New Civilization News: American History: The Bush Family Legacy    
 American History: The Bush Family Legacy23 comments
picture24 Aug 2007 @ 07:29, by Richard Carlson

You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait. Do not even wait, be quite still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice. It will roll in ecstasy at your feet.

---Franz Kafka

To learn the way it is important to be sharp and inconspicuous. When you are sharp, you are not confused by people. When you are inconspicuous, you do not contend with people. Not being confused by people, you are empty and spiritual. Not contending with people, you are serene and subtle.


The best things in life are nearest. Breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of right just before you.

---Robert Louis Stevenson

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres. Portrait of Napoléon on the Imperial Throne. 1806.
Oil on canvas. Musée de l'Armée, Paris, France.

In the past few years, many of us on the American Left have found ourselves looking for understanding to the writings of historian Juan Cole. Born in Albuquerque in 1952, John "Juan" Ricardo I. Cole is professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. Not only does he have a new book entitled Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East, but he also translates works in both Arabic and Persian, and maintains a popular weblog called Informed Comment [link] .

The other day Juan Cole posted an entry in which he offered notions of historical comparison that he couldn't help thinking about the Bush involvements in the Middle East, given what he'd learned about Napoleon. While I strongly believe the species' survival depends on learning at least something from history, I also think historical comparisons are a tricky business. Nevertheless the current Bush asked for it in his big speech the other day when he invoked Viet Nam as his latest scare tactic. If he wants comparisons, then let us hear Professor Cole's.

Yesterday Tom Englehardt posted the essay at his site, and Juan Cole is requesting any citation of it be linked to TomGram, so I'll do that. He'll be discussing his perspective this afternoon at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC. Supposedly C-Span will be televising it live at 12:15 PM, and giving it an hour and a half.

Pitching the Imperial Republic
Bonaparte and Bush on Deck
By Juan Cole

French Egypt and American Iraq can be considered bookends on the history of modern imperialism in the Middle East. The Bush administration's already failed version of the conquest of Iraq is, of course, on everyone's mind; while the French conquest of Egypt, now more than two centuries past, is all too little remembered, despite having been led by Napoleon Bonaparte, whose career has otherwise hardly languished in obscurity. There are many eerily familiar resonances between the two misadventures, not least among them that both began with supreme arrogance and ended as fiascoes. Above all, the leaders of both occupations employed the same basic political vocabulary and rhetorical flimflammery, invoking the spirit of liberty, security, and democracy while largely ignoring the substance of these concepts.

The French general and the American president do not much resemble one another -- except perhaps in the way the prospect of conquest in the Middle East appears to have put fire in their veins and in their unappealing tendency to believe their own propaganda (or at least to keep repeating it long after it became completely implausible). Both leaders invaded and occupied a major Arabic-speaking Muslim country; both harbored dreams of a "Greater Middle East"; both were surprised to find themselves enmeshed in long, bitter, debilitating guerrilla wars. Neither genuinely cared about grassroots democracy, but both found its symbols easy to invoke for gullible domestic publics. Substantial numbers of their new subjects quickly saw, however, that they faced occupations, not liberations.

My own work on Bonaparte's lost year in Egypt began in the mid-1990s, and I had completed about half of Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East before September 11, 2001. I had no way of knowing then that a book on such a distant, scholarly subject would prove an allegory for Bush's Iraq War. Nor did I guess that the United States would give old-style colonialism in the Middle East one last try, despite clear signs that the formerly colonized would no longer put up with such acts and had, in the years since World War II, gained the means to resist them.

The Republic Militant Goes to War

In June of 1798, as his enormous flotilla -- 36,000 soldiers, thousands of sailors, and hundreds of scientists on 12 ships of the line -- swept inexorably toward the Egyptian coast, the young General Napoleon Bonaparte issued a grandiose communiqué to the bewildered and seasick troops he was about to march into the desert without canteens or reasonable supplies of water. He declared, "Soldiers! You are about to undertake a conquest, the effects of which on civilization and commerce are incalculable."

The prediction was as tragically inaccurate in its own way as the pronouncement George W. Bush issued some two centuries later, on May 1, 2003, also from the deck of a great ship of the line, the aircraft carrier the USS Abraham Lincoln. "Today," he said, "we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians."

Both men were convinced that their invasions were announcing new epochs in human history. Of the military vassals of the Ottoman Empire who then ruled Egypt, Bonaparte predicted: "The Mameluke Beys who favor exclusively English commerce, whose extortions oppress our merchants, and who tyrannize over the unfortunate inhabitants of the Nile, a few days after our arrival will no longer exist."

Bonaparte's laundry list of grievances about them consisted of three charges. First, the beys were, in essence, enablers of France's primary enemy at that time, the British monarchy which sought to strangle the young French republic in its cradle. Second, the rulers of Egypt were damaging France's own commerce by extorting taxes and bribes from its merchants in Cairo and Alexandria. Third, the Mamluks ruled tyrannically, having never been elected, and oppressed their subjects whom Bonaparte intended to liberate.

This holy trinity of justifications for imperialism -- that the targeted state is collaborating with an enemy of the republic, is endangering the positive interests of the nation, and lacks legitimacy because its rule is despotic -- would all be trotted out over the subsequent two centuries by a succession of European and American leaders whenever they wanted to go on the attack. One implication of these familiar rhetorical turns of phrase has all along been that democracies have a license to invade any country they please, assuming it has the misfortune to have an authoritarian regime.

George W. Bush, of course, hit the same highlights in his "mission accomplished" speech, while announcing on the Abraham Lincoln that "major combat operations" in Iraq "had ended." "The liberation of Iraq," he proclaimed, "is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He put Saddam Hussein's secular, Arab nationalist Baath regime and the radical Muslim terrorists of al-Qaeda under the sign of September 11th, insinuating that Iraq was allied with the primary enemy of the United States and so posed an urgent menace to its security. (In fact, captured Baath Party documents show that Saddam's fretting security forces, on hearing that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had entered Iraq, put out an all points bulletin on him, imagining -- not entirely correctly -- that he had al-Qaeda links.) Likewise, Bush promised that Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" (which existed only in his own fevered imagination) would be tracked down, again implying that Iraq posed a threat to the interests and security of the U.S., just as Bonaparte had claimed that the Mamluks menaced France.

