 

* ''Our education plan for a stronger America sets high standards and demands accountability from parents, teachers, and schools.''

 

''Most states have met or are at least on the way to meeting 75 percent of the major requirements of the No Child Left Behind law, according to the nonpartisan Education Commission of the States... Among the findings: -98 percent of states are on track to define what a 'persistently dangerous' school means, a designation that allows students in such schools to transfer... -92 percent are on track to publicly report achievement data for all major groups of students... -65 percent are on track to set clear, substantial expectations for students... -53 percent are on track to identify which schools are in need of improvement... -45 percent are on track to provide the promised "scientifically based" help to schools that have been targeted for improvement... -22 percent are on track to make new and current elementary, middle and secondary teachers of core subjects demonstrate that they are competent in their subjects." - Ben Feller, writier for AZCentral (07/15/04)

 

"'We have to get rid of this one-size-fits-all testing mania that is destroying the ability of people to apply discretion.'' - John F. Kerry (Los Angeles Times, 11/24/03)

 

''These attacks (see Kerry quote above) come less than two years after Congress overwhelmingly approved... the No Child Left Behind Act--with just six Democrats voting against it in both the House and Senate. The bill drew support from so many Democrats, including Kerry, largely because it extended the Clinton model of offering schools more help but stiffening the demands on them to show results.'' - Ronald Brownstein (Los Angeles Times writer, 11/24/03)

 

* ''And it gives a tax credit to families for each and every year of college.''

 

''The National Center for Education Statistics report, 'Getting Ready for College,' found that while the vast majority (91 percent) of students and parents report plans for higher education, they are generally unable to estimate accurately the cost of college tuition. When students and parents could offer estimates of tuition costs, they tended to overestimate, especially for public institutions... President Bush's 2004 budget request expands overall student aid available for postsecondary education to a record $62 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion, or 5 percent over the president's 2003 request. Working families will also see savings of $22.7 billion over five years in tax relief for expenses related to higher education.'' - U.S. Department of Education (10/01/03)

 

* ''Our health care plan for a stronger America cracks down on the waste, greed, and abuse in our health care system and will save families up to $1,000 a year on their premiums''

 

''John Edwards made nearly $27 million as a personal injury lawyer who won a string of multimillion-dollar jury verdicts and settlements. The Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign released Edwards' income figures in a statement Friday in response to questions about the taxes he paid after he created a tax shelter in 1995. Edwards paid $9,353,448 in federal taxes on his income of $26,869,496, but the shelter allowed him to avoid paying $591,112 in Medicare tax, the figures provided by the campaign show.'' - The San Francisco Chronicle (7/10/04)

 

* ''And when I'm President, America will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected - it is a right for all Americans.''

 

''Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing? Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them.'' - Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. (12/11/93)

 

* ''We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil.''

 

John F. Kerry voted against ANWR oil exploration seven times. - Congressional Record

 

* ''I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents.''

 

''After recession, 9-11 and war, today our economy has been growing for ten straight months. Historic tax relief helped create 1.4 million jobs. Inflation, interest and mortgage rates are low. And homeownership rates are at record highs. We've met serious challenges and things are beginning to turn around... The economy added 1,100 new jobs in May and the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent. So, what does John Kerry say? He's still pessimistic, on a misery tour talking about days of malaise and the Great Depression.'' - Bush/Ceney 04 (6/21/04)

 

* ''This is our time to reject the kind of politics calculated to divide race from race, group from group, region from region.''

 

''We will not stand by, and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.'' - Al Sharpton (1995)

 

''George W. Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy...'' - John F. Kerry

 

''Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as 'Hymies' and to New York City as 'Hymietown' in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman.'' - The Washington Post (3/27/98)

 

* ''What if we have a president who believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives?''

 

''Contrary to ongoing research with adult stem cells, which do not cause death and are supported by President Bush and unimpeded federal funds, not one human being is being treated with embryonic stem cells anywhere in the world. No clinical trials are in progress using this approach. No studies with human embryonic stem cells are even being contemplated. None! And why not? Because these cells are unpredictable and tend to create tumors in animals being treated with them.'' - Dr. James Dobson (6/15/04)

 

* ''It is time to reach for the next dream. It is time to look to the next horizon. For America, the hope is there. The sun is rising. Our best days are still to come.''

 

''It's morning in America'' - Ronald Wilson Reagan

 

''I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'' - Ronald Wilson Reagan

 

* ''Goodnight, God bless you, and God bless America.''

 

Now THAT I can agree with.

[gHari]

I've now learned to keep my mouth shut. I'm a quick learner. I'm just not part of your world. So take your abuse and "shove it" as she says.

 

[Vanguard]

Hold your nose and vote Bush. If you intend on voting that is.

 

I think Kerry's a fraud, but there's no way I'd ever vote for Bush. This whole 2004 American Election is all about picking our poison. Who is the better Menendez brother? They're both evil!

 

The multinational corporations have their tendrils too deep into capitol hill. Even if a relative maverick like Nader, Dean, or Kucinich was elected, they'd end up pretty much doing exactly what George W would do unless they wanted to end up like JFK.

 

So take your abuse and "shove it" as she says.

 

"Shove it" or "(Eff) off"? Again, it's a simple matter of picking your poison.

[theist]

Hard hearing a differing opinon or something?

[gHari]

Just not expecting abuse too. I quoted Kerry's wife to bring the demon out of the closet. He wasn't far from sleeping to full-scale demoniac.

