| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:55 am Post subject: |
| Congressman: American Concentration Camps "On The Books"
Texas Representative urges repeal of neo-fascist laws in America before it is too late
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, November 13, 2006
Re-elected Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul joined Alex Jones on air last week to discuss the fallout of the midterm elections and what he sees transpiring over the next two years. He ended by ominously warning that if something is not done soon to overturn legislation such as the Military Commissions act, the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities.
Beginning with the positives to come out of the election, Ron Paul stressed that it has provided an important indication to the rest of the world that the people of America are unhappy with the usurpers that have seized control of their government and are trying to initiate change. The Congressman was quick to point out that this may not be carried into policy however:
"Not a whole lot will change because the leadership on the Democratic side, even if they had their way, don't have a different foreign policy. They have been supportive of an interventionist foreign policy in the middle east, and they are not about to back away from that... They are willing to criticize the policy but only as a means to get power."
As we have seen over the past week, leading Democrats are all towing the party line, unreservedly dismissing any notion of the possibility of impeaching the President over Iraq.
The Congressman also stated that monetary policy will stay the same, which can only mean bad news for the American economy.
" They all believe in the federal reserve, they are not going to get rid of the IRS and the income tax. I think the dollar is going to keep sliding, which means prices are going to rise, when currencies self destruct, the end goes quickly. There are no signs that there is anything being done in Washington to correct the problem. Spending is going to continue and probably going to get worse, the deficits are going to stay high if foreign policy is not going to change."
The Congressman agreed that the elite globalists within the US government may not care about this too much because it means they can blow out the economy and then come back and buy it up very cheaply. These Internationalists care not about preserving and protecting American sovereignty when there is a quick buck to be made.
"That's also part of the foreign policy to be in position to hold onto natural resources, that's one of the major reasons why we're in the middle east, so yes if there is a financial crisis, they're going to have the guns, and they have control of the natural resources... It's not a good scenario, because what usually happens when you wipe out a currency is that you wipe out the middle class, and we already see this happening. The standard of living is going down." Paul asserted.
Ron Paul's comments echo those of Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who two weeks ago predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no," and also drew ominous parallels to the development of the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union.
What real Conservatism there was left in the House, to block such moves, as well as Bush's amnesty program for illegals, is gone. With Pelosi at the helm Ron Paul sees it as a forgone conclusion that such policies will sail through.
"I think that's right, although I complain about the two parties being exactly alike, I would say on this amnesty issue and what's happened with the election, there probably was a difference between the two. It is more likely with the Democrats in charge, and Judiciary and the other major committees, and with the President not really fighting for our national borders, he's always argued for some type of worker program, yes I think there's a much greater danger that that is going to be coming in the next session."
Commenting on strategies to defeat the North American Union, the Congressman urged a continuance of educating people on the real issues and reaching more and more Americans who care about preserving their national sovereignty:
"You have to keep doing what you are doing, you are reaching a lot of people, and they have to get to their members of congress, and in many ways the current House has been pretty good with this. With the new House we don't know exactly what is going to happen, but I had something very encouraging come to my attention just this week. I had a call from a young lady that won in Kansas as a Democrat, and in her literature she put my whole article on the NAFTA super corridor in there... She is not going to vote with Nancy Pelosi."
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Congressman spoke on the issue of going about demanding a repeal of freedom crushing legislation such as the Patriot act and the Military Commissions act and the Defense Authorization Act which essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus.
"We might have to hope that our Supreme Court helps us out a little. The Court has been better than the executive branch and a heck of a lot better than the Congress, because we've given the President everything he's asked for and the President has been begging for all this authority, so immediately we have to hope that the courts will save us on some of these things. But once again ultimately its only when the people wake up and say they don't like this... sometimes the people wake up to late. Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus . I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law."
Take Ron Paul's suggestion up and contact your new or re-elected members and demand a move to repeal legislation paving the way for fascist government control in America today.
Additional at following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2006/11/14/american-concentration-camps-on-the-books.php | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: Bush's Only Real Victory He vanquished American liberty |
| November 22, 2006
Bush's Only Real Victory
He vanquished American liberty
by Paul Craig Roberts
George Orwell warned us, but what American would have expected that in the opening years of the 21st century the United States would become a country in which lies and deception by the president and vice president were the basis for a foreign policy of war and aggression, and in which indefinite detention without charges, torture, and spying on citizens without warrants have displaced the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution?
If anyone had predicted that the election of George W. Bush to the presidency would result in an American police state and illegal wars of aggression, he would have been dismissed as a lunatic.