According to the president, Saddam's overthrown government had lacked legitimacy, while the new Iraqi government, to be established by a foreign power, would truly represent the conquered population. "We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq," Bush pledged, "as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people." Bonaparte, too, established governing councils at the provincial and national level, staffing them primarily with Sunni clergymen, declaring them more representative of the Egyptian people than the beys and emirs of the slave soldiery who had formerly ruled that province of the Ottoman Empire.

Liberty as Tyranny

For a democracy to conduct a brutal military occupation against another country in the name of liberty seems, on the face of it, too contradictory to elicit more than hoots of derision at the hypocrisy of it all. Yet, the militant republic, ready to launch aggressive war in the name of "democracy," is everywhere in modern history, despite the myth that democracies do not typically wage wars of aggression. Ironically, some absolutist regimes, like those of modern Iran, were remarkably peaceable, if left alone by their neighbors. In contrast, republican France invaded Belgium, Holland, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Egypt in its first decade (though it went on the offensive in part in response to Austrian and Prussian moves to invade France). The United States attacked Mexico, the Seminoles and other Native polities, Hawaii, the Spanish Empire, the Philippines, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic in just the seven-plus decades from 1845 to the eve of the U.S. entry into World War I.

Freedom and authoritarianism are nowadays taken to be stark antonyms, the provinces of heroes and monsters. Those closer to the birth of modern republics were comforted by no such moral clarity. In Danton's Death, the young Romantic playwright Georg Büchner depicted the radical French revolutionary and proponent of executing enemies of the Republic, Maximilien Robespierre, whipping up a Parisian crowd with the phrase, "The revolutionary regime is the despotism of liberty against tyranny." And nowhere has liberty proved more oppressive than when deployed against a dictatorship abroad; for, as Büchner also had that famed "incorruptible" devotee of state terror observe, "In a Republic only republicans are citizens; Royalists and foreigners are enemies."

That sunlit May afternoon on the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush seconded Büchner's Robespierre. "Because of you," he exhorted the listening sailors of an aircraft carrier whose planes had just dropped 1.6 million pounds of ordnance on Iraq, "our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free."

Security for the republic had already proved ample justification to launch a war the previous March, even though Iraq was a poor, weak, ramshackle Third World country, debilitated by a decade of sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the United States, without so much as potable drinking water or an air force. Similarly, the Mamluks of Egypt -- despite the sky-high taxes and bribes they demanded of some French merchants -- hardly constituted a threat to French security.

The overthrow of a tyrannical regime and the liberation of an oppressed people were constant refrains in the shipboard addresses of both the general and the president, who felt that the liberated owed them a debt of gratitude. Bonaparte lamented that the beys "tyrannize over the unfortunate inhabitants of the Nile"; or, as one of his officers, Captain Horace Say, opined, "The people of Egypt were most wretched. How will they not cherish the liberty we are bringing them?" Similarly, Bush insisted, "Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."

Not surprisingly, expectations that the newly conquered would exhibit gratitude to their foreign occupiers cropped up repeatedly in the dispatches and letters of men on the spot who advocated a colonial forward policy. President Bush put this dramatically in 2007, long after matters had not proceeded as expected: "We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That's the problem here in America: They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq."

Liberty in this two-century old rhetorical tradition, moreover, was more than just a matter of rights and the rule of law. Proponents of various forms of liberal imperialism saw tyranny as a source of poverty, since arbitrary rulers could just usurp property at will and so make economic activity risky, as well as opening the public to crushing and arbitrary taxes that held back commerce. The French quartermaster Francois Bernoyer wrote of the Egyptian peasantry: "Their dwellings are adobe huts, which prosperity, the daughter of liberty, will now allow them to abandon." Bush took up the same theme on the Abraham Lincoln: "Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life."

"Heads Must Roll"

In both eighteenth century Egypt and twenty-first century Iraq, the dreary reality on the ground stood as a reproach to, if not a wicked satire upon, these high-minded pronouncements. The French landed at the port of Alexandria on July 1, 1798. Two and a half weeks later, as the French army advanced along the Nile toward Cairo, a unit of Gen. Jean Reynier's division met opposition from 1,800 villagers, many armed with muskets. Sgt. Charles Francois recalled a typical scene. After scaling the village walls and "firing into those crowds," killing "about 900 men," the French confiscated the villagers' livestock -- "camels, donkeys, horses, eggs, cows, sheep" -- then "finished burning the rest of the houses, or rather the huts, so as to provide a terrible object lesson to these half-savage and barbarous people."

On July 24, Bonaparte's Army of the Orient entered Cairo and he began reorganizing his new subjects. He grandiosely established an Egyptian Institute for the advancement of science and gave thought to reforming police, courts, and law. But terror lurked behind everything he did. He wrote Gen. Jacques Menou, who commanded the garrison at the Mediterranean port of Rosetta, saying, "The Turks [Egyptians] can only be led by the greatest severity. Every day I cut off five or six heads in the streets of Cairo.... [T]o obey, for them, is to fear." (Mounting severed heads on poles for viewing by terrified passers-by was another method the French used in Egypt...)

That August, the Delta city of Mansura rose up against a small French garrison of about 120 men, chasing them into the countryside, tracking the blue coats down, and methodically killing all but two of them. In early September, the Delta village of Sonbat, inhabited in part by Bedouin of the western Dirn tribe, also rose up against the Europeans. Bonaparte instructed one of his generals, "Burn that village! Make a terrifying example of it." After the French army had indeed crushed the rebellious peasants and chased away the Bedouin, Gen. Jean-Antoine Verdier reported back to Bonaparte with regard to Sonbat, "You ordered me to destroy this lair. Very well, it no longer exists."

The most dangerous uprisings confronting the French were, however, in Cairo. In October, much of the city mobilized to attack the more than 20,000 French troops occupying the capital. The revolt was especially fierce in the al-Husayn district, where the ancient al-Azhar madrassa (or seminary) trained 14,000 students, where the city's most sacred mosque stood, and where wealth was concentrated in the merchants and guilds of the Khan al-Khalili bazaar. At the same time, the peasants and Bedouin of the countryside around Cairo rose in rebellion, attacking the small garrisons that had been deployed to pacify them.