 

[theist]

 

Even if a relative maverick like Nader, Dean, or Kucinich was elected, they'd end up pretty much doing exactly what George W would do unless they wanted to end up like JFK.

 

 

Kucinich is a vegan. He scores well for that. He used to be pro-life but he sold out when he decided to run with the Demoncrats. Without getting NARAL's nod the Demoncrats can't go anywhere nationally. A man that can sell out a position like that for office is the lowest of the low.

 

[theist]

Call demons and they will come. But I don't equate differing on John the abortion Kerry as a demonic position.

[Guest guest]

Vietnam, Kerry etc.

 

Propaganda: american style

 

apocalypse by numbers

 

The whole truth and nothing but the truth, online book "What Uncle Sam Really Wants"

[Guest guest]

Amercias greatest hits

[Guest guest]

"The Savage Extreme of a Narrow Policy Spectrum"

Five Questions with Noam Chomsky

By MERLIN CHOWKWANYUN

 

MIT Professor Noam Chomsky is one of the world's most perceptive social critics. I had the opportunity recently to ask him some questions concerning a range of subject matter. Professor Chomsky's latest book is Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance. Other works, many recently reissued, include American Power and the New Mandarins, Manufacturing Consent, and Deterring Democracy.

 

Merlin Chowkwanyun: One scholar and activist whom you've cited (and whom I wish more people knew about and read) is Seymour Melman, who more than two decades ago articulated the concept of a "permanent war economy." What was Melman describing, and how does it limit or shape a chief executive's foreign policy?

 

Prof. Noam Chomsky: The term "permanent war economy" is attributed to Charles Wilson, CEO of GE, who warned at the end of World War II that the US must not return to a civilian economy, but must keep to a "permanent war economy" of the kind that was so successful during the war: a semi-command economy, run mostly by corporate executives, geared to military production. Among other very important contributions, Melman has written extensively on the harmful effects of gearing much of the economy to military production rather than to civilian needs. What he describes is correct and important, but there are other dimensions to be considered. After World War II, most economists and business leaders expected that the economy would sink back to depression without massive government intervention of the kind that, during the war years, finally overcame the Great Depression. The New Deal had softened the edges, but not much more. Business understood that social spending could overcome market catastrophes as well as military spending, but social spending has a downside: it has a democratizing and redistributive effect while military spending is a gift to the corporate manager, a steady cushion. And the public is not involved. People care about hospitals and schools, but if you can "scare the hell out of them," as Senator Vandenberg recommended, they will huddle under the umbrella of power and trust their leaders when it comes to jet planes, missiles, tanks, etc. Furthermore, business was well aware that high-tech industry could not survive in a competitive free enterprise economy, and "government must be the savior," as the business press explained. Such considerations converged on the decision to focus on military rather than social spending. And it should be borne in mind that "military spending" does not mean just military spending. A great deal of it is high-tech R&D. Virtually the entire "new economy" has relied heavily on the military cover to socialize risk and cost and privatize profit, often after many decades: computers and electronics generally, telecommunications and the Internet, satellites, the aeronautical industry (hence tourism, the largest "service industry"), containerization (hence contemporary trade), computer-controlled machine tools, and a great deal more. Alan Greenspan and others like to orate about how all of this is a tribute to the grand entrepreneurial spirit and consumer choice in free markets. That's true of the late marketing stage, but far less so in the more significant R&D stage. Much the same is true in the biology-based sectors of industry, though different pretexts are used. The record goes far back, but these mechanisms to sustain the advanced industrial economy became far more significant after World War II.

 

In brief, the permanent war economy has an economic as well as a purely military function. And both outcomes -- incomparable military force and an advanced industrial economy -- naturally provide crucial mechanisms for foreign policy planning, much of it geared to ensuring free access to markets and resources for the state-supported corporate sector, constraining rivals, and barring moves towards independent development.

 

Chowkwanyun: The coup in Haiti occupied headlines for about a month this past spring, but a scan through the major news archives reveals a lack of follow-up stories since, save for the recent minor surge of articles on the U.S. new investigation of Aristide's alleged corruption. What preliminary interpretations can we make about the general U.S. press coverage of Aristide's fall from power? And how can we situate what happened in Haiti in historical context?

 

Chomsky: As press coverage has declined, serious human rights violations increase, a matter of no interest since Washington attained its goals. Previous press coverage kept closely to the officially-determined parameters: Aristide's corruption and violence in a "failed state," despite the noble US effort to "restore democracy" in 1994. It would have been hard to find even a bare reference to Washington's fierce opposition to the Aristide government when it took office in 1990 in Haiti's first democratic election, breaking the pattern of US support for brutal dictatorship ever since Wilson's murderous and destructive invasion in 1915; or of the instant support of the Bush-I and then Clinton administrations for the vicious coup leaders (extending even to authorization of oil shipments to them and their rich supporters in violation of presidential directives); or of the fact that Clinton's noble restoration of democracy was conditioned on the requirement that the government must adopt the harsh neoliberal program of the defeated US candidate in the 1990 election, who won 14% of the vote. It was obvious at once that this would have a devastating effect on the economy, as it did. Bush-II tightened the stranglehold by barring aid, and pressuring international institutions to do the same, on spurious pretexts, therefore contributing further to the implosion of the society. No less cynical was the contemptuous refusal of France, which preceded Washington as the primary destroyer of Haiti, even to consider Aristide's entirely legitimate request of repayment of the outrageous indemnity that Haiti was forced to pay for the crime of liberating itself from French tyranny and plunder, the source of much of France's wealth. All of this was missing, replaced by lamentations about how even our remarkable magnanimity and nobility were insufficient to bring democracy and development to the backward Haitians, though we would now try again, in our naive optimism.