What American ever would have thought that any U.S. president and attorney general would defend torture or that a Republican Congress would pass a bill legalizing torture by the executive branch and exempting the executive branch from the Geneva Conventions?
What American ever would have expected the U.S. Congress to accept the president's claim that he is above the law?
What American could have imagined that if such crimes and travesties occurred, nothing would be done about them and that the media and opposition party would be largely silent?
Except for a few columnists, who are denounced by "conservatives" as traitors for defending the Bill of Rights, the defense of U.S. civil liberty has been limited to the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. The few federal judges who have refused to genuflect before the Bush police state are denounced by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a "grave threat" to U.S. security. Vice President Richard Cheney called a federal judge's ruling against the Bush regime's illegal and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance program "an indefensible act of judicial overreaching."
Brainwashed "conservatives" are so accustomed to denouncing federal judges for "judicial activism" that Cheney's charge of overreach goes down smoothly. Vast percentages of the American public are simply unconcerned that their liberty can be revoked at the discretion of a police or military officer and that they can be held without evidence, trial, or access to an attorney and tortured until they confess to whatever charge their torturers wish to impose.
Americans believe that such things can only happen to "real terrorists," despite the overwhelming evidence that most of the Bush regime's detainees have no connections to terrorism.
When these points are made to fellow citizens, the reply is usually that "I'm doing nothing wrong. I have nothing to fear."
Why, then, did the Founding Fathers write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
American liberties are the result of an 800-year struggle by the English people to make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of government. For centuries English-speaking peoples have understood that governments cannot be trusted with unaccountable power. If the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary to tie down a very weak and limited central government with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, these protections are certainly more necessary now that our government has grown in size, scope, and power beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers.
But, alas, "law-and-order conservatives" have been brainwashed for decades that civil liberties are unnecessary interferences with the ability of police to protect us from criminals. Americans have forgot that we need protection from government more than we need protection from criminals. Once we cut down civil liberty so that police may better pursue criminals and terrorists, where do we stand when government turns on us?
This is the famous question asked by Sir Thomas More in the play A Man for All Seasons. The answer is that we stand naked, unprotected by law. It is an act of the utmost ignorance and stupidity to assume that only criminals and terrorists will stand unprotected.
Americans should be roused to fury that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Cheney have condemned the defense of American civil liberty as "a grave threat to U.S. security." This blatant use of an orchestrated and propagandistic fear to create a "national security" wedge against the Bill of Rights is an impeachable offense.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10050 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: |
| Admin Freedomtofascism wrote:
I know....that incident at UCLA was appalling!! Thank you so much for contacting us and thank you for your support!!
We need folks just like yourself to help educate our fellow Americans about these important issues. Right now were urging Volunteers to spread the word about Aaron's film to everyone they know. As our numbers grow we will then move to action, en masse. Legally & peacefully.
Please join our daily Volunteer Conference Call. (see info below) there you'll be able to get "action" information & daily updates. Here are some tips.....
Call your local cable company and ask about "Community Access Channels", you can sign up and show Aaron's DVD on cable!
Contact your local library, college or university.....you can set up a free screening there and show the DVD.
Set up screenings of the DVD at local Veteran's Groups! They fought gallantly to protect the freedom of our country and we need their help again!
Email a link to AFTF on Google Video to your Representatives! They must get this information immediately! The majority of our Congressmen and Senators do not know the reality of these issues and how they will effect all Americans!
You can also help by just talking with your friends and family about Aaron's film. Get the word out, email links to the interview with Aaron the on Google Video to everyone you know.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198&q=freedom+to+fascism
The DVD is NOW AVAILABLE for purchase for $19.95 on the official site, www.freedomtofascism.com you can also purchase DVDs in bulk at special discounted rates too! In the meantime, email Google Video links of the FULL VERSION to your friends & family. Aaron has posted it there for FREE (as you may know) so we can alert the Nation quickly. Getting this film shown in theaters has been arduous and posting it on Google is the fastest way to reach the People immediately! Here's a link to the
FULL VERSION
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:22 am Post subject: |
| TWO ACTS OF TYRANNY ON THE SAME DAY!
http://stopthenorth americanunion. com/the_F_ word_files/ image002. jpg
TWO ACTS OF TYRANNY ON THE SAME DAY!
By Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
December 7, 2006
On October 17, 2006, 'a date which will live in infamy' . . . there were two acts of tyranny committed. The first was a public signing of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' which suspended habeas corpus allowing the president to declare you an 'enemy combatant' and end your rights to seek legal or judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment.