Bonaparte put down this Egyptian "revolution" with the utmost brutality, subjecting urban crowds to artillery barrages. He may have had as many rebels executed in the aftermath as were killed in the fighting. In the countryside, his officers' launched concerted campaigns to decimate insurgent villages. At one point, the French are said to have brought 900 heads of slain insurgents to Cairo in bags and ostentatiously dumped them out before a crowd in one of that city's major squares to instill Cairenes with terror. (Two centuries later, the American public would come to associate decapitations by Muslim terrorists in Iraq with the ultimate in barbarism, but even then hundreds such beheadings were not carried out at once.)

The American deployment of terror against the Iraqi population has, of course, dwarfed anything the French accomplished in Egypt by orders of magnitude. After four mercenaries, one a South African, were killed in Falluja in March of 2004 and their bodies desecrated, President Bush is alleged to have said "heads must roll" in retribution.

An initial attack on the city faltered when much of the Iraqi government threatened to resign and it was clear major civilian casualties would result. The crushing of the city was, however, simply put off until after the American presidential election in November. When the assault, involving air power and artillery, came, it was devastating, damaging two-thirds of the city's buildings and turning much of its population into refugees. (As a result, thousands of Fallujans still live in the desert in tent villages with no access to clean water.)

Bush must have been satisfied. Heads had rolled. More often, faced with opposition, the U.S. Air Force simply bombed already-occupied cities, a technology Bonaparte (mercifully) lacked. The strategy of ruling by terror and swift, draconian punishment for acts of resistance was, however, the same in both cases.

The British sank much of the French fleet on August 1, 1798, marooning Bonaparte and his troops in their newly conquered land. In the spring of 1799, the French army tried -- and failed -- to break out through Syria; after which Bonaparte himself chose the better part of valor. He slipped out of Egypt late that summer, returning to France. There, he would swiftly stage a coup and come to power as First Consul, giving him the opportunity to hone his practice of bringing freedom to other countries -- this time in Europe. By 1801, joint British-Ottoman forces had defeated the French in Egypt, who were transported back to their country on British vessels. This first Western invasion of the Middle East in modern times had ended in serial disasters that Bonaparte would misrepresent to the French public as a series of glorious triumphs.

Ending the Era of Liberal Imperialism

Between 1801 and 2003 stretched endless decades in which colonialism proved a plausible strategy for European powers in the Middle East, including the French enterprise in Algeria (1830-1962) and the British veiled protectorate over Egypt (1882-1922). In these years, European militaries and their weaponry were so advanced, and the means of resistance to which Arab peasants had access so limited, that colonial governments could be imposed.

That imperial moment passed with celerity after World War II, in part because the masses of the Third World joined political parties, learned to read, and -- with how-to-do-it examples all around them -- began to mount political resistance to foreign occupations of every sort. While the twenty-first century American arsenal has many fancy, exceedingly destructive toys in it, nothing has changed with regard to the ability of colonized peoples to network socially and, sooner or later, push any foreign occupying force out.

Bonaparte and Bush failed because both launched their operations at moments when Western military and technological superiority was not assured. While Bonaparte's army had better artillery and muskets, the Egyptians had a superb cavalry and their old muskets were serviceable enough for purposes of sniping at the enemy. They also had an ally with advanced weaponry and the desire to use it -- the British Navy.

In 2007, the high-tech U.S. military -- as had been true in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, as was true for the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s -- is still vulnerable to guerrilla tactics and effective low-tech weapons of resistance such as roadside bombs. Even more effective has been the guerrillas' social warfare, their success in making Iraq ungovernable through the promotion of clan and sectarian feuds, through targeted bombings and other attacks, and through sabotage of the Iraqi infrastructure.

From the time of Bonaparte to that of Bush, the use of the rhetoric of liberty versus tyranny, of uplift versus decadence, appears to have been a constant among imperialists from republics -- and has remained domestically effective in rallying support for colonial wars. The despotism (but also the weakness) of the Mamluks and of Saddam Hussein proved sirens practically calling out for Western interventions. According to the rhetoric of liberal imperialism, tyrannical regimes are always at least potentially threats to the Republic, and so can always be fruitfully overthrown in favor of rule by a Western military. After all, that military is invariably imagined as closer to liberty since it serves an elected government. (Intervention is even easier to justify if the despots can be portrayed, however implausibly, as allied with an enemy of the republic.)

For both Bush and Bonaparte, the genteel diction of liberation, rights, and prosperity served to obscure or justify a major invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern land, involving the unleashing of slaughter and terror against its people. Military action would leave towns destroyed, families displaced, and countless dead. Given the ongoing carnage in Iraq, President Bush's boast that, with "new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians," now seems not just hollow but macabre. The equation of a foreign military occupation with liberty and prosperity is, in the cold light of day, no less bizarre than the promise of war with virtually no civilian casualties.

It is no accident that many of the rhetorical strategies employed by George W. Bush originated with Napoleon Bonaparte, a notorious spinmeister and confidence man. At least Bonaparte looked to the future, seeing clearly the coming breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the likelihood that European Powers would be able to colonize its provinces. Bonaparte's failure in Egypt did not forestall decades of French colonial success in Algeria and Indochina, even if that era of imperial triumph could not, in the end, be sustained in the face of the political and social awakening of the colonized. Bush's neocolonialism, on the other hand, swam against the tide of history, and its failure is all the more criminal for having been so predictable.

Copyright 2007 Juan Cole

[< Back] [New Civilization News]



24 Aug 2007 @ 12:58 by vaxen : Failure?
What is the true objective of the so called "Bush" war? Take a deeper look Juan. SPP, NAU, the divying up of a once 'prosperous?,' America... is being accomplished as your glass menagerie of forgotten lore bricks up the horizon with comparisons which bear no relevance whatsoever to the facts...

Bush is still very much with us. Anti terror laws which should bring, and do, terror to the heart of every American - have been passed, a system of Fema prisons that are meant, not for Arab terrorists, but for regular American dissenters who see the insanity of the White House, per se, are secretly waiting and being filled silently in the middle of the night of horrors you've let come upon you - Americans.