 

This illustration of abject servility to power is not, regrettably, unique. But the spectacle is particularly disgusting when the world's most powerful state crushes under its boot, once again, the poorest country in the hemisphere, as it has been doing in one or another way for 200 years, at first in understandable fear of a rebellion that established the first free country of free men right next door to a leading slave state, and on to the present. It is a depressing illustration of how a highly disciplined intellectual class can reframe even the most depraved actions as yet another opportunity for self-adulation.

 

Chowkwanyun: Recent films and books from establishment liberal circles focus almost entirely on actions of the Bush Administration both abroad (the Iraq venture on false pretenses) and at home (the Patriot Act, for example). Should the analysis incorporate more events than that, and if so, how far back? How sharp a cleave does there really exist between the Clinton years and the current people in the executive branch? Is there

more continuity than the recent works are suggesting?

 

Chomsky: The Bush administration is at the extreme savage and brutal end of a narrow policy spectrum. Accordingly, its actions and policies came under unprecedented criticism in the mainstream, in conservative circles as well. A good illustration is the reaction to the National Security Strategy announced in September 2002, along with the virtual declaration of war against Iraq, and the onset of a highly successful government-media propaganda campaign that drove the frightened population far off the spectrum of world opinion. The NSS was condemned at once in the main establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, as a new "imperial grand strategy" that was likely to cause harm to US interests. Others joined in sharp criticism of the brazen arrogance and incompetence of the planners: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the rest. But the criticism was quite narrow, more concerned with style and implementation than substance. Typical was the reaction of Madeleine Albright, also in Foreign Affairs. Like others, she criticized the Bush planners. She added, correctly, that every president has a similar strategy, but doesn't smash people in the face with it, antagonizing even allies. Rather, he keeps it in his back pocket to use when needed. She knew of course that the "Clinton doctrine" was even more extreme than the NSS, declaring that the US would resort to force unilaterally if necessary to ensure access to markets and resources, without even the pretexts of "self-defense" conjured up by Bush propagandists and their acolytes. But Clinton presented the doctrine quietly, and was careful to carry out his crimes, which were many, in ways that would be acceptable to allies and could be justified or concealed by elite opinion, including the media.

 

Continuities are real, and go back long before. After all, policies are largely rooted in institutions, and these are quite stable. But there are also differences, and even small differences can translate into substantial outcomes in a system of enormous power.

 

Chowkwanyun: Even though day-to-day conditions and structural realities in Latin America are generally worse than those in the United States, political progress in Latin America of the past few years is inspiring, especially given the stacked odds in countries like Brazil. What accounts for these successes? Do you see an opportunity for more solidarity between American activists and counterparts in other countries, and in general, more global approaches to activism?

 

Chomsky: Brazil is a remarkable and illuminating case. It is instructive to compare the two largest and most important countries of the hemisphere.

 

In the forthcoming presidential elections in the US, there is a choice: between two candidates who were born to wealth and political power, attended the same elite university, joined the same secret society that instructs members in the style and manners of the rulers, and are able to run because they are funded by largely the same corporate powers. The Public Relations industry, which basically runs the campaigns, makes sure that they keep away from "issues" (except in vague and obscure terms) and focus on "qualities" -- "leadership,personality," etc. The public is not unaware of its purposeful marginalization. On the eve of the 2000 election, about 75% of the public regarded it as largely meaningless -- prior to Florida shenanigans, the Supreme Court, etc., which were mostly an elite concern. In 2004, more appears to be at stake and interest is greater, but there is a continuation of the long process of disengagement mainly on the part of poor and working class Americans, who simply do not feel that they are represented. The Harvard University project that monitors these matters currently reports that "the turnout gap between the top and bottom fourth by income is by far the largest among western democracies and has been widening."

 

In Brazil, in dramatic contrast, there was an authentic democratic election. The organized public were able to elect their own candidate, a person from their own ranks, despite barriers far higher than in the US: a very repressive state, tremendous inequality and concentration of wealth and media power, extreme hostility of international capital and its institutions. They were able to do so because of decades of serious organizing and activism by very significant popular organizations: the Landless Workers Movement, the Workers Party, unions, and others. These are all lacking in "failed states" with democratic forms that have little in the way of substance, in which we have elections of the kind taking place in November 2004.

 

It is also striking to compare the US reaction to the election in Brazil today and the election of a moderately populist candidate, with much less support and much less impressive credentials, 40 years ago. That deviation from good form led to intervention by the Kennedy administration to organize a military coup, carried out shortly after the assassination, instituting a neo-Nazi National Security State of extreme brutality, hailed by Washington liberals as a great victory for democracy and freedom. Today nothing like that is considered. Part of the reason is that the activism of the intervening years has led to much more civilized societies in both countries. The US population is not likely to tolerate the unconcealed criminality of the Kennedy and Johnson years, nor would Brazilians easily capitulate. Another reason is that establishment of murderous dictatorships is no longer necessary. It should hardly be a secret that neoliberal mechanisms are well designed to restrict very narrowly the threat of democracy. As long as Brazil accepts them, the elected President must reject the program on which he was elected, and follow the orders of the international financial powers and investors even more rigorously than his predecessor, so as to "establish credibility" with the masters of the world. One of Clinton's impressive achievements was forging these bonds more firmly, so as to guard wealth and power from the threat that democracy might actually function.