Nice to be able to lay the blame at one mans feet, isn't it?

And what was wee Willy Clinton doing, and those who came before him? Your ivory tower, Juan Cole, smells of non involvement in other than what makes professors of history old and stale...

Bush isn't Bonapart and any comparison is puerile, at best, and amateurish. The value of this essay? Zilch...

Though it is true that asymetric warfare will win out over blanket bombing every time - nevertheless - Bush is not the puppet master here nor is Iraq the target.

But I suppose, Mr Cole, you are too puffed up on your own importance to be able to conduct any reasonable analysis, any useful analysis, of current events...

"But from another perspective and utilizing a different analysis, the motives are not irrational at all. When one considers how these unending wars and devastations affect the primary powers that drive them -- and that benefit from them -- they tragically make all too much sense, even if that "sense" is of a kind that some of us find contemptible and entirely loathsome. Once again, I offer Robert Higgs' comments on this issue. I think the title of my earlier post admirably conveys the point, "Chaos, War, Murder and Destruction Are What They Want." Higgs:

"As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent "failed" policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers-that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: follow the money..."

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - President Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

Baloney Mr Wilson, Baloney!  

24 Aug 2007 @ 13:48 by vaxen : And...
Acquiescence in Executive war, [Fulbright] wrote, comes from the belief that the government possesses secret information that gives it special insight in determining policy. Not only was this questionable, but major policy decisions turn "not upon available facts but upon judgment," with which policy-makers are no better endowed than the intelligent citizen. Congress and citizens can judge "whether the massive deployment and destruction of their men and wealth seem to serve the overall interests as a nation."


The belief that government knows best was voiced just at this time by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who said on resumption of the bombing, "We ought to all support the President. He is the man who has all the information and knowledge of what we are up against." This is a comforting assumption that relieves people from taking a stand. It is usually invalid, especially in foreign affairs. "Foreign policy decisions," concluded Gunnar Myrdal after two decades of study, "are in general much more influenced by irrational motives" than are domestic ones.

ibid. link above  

24 Aug 2007 @ 17:57 by vaxen : HaHa!
Only two comments!? So much for...
Well, we know that old riff don't we?
So before I leave another faux pas,

Pas De Dieux,
And salubrious, galubrious,
Let me just say...

I'm off today...
Gonna go and baby sit a creature...
Blue eyed, blond haired, creature...

Of mine own invention. Gonna...
Get on a jet plane,
but I'll be back again,

To O Hi O...

Flooded in the cool mist,
Generated by...
The night of Pan.

Io, Pan, Io Pan,
Io. Io, Pan...
Io Pan, Io Pan...


You should be...

I hope not!

Severe thunderstorm?
Coming to me,
But, that's when I do,

My best flying...
And...I'll leave you with this
Loverly little poems' end by...

"The best things in life are nearest. Breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of right just before you."

---Robert Louis Stevenson

Happy week end, jazzolog.
And thanks,
For the "Kalen Dar."

This bud's for you,
It's S.C. Sugar Bud...


24 Aug 2007 @ 19:53 by a-d : Here. JAzzo.... whaddatiming!
click here to see (at least a part of) the Bush Family Tree!
[ ]  

25 Aug 2007 @ 13:59 by vaxen : ;)
Hemp Industries Association
phone: 707-874-3648

I suppose I should write the lady and let her know how to get off the treadmill, eh? Education? Sure...


"When Iraq becomes strong enough in our opinion to stand alone, we shall be in a position to state that our task has been fulfilled, and that Iraq is an independent sovereign state. But this cannot be said while we are forced year after year to spend very large sums of money on helping the Iraqi government to defend itself and maintain order." : Winston Churchill - 1922

More War on the Horizon

By Paul Craig Roberts

08/23/07 "ICH" --- -- No pullout from Iraq while I’m president, declares George W. Bush.

On to Iran, declares Vice President Cheney.

Israel is a “peace-seeking state” that needs $30 billion of US taxpayers’ money for war, declares State Department official Nicholas Burns.

The Democratic Congress, if not fully behind the Iraqi war, at least no longer is in the way of it.

Nor are the Democrats in the way of the Bush regime’s build up for initiating war with Iran.

America's hegemonic hubris is a sickness. A country that tolerates a war criminal while he openly plans to attack yet another country is definitely not a light unto the world.


Following Churchill's Folly In Iraq

By Don Chapman

So what might this history mean for America and Iraq?  

27 Aug 2007 @ 10:22 by vaxen : Deception
Finally, Bearden sums up the foregoing, starting with the things mentioned in the now famous statement by then Secretary of Defense William Cohen: the use of scalar weapons to induce earthquakes (2004 tsunami, Yellowstone) and volcanos (Cumbre Vieja, Toba supervolcano in Sumatra) and other possible target zones and weather engineering of hurricanes and droughts. Meanwhile, despite Cohen's rare statement, the Western governments appear not to have a clue.
At least publicly, this major change in the capabilities of the terrorists against the United States has not been analyzed or pursued by the conventional U.S. government agencies and their traditional support analysis agencies. Specifically, the U.S. Congress has not been adequately informed, particularly of the terrible mess that our decrepit old electrical engineering really is, and the consequences of not correcting it when our foes already have done so.
The secrecy of the so-called "secret government" of the United States has worked against it and nearly assured the total destruction of the West in the coming Scalar Wars described in "Oblivion - America at the Brink." It appears too late to avoid all this for we are entering into the time window of the overt attack and the total corruption rampant in all three branches of government makes any real preventative measures impossible. Neither Congress nor the military is facing any of these issues, either from stupidity and ignorance, the vast secrecy, the power of the oil companies and energy cartels, or even the mental distortions and entrancements of the scalar weapons in psychoenergetics mode.

It is above all the secrecy which is leading to our destruction. That is why I consider Tom Bearden a true hero for risking to put all this information and the science of it out there on his website and in his books. I am rather pessimistic that we can avoid, if not Tom's scenario, then some similar scenario leading to all-out overt scalar wars which will signal mankind's current unworthiness to receive the incredible boon given by nature via the energy of the vacuum. The human "race" appears to be literally a race, a race between good and evil. Good and evil race each other through history to see who will get to this incredible technology first. If good gets there first then we have a chance to create a paradise on earth and a truly sustainable civilization. If evil gets there first then we inevitably destroy ourselves and go back to the beginning and are forced to start the race all over again. Was the mythical destruction Atlantis the ending of a previous occurence of this race? This human "race?"

[In the third and final part of this review we shall look at a few samples of the briefing slides which actually make up the main bulk of "Oblivion."]  

28 Aug 2007 @ 15:38 by quinty : A note on Bush’s speech
Those of you who listen to rightwing talk radio (A deep and vicious swamp, I concede.) know that the far right talk jocks have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam for a long time. And some of Bush's talking points in his recent speech at the VFW merely echo that point of view.

That the spinmeisters have merely gotten together, coagulated, and offered a new heap. And that Bush’s arguments appear to have surprised some national observers merely reveals they have not been listening. Just go to Rush, Melanie and the crowd to find out what they are thinking.

Since we have a quagmire wrapped in a debacle sunk deep into a hole the topic of withdrawal from Iraq became inevitable. But the right, of course, has distorted the situation. Even worse than certain Democrats who are still seeking to appear wise and omniscient. (Hillary?)

Listening to the creatures of the night I was amazed to discover that there are still many Americans who believe we should have won the Vietnam War. I had thought that issue had been put to rest. That it was commonly accepted we involved ourselves in a senseless quagmire, a civil war fought by guerrillas which we could not possibly have won.

Unless, of course, we should have flattened the entire country, turning it into a “parking lot.” “Destroying the country in order to save it,” as we used to often say in those bygone days.

Which I suppose is what the far right thinks we should have done merely in order to save face, to avoid “defeat.” For defeat, to such mentalities, is worse than any other consequence. Even mass murder and total destruction. (Not to mention all the other reasons why we shouldn’t have stayed in Vietnam.)

So even if Bush has been avoiding comparisons to Vietnam - that war, quagmire, which we lost - he turned the argument on its head the other night, reiterating the rehtorical lead of numerous rightwing talk show hosts, by offering the specter of the “killing fields.” For the far right has credited the rise of Pol Pot to the US’s withdrawal from Vietnam. And predicts something similar for Iraq.

These Bushies are nothing if not lurid. I can still remember his 2003 State of the Union speech in which he sounded as if he were reading from “The Insidious Doctor Fu Manchu,” with his botulism, mushroom cloud, tanks of anthrax and other impending horrors. Though in Iraq we have chosen a monster to baby sit, while depending on a president who refuses to even begin to do the right thing. Such as prepare for our inevitable withdrawal.

Larry Beinhart on Cambodia

Bush Gets Away with Lies, Lies and More Lies in History-Illiterate America
By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted August 27, 2007.

George Bush and other Iraq War supporters have argued that if we withdraw from Iraq the result will be like the killing fields of Cambodia -- an odd comparison considering that the US has direct responsibility for that holocaust.

Here are the facts:

• The killing fields were real. The genocide against their own people was committed by the Khmer Rouge.

• The Vietnamese -- the Communist Vietnamese -- were the people who went in and put a stop to it.

• The United States then supported the Khmer Rouge.

Here's how that came to happen.

The United States got involved in the war in Vietnam in an attempt to keep South Vietnam from going communist. Which it would have if nationwide elections had been held as promised.

Cambodia is next to Vietnam. It was ruled by Prince Sihanouk. He attempted to be neutral. Both sides abused that neutrality.

The North Vietnamese send arms, support and men through Cambodia on the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" to go around South Vietnamese and American forces. They also used Cambodian ports.

The United States, which was not at war with Cambodia, officially or unofficially, secretly sent armed forces into Cambodia to interrupt North Vietnamese use of that route. In 1969, Nixon began a campaign of carpet bombing sections of Cambodia. Ultimately about 750,000 Cambodians were killed by the bombings (though the numbers are hard to verify.)

In 1970, while Sihanouk was out of the country, visiting Europe, the USSR and China, Lon Nol took over the country in a right wing coup.

There are two stories about American involvement. The first is that we supported the coup, the second (in Tom Weiner's Legacy of Ashes, The History of the CIA) is that it took the CIA and the United States by surprise. Recently declassified documents support Weiner's view.

In either case, once Lon Nol took power, the US supported him. In return, Lon Nol ended the neutrality, closed the ports to the communists and demanded that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese leave the country, and let US forces openly, though secretly, operate in Cambodia.

There was resistance to Lon Nol. Some of it was certainly a spontaneous matter of national sentiment. Some of it was certainly fomented by various communist interests.

Sihanouk, in China, then allied himself with the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia communists, which conferred new legitimacy on them.

Civil War broke out. Lon Nol was both corrupt and inept. In spite of American financial and military support, he lost.

America left Vietnam in 1973.

The Khmer Rouge took the capital of Cambodia in 1975. They were one of the most horrendous regimes in history. They practiced a kind of class genocide, "re-educating" and murdering anyone who educated or Westernized, as well as minority groups.

In 1978, Vietnam, by then fully Communist, invaded Cambodia to put a stop to the Khmer Rouge and drive them out. They installed a more moderate and sane regime.

The United States, the UK, and China then supported the remnants of the Khmer Rouge. With their help the conflict continued for another ten years.

When George Bush, or anyone else, uses the Cambodian holocaust as a warning of what might happen if America withdraws from Iraq, remember the facts.

1. Part of the holocaust in Cambodia is directly attributable to American bombing. The 750,000 dead. (Comparable to the number of Iraqis killed by American forces in this war.)

2. The civil war that led to the victory of the Khmer Rouge came about, at least in part, because of America's support of Lon Nol.

3. The "enemy," the Vietnamese Communists, were the ones who put a stop to the Khmer Rouge.

4. The United States supported the Khmer Rouge -- after their murders, after the genocide. That support helped a civil war continue for another decade. More death, more destruction.

Larry Beinhart is the author of Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. His novels include Wag the Dog, on which the film was based, and The Librarian which Rolling Stone described as "John Grisham meets Jon Stewart."