 

Of course, none of this is graven in stone. In the 1980s, for the first time in the history of Western imperialism, solidarity movements developed in reaction to Reaganite crimes in Central America, which went far beyond protest; thousands of people joined the victims, to help them, and to provide them with some limited protection from the US-run state and mercenary terrorist forces that were ravaging the region. Still more strikingly, they were rooted in mainstream circles, including significant participation from church-based organizations, among them evangelical Christians. These movements have since extended to many other regions, with actions of great courage and integrity, and heroic victims, like Rachel Corrie. Beyond that, for the first time ever, there are really significant international solidarity movements, based mainly in the South, but with increasing participation from the North, drawing from many walks of life and much of the world. Included are the global justice movements (ridiculously called "anti-globalization" movements) that have been meeting in the World Social Forum in Brazil and India, and have spawned regional and local social forums over much of the world. These are the first serious manifestations of the kind of international solidarity that has been the dream of the left and the labor movements since their modern origins. How far such developments can reach we can, of course, never predict. But they are impressive and highly promising.

 

Bitter class warfare in the West is by and large restricted to the highly class-conscious business sector, which is often quite frank about its objectives and understands very well what its publications call "the hazard facing industrialists in the rising political power of the masses." But while they have had great success in dominant sectors of power in the US, and other industrial countries, they are no more invulnerable than they have been in moments of comparable triumphalism in the past.

 

Chowkwanyun: A common trope these days holds that academics are too "liberal,leftist," or "radical," etc. What are your thoughts on this interpretation and on the state of contemporary academia in general?

 

Chomsky: I have to admit that I have an irrational dislike of the word "trope," and other postmodern affectations. But overcoming that, this "trope" hardly merits comment. It can stand alongside of the charge that the media are "too liberal." These charges are not entirely untrue. For quite good reasons, the doctrinal systems try to focus attention on "social and cultural issues," and in these domains, it is largely true that professionals (academic, media) are "liberal"; that is, they have a profile similar to CEOs. Much the same is true when we shift to the issues that are of major concern to the population, but are systematically excluded from the electoral agenda and largely swept to the side in commentary. Take, for example, the misleadingly named "free trade agreements." They are supported by a substantial elite consensus, and generally opposed by the public, so much so that critical analysis of them or even information about them has to be largely suppressed, sometimes in remarkable ways, well documented. The business world is well aware of this. Opponents of these investor-rights versions of economic integration have an "ultimate weapon," the Wall Street Journal lamented: the public is opposed. Therefore various means have to be devised to conceal their nature and implement them without public scrutiny. The same is true of many other issues. It is, for example, widely agreed that a leading domestic problem is escalating costs for health care in the most inefficient system of the industrial world, with far higher per capita expenditures than others and poor outcomes by comparative standards. The reasons are understood by health professionals: privatization, which imposes enormous inefficiencies and costs, and the immense power of the pharmaceutical industry. Polls regularly show strong public support for some form of national health care (80% in the most recent poll I have seen), but when that is even mentioned, the "too-liberal press" dismisses it as "politically impossible" (New York Times). That's correct: the insurance companies and pharmaceutical industry are opposed, and with the effective erosion of a democratic culture, it therefore doesn't matter what the population wants. The same is commonly true on international issues. One finds little difference, I think, between the academic world and other sectors of the professional and managerial

 

[gHari]

Do you now think I'm an idiot, Theist Prabhu? What has happened to you? Obviously, abortion had nothing to do with my comment. Deriding a devotee in the third person in his presence is one thing, but the "gay hari" thing was simply demonic. [i now see that several posts have been deleted in the interest of good taste]

 

I truly feel sorry for political people; ill-manners always seem to accompany the attachment.

[theist]

No I don't think you are an idiot. I took the anti-Kerry posts as bringing out another angle on the man. His support of patial birth abortion and gay marriages etc. really turns me off.

 

I was the initial guest that responded. Thinking back I now think it would have been wiser to stick with your original healthcare idea for discussion. Seeing the term Pres. Kerry set of an alarm in my head. Sorry for misdirect-ing the topic in that way.

 

I have been in favor of a pre-emptive military option since early Ronald Reagen. So I like Bush on that approach, although I would consider myself to be far more to the right than he or most people out there.

 

For instance, I have always hated the term'state sponsered terrorism', prefering instead the more precise 'act of war'. Leaders, as well as devotees, should be "Soft as a rose and as strong as a thunderbolt." Presently we have neither.

 

For instance when Israel took out Saddam's military grade nuclear reactor sites in 1981 I jumped for joy noting that madhood in leadership is not completely dead in the world.

 

We should do the same with Iran, now, post haste.

 

The Republicans come closest to that thinking so I tend to favor them. As well as on a host of other issues. School vouchers, abortion, public expressions of religion. Preventing the mass media from distributing pronography. School prayer for example, I say let the atheists ignore God in the privacy of their own homes if they like, but we shouldn't let them stifle us on God's own planet. Republicans are more closely aligned with us on those issues.

 

There are a host of other issues also.

 

But I have no illusions about the Republicans either. Under them universal healthcare will never come about without a tremendous push from the public. I doubt the Dems. sincereity on the issue also. Politicans are known for not following through on their promises.

 

On the environment I am far far left. In fact, I would place such strong controls on what can be produced that many would call me a fascist. Some here already do.

 

A product should have to prove it is enviromentally safe before it could be manufactured. Not after it has already caused much harm. I got that from E.F. Schumacher's Small is Beautiful.

 

As to a post calling you gay hari that also would have brought a response from me. I certainly don't think like that. I never saw the post and welcome its deletion.

[Guest guest]

Theistji, once again your lack of information which in turn generates your political likes and dislikes is stunning in it's vapidness.

 

Do you do any reading at all on these subjects other then mass media outlets ?

 

I mean really, some of the things I read here are stunning in their ignorance.

 

If Charlie Manson and the Manson family were running for president and they were anti abortion, what would the difference be between them and Duhbya Bush and the republicans ?

 

Different haircuts.

 

I am amazed at the vaisnavas who fall for the puerile propaganda ( anti abortion rhetoric, anti gay rhetoric, pro god rhetoric ) used by demons to get religious fanatics on their side and to back their demonic agenda.

 

It's appalling to see otherwise sincere vaisnavas duped in such a gross manner. I can only conclude that you are uneducated in the evil that is at the heart and soul of both the democrat and republican agendas. They are both the same corporate sponsored plutocratic monster that has wielded a fascist terrorist grip over the poor countries of the world since the end of WW2. It's just that the republicans thought up of conning the religious minded folks into believing that they were on their side, falsely promoting their religious agenda. The democrats would have done the same thing if they had known how effective that strategy was to become.

 

So don't be gullible saps. It's embarrassing . If you are going to have an opinion, puh leeze, become educated on that topic before expounding your "opinion" on it. What value does your opinion have if it is not a completely informed opinion ?

 

If you did not know who Charlie Manson was, and he was the Republican or Democratic nominee for president, and he mouthed the usual "We will fix everything", "We are anti abortion, pro god, blah blah blah", you guys would be telling us how Manson should be voted in because the other guy is pro choice and not anti gay, and not a religious fanatic.

 

The result is you end up with a murderous demon and his family of killers who have conned you, your information determines your choice of whom to support.

 

Be informed, don't join the Manson family.

 

The following is titled

 

Absolute Power: The Making of the New World Order

 

by Richard K. Moore

 

For similar stuff go to The Bloody Road to Empire and Secrets, Lies and Democracy

 

 

 

 

<font size=2>The dominant trend of our time is globalization, marked by elimination of trade barriers, downsized governments, greater reliance on the private sector, reduced regulation of business, and an increasingly global economy. Many people call that economic progress, but this form of globalization is actually political regression, threatening to destroy democratic institutions and revert to something resembling feudalism.

 

In some ways, the US is central to the process. It's the leading free trade proponent, and provides the primary military muscle to maintain global order. When the US president speaks on international issues, his words are taken seriously. Yet, the US isn't the primary beneficiary of globalization, and doesn't appear to be exploiting its advantage in the traditional fashion.

 

The reason should be obvious: Globalization isn't about competition among nations, it's about the increasing power of mega-corporations over nations. In effect, the US government acts as a proxy for elite corporate interests, not as a representative of its people or even national interests in any conventional sense. Although sovereign national states are the Familiar World Order, globalization is leading us inexorably toward a New World Order where mega-corporations (and the wealthy elite who control them) reign supreme, while nations are reduced to a vestigial, subservient, policing role-as seen in much of the Third World.

 

THE DEMOCRATIC ILLUSION

 

Under feudalism, there were three elites: the church hierarchy, landed aristocracy/nobility, and royalty. As that system ended, an additional elite-the business wealthy-gained influence through trade and manufacture. These elites competed for power, with different accommodations from time to time and place to place.

 

For the general population, the elites represented security or tyranny, depending on your perceptive. But it was obvious that they ran things; no one pretended society was democratic. With the advent of 'democratic republics," the older elites were ousted, while the business wealthy, who ushered in capitalism, remained relatively undisturbed. Did this transformation bring about genuine democracy, or merely monopolization of power in the hands of the single remaining elite? The question remains open.

 

Although sentiment for independence in the American colonies was minimal prior to the latter 18th century, objective conditions made it a natural and comparatively non-disruptive step. The colonies were largely self-governing and economically self-sufficient, and had their own social identity, extensive trading fleets, and considerable natural resources. Boston was the third busiest port in the British Empire. The issue was independence, not a social or political revolution. The colonial assemblies would presumably continue afterward, with essentially the same leaders, and land ownership and economic activity continuing basically as before. However, industrial development would be possible and international trade wouldn't be directly limited by the vagaries of British imperial entanglements. The resources of the new continent could be developed without sharing the spoils. For the elite, a divorce from the empire represented profound, immediate economic opportunities.

 

Whatever one might think about the intentions of the (mostly elite) Founding Fathers-or the theory of the Constitution-- US history has been a see-saw battle for control between the people and the capitalist elite. At times, as in the late 19th-century-robber-baron era, the elite brazenly ruled. John. D. Rockefeller bragged about how many government officials were "in his pocket." At other times, as during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, government seemed more responsive to the needs and wishes of the general population.

 

Gradually, the US became an almost mystical symbol, complete with fable-like imagery: the land of freedom and opportunity, a "bastion of democracy" where the streets were "paved with gold." People yearned to believe in this fairy tale kingdom. In reality, its growth was largely achieved through periodic warfare.

 

There has been a significant war approximately every 30 years, often initiated (overtly or covertly) by the US, and usually sparking a further expansion of US power and elite interests. Such aggression isn't particularly uncommon among nations; what's different is the propaganda mythology that successfully defined the US as acting in defense of "freedom and democracy."