And, if you haven't had enough, here's Rosa Brooks on invading Vietnam
{link:,0,5259364.column?coll=la-util-opinion-commentary|Rosa Brooks}

Bush's next invasion: Vietnam?
Following the president's logic, our best move is to repeat a huge mistake.
August 24, 2007

Re-invade Vietnam!

Oh yes. You thought the Bush administration was fresh out of ideas? You thought that with Karl Rove leaving, the administration that brought us the war in Iraq and "Mission Accomplished" had no more tricks up its sleeve?

Think again.

On Wednesday, speaking before a Veterans of Foreign Wars audience, President Bush did something he had previously avoided: He compared the Iraq war with the Vietnam War, agreeing that Vietnam does hold lessons for U.S. policy in Iraq.

Can't argue with that. For most Americans, the lessons of Vietnam were reasonably clear before we invaded Iraq and have been painfully reinforced by the ongoing disaster there:

Don't fight needless wars; don't go blundering around in countries where you don't know the language, history or culture; don't underestimate the power of nationalism, ethnicity and religion to bind together -- or tear apart -- people whose interests otherwise seem to diverge or converge; and, most of all, don't imagine that military force can solve fundamentally political problems.

But the president, who has his own very special set of history books, drew the public's attention to some entirely different lessons from Vietnam. To Bush, the "unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens."

Right! To Bush, the tragedy of the Vietnam War is that we didn't let it drag on for another decade or so.

Some might quibble with Bush's understanding of historical causation. Yes, many innocent civilians suffered in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam -- but it's more accurate to attribute their suffering to the prolongation of the war itself, rather than to the U.S. withdrawal as such.

It's hard to be precise (as is the case in Iraq today, no one kept careful count of Vietnamese civilian casualties, and all sides in the conflict had an incentive to fudge the true figures), but somewhere between 1 million and 4 million civilians died as the war needlessly dragged on, many killed by U.S. weapons. Millions more were displaced.

But those are details.

Bush went on to assert that "another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam" was the rise of "the enemy we face in today's struggle, those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens" on 9/11.

Yup -- it's so obvious! The U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam caused the rise of Al Qaeda -- and, by extension, "our withdrawal from Vietnam" ultimately turned Iraq into "the central front" in "the war on terror."

Once you're in the right frame of mind -- the Right frame of mind, I should say -- the logic becomes blindingly clear:

Step 1: In 1975, the Vietnam War ended and young Osama bin Laden, age 18, saw that the mighty U.S. could be brought low and that an unhappy citizenry could push a democratically elected government to end an unpopular war.

Step 2: Hmm. This step is a little tougher. Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Then Bin Laden, bearing the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam constantly in mind, um . . . somehow tricked us into going to war in Iraq . . . where Al Qaeda had no presence prior to the U.S. invasion . . . because he knew we'd make a mess of things . . . and that Al Qaeda could move in while we were bogged down fighting insurgents . . . and bog us down even more?

Something like that.

And from there, we easily reach Step 3: We are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, just as in Vietnam! Millions of civilians are paying the price for U.S. over-reaching -- just as in Vietnam! Our credibility is suffering -- just as in Vietnam! The American public has lost faith in the war -- just as in Vietnam! Bin Laden is happy to see us brought low -- just as in Vietnam! If we leave, more bad things may happen, and Bin Laden will also be happy -- just as in Vietnam!

Step 4. Therefore, as the president explained Wednesday, we must stay in Iraq forever, until every last terrorist or every last Iraqi civilian is dead, whichever comes first.

But Bush forgot to mention Step 5, which follows logically from Steps 1 to 4.

How can we show the innocent civilians of Southeast Asia that we haven't forgotten them and simultaneously send a message of resolve to the Iraqi people? How can we show Al Qaeda once and for all that the U.S. is not to be trifled with?

It's time for Step 5:

Re-invade Vietnam.

Because no matter what they say -- it's never too late to repeat the mistakes of the past.  

28 Aug 2007 @ 15:53 by quinty : Now the American Legion

Bush does seem to love to speak before audiences in uniform. Or "by invitation only." A week ago it was the VFW. Now I understand he's going to talk to the American Legion today. This should remind us of Vietnam, since those two veterans groups would have gladly held on to the very end. No lack of "patriotism" there.  

29 Aug 2007 @ 19:05 by quinty : And Bush found his audience!

"RENO (Thomson Financial) - US President George W Bush warned today that letting Iran acquire atomic weapons risked putting the Middle East 'under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.'

"'Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,' he told a veterans group here.

"Bush's speech to the American Legion aimed to convince a war-weary US public that the war in Iraq was the central front in the fight against what he described as the Sunni Muslim extremism of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Shiite extremism fuelled by Iran."

What Bush apparently didn't remark upon was Maliki and Ahmadinijad walking hand in hand with big smiles on their faces in Tehran a week or two ago.  

30 Aug 2007 @ 07:45 by vaxen : Iran...
is "nuclear." The Pres., is whose mouthpiece? What he does and says matters little...therre are far worse weapons being utilised than anything in the nuclear is possible right now to dud every single nuike...worldwide. Go beyond Bush, he is not relevent at all, nor is what the media 'says.' Nor what Washington says...they are all obsolete.


7 Oct 2007 @ 11:16 by jazzolog : Angry Sunday Heat
With temperatures boiling up into the 90s again today in these October latitudes, any rain little more than a brief sweat rather than downpour, autumn leaves this year drying to a crisp on the twigs before they fall, people are even less in a mood to suffer fools, political or otherwise. The heavy weight of The Sunday New York Times this morning is ready to ignite with tension and rage. The supposed gray lady shows she still can mount a soapbox and let loose with indignation. We have an editorial about White House deceit surrounding its torture policies~~~

On Torture and American Values
Published: October 7, 2007

Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper’s front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.

After the attacks of 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the creation of extralegal detention camps where Central Intelligence Agency operatives were told to extract information from prisoners who were captured and held in secret. Some of their methods — simulated drownings, extreme ranges of heat and cold, prolonged stress positions and isolation — had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations. The administration clearly knew this; the C.I.A. modeled its techniques on the dungeons of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.