 

Repeatedly, the use of outrage-incidents triggered the war spirit, and channeled the resulting wrath toward the nominated enemy. It concentrated power in the executive branch, where elite control is generally most undiluted by popular influence. This process is exemplified by the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which enabled full-scale US military involvement in Vietnam. The incident was faked, but Congress promptly issued its knee jerk resolution, authorizing the president to "act in defense."

 

The "authorized actions" were then incrementally escalated into a full-scale war, with Congress having minimal additional influence and popular will finding expression only in the streets. Even when the hoax was exposed, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

TOWARD GLOBAL DOMINANCE

 

The rise of communist and socialist movements following World War I created considerable fear among elite capitalists. Marxist ideology emphasized their tyrannical aspects, and issued a call for solidarity among peasants and industrial workers, whom Marx credited with creating all real wealth. Although simplistic, this ideology took firm root in Russia and seemed poised to spread farther.

 

In Germany, Italy, and Spain, anti-elite movements gained popular strength under the banners of socialism, communism, or anarchism. Thus, it wasn't surprising that the elites in those and other countries welcomed and encouraged the rise of fascism, which was virulently anti-communist, pro-capitalist, and willing to brutally suppress any opposition.

Hitler began his political career as an operative of German military intelligence and received funding and support from Western industrialists.

 

While in prison, writing Mein Kampf he kept a portrait of Henry Ford on his desk. Mein Kampf made it unambiguous that Hitler's primary objective was the subjugation and economic exploitation of Russia.

 

By ignoring their own prohibition on German re-armament, the Western elite collaborated with Hitler in developing an invasion force targeted on socialism's bastion. Meanwhile, it uneasily watched Japan's growing economic power and imperial scope.

 

The latter was a significant threat. Not only would Asian market and investment opportunities be highly curtailed, but Japan would be dislodging the West from its role as collective master of the seas and arbiter of global imperial arrangements.

 

The US handled this complex situation with finesse and subtlety, guided by a strategic vision unsurpassed by the imperial masterminds of any previous age. The war-popularizing incident was the Japanese strike on the US Pacific fleet, sparked by the cut off of Japanese oil supplies, which the US convinced Holland to undertake. President Roosevelt feigned surprise and outrage, and the most formidable, popularly supported military crusade of all time was launched.

 

By end of the war, the US was very close to global hegemony. It had the run of the seven seas, an intact military machine and national infrastructure, a monopoly on nuclear weapons, greatly expanded influence in the oil-rich Middle East, and the lion's share of the world's disposable wealth and industrial capacity. With most of the rest of the world in shambles, deep debt, and/or under occupation, the US had the prestige, power, and resources to guide the construction of post-war arrangements largely according to its own designs.

 

RISE OF THE MEGACORPS

 

Following the war, the US-led Western elite drew a line on the globe, demarking the part they dominated. The "free world" (doublespeak for "elite-controlled zone") was organized into a new kind of investment realm, while much of the "free" population was systematically subjected to military dictatorships responsive to elite interests. The doublespeak usage of "freedom," originating during the American Revolution, had been globalized.

 

Meanwhile, the "communist bloc" (doublespeak for "beyond elite control") was contained: ostracized, pestered by provocative military deployments, and subjected to chronic economic destabilization via the "arms race," expensive brushfire engagements, and trade restrictions. However, rather than using its strength to establish a traditional imperial system, with Europe relegated to a secondary position and Japan kept underdeveloped, the US implemented a bold new global scheme: collective imperialism.

 

Under a Pax Americana military umbrella, an international economic infrastructure was established (IMF, World Bank et al). Investment and trade were free to flow, increasingly, around the "free" world, without the territorial partitions imposed by a competitive European imperial system. For the ex-colonies (soon to be dubbed the Third World"), the result was domination by the capital elite, rather than the business interests of a single national power.

 

This semi-homogenized, semi-pacified, investment environment enabled large corporations to develop global operations. Thus arose the era of megacorps-mammoth corporations with wealth and influence comparable to nations. Beyond any sense of home-nation loyalty, megacorps view regulations and trade barriers as provincial interference. Their needs and demands are usually the hidden agenda behind Western policies.

 

This is a new species of political entity, in direct competition with its ancestor, the modern nation state. Born out of limited-liability laws, nurtured by capitalist culture, and lacking any natural sense of limits, megacorps extend themselves like cancer cells, poisoning their host planet in the process. Their motivation is to increase their market value on behalf of their owners.

 

What would be the nature of a megacorp-governed world? There's no need to speculate: We can simply look at Third-World countries. What we see are minimal regulation and taxation of megacorp activities, along with repressive regimes subsidized, armed, and otherwise bolstered by outside elite interests.

 

THE NEOLIBERAL REVOLUTlON

 

In 1980, a new phase of consolidation was launched in the US and Britain under the stage management of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The platform of the "neoliberal revolution" was lower corporate taxes, reduced corporate regulation, privatization of public services, elimination of international trade barriers, and the self-demonization of democratic political institutions. "The only good government is less government" became the kamikaze agenda.

 

This amounts to a wholesale transference of power, assets, and sovereignty into megacorp hands, embezzlement on the grandest scale ever attempted. Public lands, rights, responsibilities, and assets are passed into private hands at undervalued prices-without effective public oversight. Government itself is being dismantled.

 

By rights, neoliberalism's public leaders ought to be indicted for conspiracy and high treason. Their revolution represents a declaration that nation states are no longer the tools of power, and that megacorps are the primary vehicle for wealth accumulation and organizing global society.

 

And they're making it clear that First World nations and their populations are no longer privileged partners in the game. To this end, international arrangements such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank, NAFTA, and GATT ensure that economic, social, and political polices can be dictated globally by corporate-dominated commissions. Megacorps and their commissions are controlled directly by the elite. There are no democratic mechanisms and no pretense that they represent the "will of the people."

 

Democracy, the scam which unleashed capitalism, has finally become a direct hindrance to elite hegemony.

 

A significant difference between the neoliberal and American revolutions is the lack of emphasis on democracy and freedom. Today's promises are related mainly to "opportunity." People are encouraged to assume that democracy is a fact of life, an unshakable institution, secure from any fatal dangers. We're also encouraged to view capital exploitation as a sign of democracy, particularly in formerly socialist states. As citizens there suffer under intentionally destabilized economies, megacorps organize exploitive infrastructures. Meanwhile, we're told that the locals are simply "slow to adapt."

 

Traditionally in "democracies," police forces are small and order arises from the spirit of citizenship. But under neoliberalism, abandonment of public services is depressing satisfaction' while the de-emphasis of nationalist ideology is undermining civic identity and voluntary compliance. The elite understands that, as living standards decline in once-prosperous nations, more economic suffering and political discontent are inevitable. Not surprisingly, police-state systems are growing, and an intense propaganda campaign is underway regarding crime, its causes, and cures. More police, longer sentences, and more prisons are the elite's answer to the question of public order.

 

The nature of the US penal system is changing. As prison construction becomes the largest growth industry, a formidable capacity is being built. Prisons are literally becoming the concentration camps of the neoliberal regime, places to isolate those redundant to corporate needs. But never wanting to waste an exploitable resource, the elite are also developing an extensive prison labor system, renting out inmates to fill lower-rung labor needs. This growing network of slave-labor concentration camps has escaped public notice. So, too, has its racial and ethnic bias.

 

THE WORLD COP

 

If nations are to be weakened, from where will the armies come to maintain the New World Order? Nationalist spirit has been central to modern war efforts. How can a disenfranchised, betrayed populace be expected to rally "to the defense" when the elite need them? Who will maintain the infrastructure for weapons systems and delivery? What will be the command structure, and on behalf of what political entity will military operations occur? Finally, what about public opinion? The myth of democracy requires that some degree of popular sentiment be roused for dramatic military interventions.

 

The Gulf "War" and its aftermath demonstrated how the elite plans to deal with some of these problems. The episode set major historic precedents, establishing new paradigms for global propaganda, weapons technology, blitzkrieg tactics, and international law. It planted in the public mind the principle that the US has a justifiable global policing role, and exported to the global stage its traditional war-incident scenario.

 

Technologically, it was a field test of new weapons systems. Precise night operations, stealth defenses, guided weapons, satellite navigation, cruise missiles, bulldozers as mass murder devices, air-fuel explosives, uranium-weighted shells, anti-nerve gas vaccinations- an entire new generation of weaponry was tested on a modern, supposedly well-armed, industrial nation. With almost no loss of life in the elite forces, Iraq's infrastructure was systematically destroyed and its population subjected to relentless terrorism.

 

Technology helps solve the problem posed by the demise of strong nationalism, which formerly provided large, motivated armies. By emphasizing hi-tech weapons, operated from safe havens, and using blitzkrieg tactics, the length of the intervention was minimized, the number of casualties (on the elite side) kept low, and the need for a large, non-professional army reduced.

 

The war-provoking incident-Iraq's invasion of Kuwait-was brought about by Kuwait's economically provocative oil-dumping policy, followed by a "go signal" from the US secretary of state regarding Iraq's invasion. Once the incident occurred, outrage and surprise were feigned, and a world-wide media/lobbying campaign was launched to cajole UN approval of US military action. Saddam Hussein was quickly assigned the role of Hitleresque madman. The US launched a military campaign of its own design, and-as with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution-UN approval was a blank check.

This precedent established itself firmly on the media-managed "world stage." Since then, the US has all but been handed the official title of "Judge Dredd"-judge, jury, and executioner of international law-and US intervention is no longer considered imperialism.

 

UNRAVELING THE BIG LIE

 

If the New World Order becomes completely operational, overall policies will be set by non-elected, corporate-dominated commissions; the world's economy, information, and working conditions will be managed by megacorps; governmental functions will be reduced to administrative matters and police management. And all this will be enforced by an elite-dominated strike force built around the US military and NATO.

 

The US has a unique role only partly due to its position as the dominant military power. It also reflects the fact that, compared to other First-World countries, it's the most thoroughly captured by megacorp interests. And the US people, in their habitual credulity, are the most effectively mesmerized by media mythology. It's almost a "safe house" for NWO operations.

 

There is only a brief window of opportunity in which First-World populations can reclaim their paper democracies, through intensive political organizing and the creation of broad coalition movements. But such an unprecedented peaceful revolution will only become possible if people wake up to the true nature of the threat.

 

Given the dire consequences of globalization, the widespread acclaim for its steady progress is somewhat remarkable. The credit goes to the sophistication and pervasiveness of the accompanying propaganda campaign, plus the absence of effective forums for alternate perspectives. If a Big Lie is repeated often and loudly enough, people will eventually believe it.

 

In countering globalization rhetoric, therefore, perhaps the most powerful argument regards the corruption of governments and politicians. Although we're reminded daily of it, we're rarely informed that political corruption is really the illegal intrusion of the corporate elite into the political process. But if enough people realize this, it will no longer be as easy for global corporatization to pose as a "solution" to the problem.</font>

 

[theist]

I am glad to have further confirmation that we are in disagreement shiva. I feel more secure in that.