The White House could never acknowledge that. So its lawyers concocted documents that redefined “torture” to neatly exclude the things American jailers were doing and hid the papers from Congress and the American people. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mr. Bush’s loyal enabler, the Justice Department even declared that those acts did not violate the lower standard of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

That allowed the White House to claim that it did not condone torture, and to stampede Congress into passing laws that shielded the interrogators who abused prisoners, and the men who ordered them to do it, from any kind of legal accountability.

Mr. Bush and his aides were still clinging to their rationalizations at the end of last week. The president declared that Americans do not torture prisoners and that Congress had been fully briefed on his detention policies.

Neither statement was true — at least in what the White House once scorned as the “reality-based community” — and Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, was right to be furious. He demanded all of the “opinions of the Justice Department analyzing the legality” of detention and interrogation policies. Lawmakers, who for too long have been bullied and intimidated by the White House, should rewrite the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act to conform with actual American laws and values.

For the rest of the nation, there is an immediate question: Is this really who we are?

Is this the country whose president declared, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and then managed the collapse of Communism with minimum bloodshed and maximum dignity in the twilight of the 20th century? Or is this a nation that tortures human beings and then concocts legal sophistries to confuse the world and avoid accountability before American voters?

Truly banning the use of torture would not jeopardize American lives; experts in these matters generally agree that torture produces false confessions. Restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo Bay would not set terrorists free; the truly guilty could be tried for their crimes in a way that does not mock American values.

Clinging to the administration’s policies will only cause further harm to America’s global image and to our legal system. It also will add immeasurably to the risk facing any man or woman captured while wearing America’s uniform or serving in its intelligence forces.

This is an easy choice.

Both Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd go after the slimeball behaviors of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas today. I'll tell ya, I wouldn't want the two of them after me in print at the same time! At least the pitiful judge's book tour has reminded us of how Anita Hill is doing these days: teaching at Brandeis. Not bad!

Rich's article critiques Thomas' TV appearances and CBS for letting him get away with what he said about Professor Hill without broadcasting her reaction to it~~~

while Dowd spends time on Justice Thomas' payback to the Bush plantation~~~

This is tough stuff to take with your Sunday toast, but the screws are tightening even in the Arts. We must needs prepare for a new Pinter screenplay opening Friday, a remake of Sleuth, with Michael Caine taking the Olivier part this time. Jude Law, who plays the young adulterer, managed to get Pinter to do the rewrite. Pinter never had seen the movie or the play, and just started from scratch. I posted the whole article at an entry I put up exactly 2 years ago, when Harold Pinter, then turning 75, won the Nobel Prize. If you'd like a little variation, you can read it here~~~

Whew, and all this workout before church! I think a nap to Brahms will be in order this afternoon.  

7 Oct 2007 @ 19:50 by Quinty @ : Torture

There was a brief, interesting piece on CNN last week. The American covert ops who interrogated Nazis during World War Two finally opened up, discussing their activities for the first time. How did one of their top interrogators get information from Rudolph Hess? By playing chess with him.

These aging intelligence men were, naturally, appalled by the American practice of torture today, and claim they never used it. That playing chess with the Nazis in their custody was a far more effective method of obtaining information.  

8 Oct 2007 @ 09:49 by jazzolog : Desperately Saving Conservatism
The New York Times
October 8, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Same Old Party

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here’s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a “rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems” because “the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that “under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.”

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top — who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons — I’ve got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as “humiliating to the South.”

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts — which, for a time, were all too successful — to intimidate the press. But this administration’s media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh’s apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon’s media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater — who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life — staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail,” and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after “consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal” — presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: “Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: “This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: “My God, what have we done?”

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism’s true, loyal heir.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company  

9 Oct 2007 @ 03:49 by vaxen : MEST Crackers
MP3s: The More You Sell (retail motivational training from The Happy Listener's Guide to Mind Control) and Kris Jensen's Torture .

Hi, I'm currently deployed to Iraq and recently discovered your program. Since then My tank crew and I listen whenever we get the chance.

The reason I'm writing is that we have been looking for anything we can find by happy flowers, not just because I think My Skin Covers My Body is the greatest record of all time, but also It's perfect for Psychological Warfare.

Well, the only song we have here is Charlie Got a Haircut and we've used it so much, we can't stand it. Basically I wanted to check if you know somewhere we can score some Happy Flowers we can then load onto an Ipod to use on the Iraqis. Any suggestions would be appreciated.  

9 Oct 2007 @ 03:53 by vaxen : La Couchon:
Report: Cheney ordered nuking Iran
Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:52:12

A new report has linked the mysterious flight of a nuclear armed B-52 bomber to the US Vice President's secret plan to attack Iran.
Earlier, news outlets revealed that, on August 30, a B-52 bomber loaded with six nuclear armed cruise missiles had flown for more than three hours over several states. The incident prompted an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander.

The report by Webster Tarpley published on Rense website on Saturday claimed that many analysts believed those weapons were destined to be used in a nuclear blitz on Iran, which may have been scheduled for September 6, the day that Israel launched its own aerial attack on Syria.

The report adds " Even more heinous uses of these cruise missiles here inside the United States can also not be excluded, given the insistence of the Cheney Doctrine on a terrorist sect in the US to be blamed on Iran as the immediate pretext for the Iran war as Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate Foreign relations Committee on Feb. 1, 2007.”

Many sources (see Wayne Madsen Report, September 24) agree that the transfer of these nuclear weapons to Iran was blocked by US Air Force personnel, backed up by anti-Cheney factions in the intelligence community, who refused to obey an illegal order.

It is also important to note that some half dozen personnel linked to the Minot and Barksdale air bases have reportedly died under mysterious circumstances since July.

Elsewhere in his report, Tarpley quotes his sources as saying that "It is unlikely that a sneak attack on Iran could get through the normal channels of the US national security interagency process. The realization of Cheney's war plan depends upon an outside manufactured event, along the lines of 9/11, which could be used to engineer the typical neocon end run around the standard operating procedures and launch the wider war." Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy.

He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the military and arms industries. He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media.