 

As we have discussed before I don't follow your, links nor read the stuff you import here so save your strength. At least as far as directing them to me. Others may go but don't think I am.

 

I am hoping you aren't going to flood this thread. We all know about google searches.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

You seem to be in disagreement with just about anyone who is educated. Your championing of demons and their demonic agendas shows your lack of education and is beneath you, and your egotistic self righteousness is not far behind.

 

There are basically two kinds of people in this world, those who learn from their mistakes, and those who fight to the end trying to cover them over.

 

Be real.

[theist]

insightful critique and your edifying comments shiva. I am not interested in any back and forth insult slinging match.

 

Be well

 

Hare krsna

[Guest guest]

Mud slinging is coming from you, criticism of and education is coming from me. I critique your appalling support of the demonic globalist fascist regime, which incredibly you think is going to slide by on a forum of vaisnavas who pride themselves on the fight for Dharma.

 

If you think that your opinions are well thought out and defendable then you would engage in debate.

 

But you don't, you simply give your whole hearted support to the asuras and then act as if you are above defending your position when it is challenged.

 

This is the cowards way out. If you really had a good idea of what you are supporting you would defend your position.

 

you said

 

"For instance when Israel took out Saddam's military grade nuclear reactor sites in 1981 I jumped for joy noting that mad[n?]hood in leadership is not completely dead in the world.

 

We should do the same with Iran, now, post haste."

 

Israel, also known as nuclear city, also known as torture city, also known as apartheid city, also known for mass murder not only of the palestinians, but lebanon and libya also have been the recipient of israeli murder sprees, but you knew this and defend this. You probably heard about when they were going to whack Duhbya's dad when he was president, the mossad decided to dress up like palestinians and take out GW Bush in Madrid when he was the prez, this was because he had frozen aid to israel. It was foiled at the last moment when a renegade ex mossad informed a U.S senator of the plot. here is the story from the mossad colonel

 

"By 1988, Israel possessed nearly 200 nuclear weapons of various types, and a fleet of fighter aircraft designed for nuclear payloads. Israel's tactical nuclear arsenal at the time included land mines planted along the Golan Heights. Currently, Tel Aviv's Nes Tziyona Biological Institute produces chemical and biological weapons, and its arsenal features ballistic and cruise missiles designed for nuclear warheads, at least 200 neutron bombs, and F-16 fighter jets designed to carry chemical and biological payloads."

 

"For the most part, Israel is the subcontractor for American arms to the 'Third World.' There is no terrible regime-Colombia, Guatemala, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile during the time of the colonels, Burma, Taiwan, Zaire, Liberia, Congo, Sierra Leone-there is not one that does not have a major military connection to Israel.... So this is the missing piece... Israel is a key member of the empire."

 

CovertAction Quarterly magazine

 

I could go on and on endlessly, but you have no desire to know facts and figures, you have your belief and thats all you care to re-inforce..

 

For everyone else

Israel Watch

 

America, the worlds imperial overlord, the country that is openly the only country in history to use atomic weapons, the country who enslaves the poorest countries in the world through the military, CIA and mercenaries, The U.S. of Asuras, these are the guys you fully support in their demonic agenda ?

 

Amazing.

 

Then you say

 

"The Republicans come closest to that thinking so I tend to favor them. As well as on a host of other issues. School vouchers, abortion, public expressions of religion. Preventing the mass media from distributing pronography. School prayer for example, I say let the atheists ignore God in the privacy of their own homes if they like, but we shouldn't let them stifle us on God's own planet. Republicans are more closely aligned with us on those issues"

 

Huzzah for the Republicans, it doesn't matter that everything they say is a lie, it doesn't matter that they are saying these things to fool lunkheads, who sop it up and then support these asuras. Yeah for the lying demons, bomb iran, bomb them all, yeah, yeah.

 

This retarded propaganda is meant for their right wing christian base, you know, rednecks.

 

Then you say you support them on:

 

"There are a host of other issues also."

 

Oh yeah? Like what ?

 

Turning the planet into a giant slave state ? where prision construction is the fastest growing sector of the economy(true), where most of the worlds population lives on pennies a day, where they have no employment but to work in american and european factories day and night to eek out enough to live on, while the american military/CIA is a constant threat to any country that gets out of line with this arrangement. The World Gobalization Fascist Order is what you support, that is what and who the republicans and the democrats work for and whose policies they serve. If you think otherwise because you have a save the trees sticker on your car, get real.

 

You can't defend your views, so you take the pretentious cowardly way out.

 

If you wanted no critique of your love for the asuras and their demonic world order, then don't advertise your appreciation for their ideology on a public forum.

 

I can only assume that you are ignorant, otherwise why are you really supported these asuras ? Do you really have full knowledge of who and what they are and what they are doing ?

 

Scary.

[theist]

I just find you impossible to speak with. Please take the hint.

[Guest guest]

We have all gotten the hint, you have nothing to say, so you pretend you are above debating your views. This is the sign of having nothing to back up your position and trying to pawn that off as your superior attitude i.e "how dare anyone criticize me".

 

Yeah, I got your hint.

 

You can easily tell us that you have this or that position in a debate, when you are asked to explain your obviously adharmic position you take the route of trying to pretend you are above explaining why.

 

Sorry if your ego can't handle a simple debate, you find it easy to criticize others on this thread, but you are above receiving any.

 

Hint taken, you can dish it out, but you cannot take it.