PS: There are three major U.S. Dollar counterfeiting 'nations' in the world today. Iran, Syria, Mayanmar. Their counterfeit counterfeit (Federal Reserve Debt Notes) is the best in the world and virtually undetectable and there are trillions of them spread around 'untraceable!' Thought you, liberals, just might want to choke on that. ;)  

9 Oct 2007 @ 09:54 by jazzolog : We Liberals
take pride in often doing without any money at all, as my family has found ourselves necessarily disciplining these past 2 weeks. We invested rather a lot in greening the house this summer, and now must pay the counterfeiter. You libertarians, on the other hand, kiss all your greenbacks good night and tuck them into bed. I dread to think what will happen if liberals ever get back into office and take a look in the treasury vaults.  

10 Oct 2007 @ 02:37 by vaxen : Ooooo...
does the 'status' woe need a reality check? A cashiers check will do, thankyou. Takes a long time to clear and by that time, why, I could be in Zimbabwe. The ancient Ab.Zu. Also simply translated as 'Abyss.'

"Electornic Colonialism" - Thomas McPhael 1987

Maybe the 'Moondog Madrigal Puppet Show' would be more to quinty sans' liking?

Jobs, reputation, funding. Ah yes... The idea is to indoctrinate not educate. Educational Institutions, gotta love em. Check out executive order 12356 and weep for General Stubblebine. Or don't.

Beware of the Pegasus Assassination Unit while driving to work especially if you're a liberal. But blood is blood.

It is one planet regardless of your belief system and who you think you are. Or should I say who you are behavior modded into being.

Our genes are, in fact, our cosmic connection. How few are not mind controlled and what is the Global Agenda? U.N. Agenda 21? is a cool site. Need a consultant?  

10 Oct 2007 @ 09:32 by jazzolog : So Many Gurus, Too Many Shamans
but that's the least of our troubles. Of course Paul is right, and Vaxen is singing his variation. These guys actually agree with each other: nothing a fine bottle of wine shared in a half hour conversation couldn't settle.

Trying to imagine Moondog, street musician 1916-1999, singing a madrigal~~~  

10 Oct 2007 @ 18:03 by quinty : Moondog's
music was nuts. But oddly beautiful too. In a way standing out on a street corner of New York, mid summer or mid winter, consumed with the music of the spheres is a fitting and noble enterprise. That proud loneliness as all the rigid dark suits and office types pass by. Did Moondog feel their contempt? Did he care? Did he see the moon in broad daylight?

There’s the irony of life, one which you, as a Christian, should feel. (If you'll forgive my presumption?) We all admire Christ, but who wants to make the sacrifice? Anyway, Moondog would be nuts even in a sane world. One which saw dressing up like the sharks on their way to work in the morning as actually nuts. That the outsider contemplating a blade of grass working its way up through a cement crack is the sane and sensible one.

Moondog always brings up this contradiction. For, after all, we have to feed our children. And that may involve putting on a suit and tie. How many masks are there in offices all over the world?

God, seen from that perspective, the whole world is nuts. Anyone for Charles Bukowski?

As for Vax I get awfully tired of saying someone painted a big swastika on the wall and Vax coming along haughtily telling me someone painted a swastika on the wall. Though beyond that I’m not so sure how much in agreement I am with him..... But Vax is an individualist, and doesn't want to be placed in a box. I won't be presumptuous and argue with that......  

11 Oct 2007 @ 08:08 by vaxen : And...
who said "we all admire Christ?" Not I said the serpent to the dove. Not even at X-Mas. Besides, Christ was only a hologram that we projected back to then from a thousand years in the future as a joke!

Actually it was me who painted the damned thing on the wall in the first place! Again, from a thousand years hence and, again, as a friggin joke! Some people just do not get it, ever! ;)

Thought I'd pop our jazzos LOG to the top as I see it's sinking a little in the overall mist of things NCN. Would you like to hear Moondoggies Madrigal? I've a link, somewhere (Was going to put it in here then forgot to...). to a whole bunch of interesting and downloadable funchkins. I'll look it up and save it as a wry comment when someone, anyone, gets serious again hereabouts. In the meantime...

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.": P. J. O'Rourke - (1947- ) US humorist, journalist, & political commentator

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.": - Franklin D. Roosevelt - (1882-1945), 32nd US President November 21, 1933 - Source: in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House

"No truly sophisticated proponent of repression would be stupid enough to shatter the façade of democratic institutions.": Murray B. Levin Source: Political Hysteria in America, 1971

Brylcream, a little dab'll do ya, Brylcream, you'll look so debonaire...

At 46th and Vine as you stand there in the wind, waiting for a taxi, on Christmas day, and some rabbi saunters on by, with smuggled diamonds in his Tfilin, singing the song of the Volga boatmen - while whistling Dixie - to the tune of Robespierres' Sonnet, in C Sharp major, dressed as a libidinous clown and smelling like Mahalia Jackson after a concert at the Garden.

Kol Od Be Levav Pnee-ee-ee-ee-ma,
Nefesh Yehudee Ho-oh-mee-ee-ya.

Intelligence is broken down into three fundamental aspects: Collection, Interpretation, and Dissemination.  

29 Apr 2016 @ 06:24 by Bandar Togel @ : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Bandar Togel
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Togel Online
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online  

27 Sep 2016 @ 11:17 by Love Problem Solution Baba  @ : Love Problem Solution Baba
Love Problem Solution Baba Can Solve The Divorce Problems.  

27 Sep 2016 @ 12:42 by Black Magic Specialist Baba  @ : Black Magic Specialist Baba
awesome post  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
14 Aug 2008 @ 11:20: The Republic Of Georgia: Hypocrisy
26 Jan 2008 @ 11:33: An Open Letter To Amy Goodman
1 Dec 2007 @ 10:42: Would You Invest In Green Technology Or Guns?
21 Nov 2007 @ 23:59: An Easy Solution Missed
7 Nov 2007 @ 21:08: Blackwater, Blackwater Run Down Through The Land, Part 2
27 Oct 2007 @ 07:43: Creating the 3rd Millennium Civilization Security
29 Sep 2007 @ 12:38: "Black Waters, Black Waters Run Down Through The Land"
20 Jul 2007 @ 19:17: Well, well, well... It happened!.... How do U feel about this?

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?