The second act of tyranny took place in a private Oval Office ceremony, in which the president signed into law the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007' which essentially eliminates the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act. The NDAA will allow the president to declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'!
About The Military Commissions Act of 2006 . . .
"A writ of habeas corpus which is Latin for 'you have the body' [as proof] is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody."(1)
"The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is 'the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action'."(1)
Expressing the pessimist's view was law professor Jonathan Turley who wrote: "The Congress just gave the president despotic powers and you could hear a yawn across the country [. . . ] People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon."(2)
Turley also said that: "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."(3)
You can watch this MSNBC video where Keith Olbermann and guest Jonathon Turley, Constitutional Law professor at George Washington University discuss the Military Commissions Act here.
About the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 . . .
The NDAA essentially eliminated the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act so that the president can declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'!
"The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact."(4)
"In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States . The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions. "(4)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image006. jpg
The PRIVATE Signing of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007
What 'Rights' Have Been Taken From You?
"On September 28, by a vote of 65-34, the Senate formally passed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The next day, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the act by a vote of 250-170, . . . [whereby] "alien unlawful enemy combatants ... [to be] subject to trial by military commissions" without the constitutional safeguards American citizens possess against illegal detainment and judicial railroading."(5)
As far as an American citizen is concerned the definition of the term 'unlawful enemy combatant' has ominous import for them. The law states: "(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."(6)
"Notice that this definition contains no exception for Americans; it throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word 'person' rather than 'alien'."(5)
'The Military Commissions Act of 2006' is a violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the U. S.Constitution which states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Is there an invasion? Yes! Our country has been invaded by 30 million illegal aliens. Does the president or our Congress intend to do anything about the invasion? No!
Ominously, the full text of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' was published by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The fact that the CFR published the 'Act' would appear to be prima facie evidence of the Shadow Government's support for its genesis!(6)
The Center for Constitutional Rights commented that the: "Congress is now rubber-stamping a bill that was written by the President which gives the President expansive power to detain without judicial oversight. If the Military Commissions Act is passed, it will grant the President the privilege of kings, allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged ‘enemy combatants,’ never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment. What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely?”(7)
Sadly, the American Forces Press Service, propagandized the signing by utilizing the most common form of deception . . . omission. Read how they announced the signing but uttered not one peep about the potentially devastating future it has unleashed.(8)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image007. jpg
Senator John Warner
Martial Law Now Stalks America . . .
On October 17, 2006, "Public Law 109-364, or the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007' (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a 'public emergency' and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'.”(5)
What the National Defense Authorization Act does is end the Posse Comitatus Act of 1787. Posse Comitatus is Latin for 'power of the country.' It WAS a "law, [that] was championed by far-sighted Southern lawmakers in 1878. They had experienced a fifteen year military occupation by the US Army in post-Civil War law enforcement. They understood the heel of a jackboot."(9)
"In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines from participating in arrest, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act."(9)
All these new tyrannical laws have been created obsessively to combat the amorphous concept of 'fighting terrorism' . . . an undefined and ever present boogey man. So not only is the military now permitted to be used around the country, the president can take over the National Guard and the Coast Guard too. It can happen under ANY pretext, at which time the president will become the dictator-in- chief.
According to Gen. Tommy Franks, martial law will replace the Constitution after the next terror attack. In an interview with Cigar Aficionado he said: “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”(10)
Written Dissent to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007:
No matter your opinion of Cynthia McKinney, her 26 page dissent of the NDAA of 2007 is very compelling and highlights the damage and erosion, of tasks and performance, taking place between the police and the military in direct contradiction of our Constitution. The following excerpt is from the section concerning the issue of Posse Comitatus [pp. 30-31 .pdf (pp. 528-529)] which can be found here: (11)
This Authorization should also have reaffirmed the principle of Posse Comitatus for military forces, police and contracted security or combat forces. This Constitutional principle creates a bright line between military and police functions.
In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001 , the Bush administration has continued to make widespread and unnecessary changes in laws and administrative powers that undermine the most basic Constitutional principles and protected rights of citizens in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic].
Recently, both President Bush and Senator Mark Warner (VA) have renewed calls to undermine or reverse the Posse Comitatus Act of 1867 [sic - i.e.,1878], which re-established the Constitutional principle and practice of separating military and police functions in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic].
The experience of the founding fathers with the British model that combined the functions was enough to cause them to set that division sharply in administrative powers and civilian command of the military.
The principles began to be eroded in the period following the end of the Civil War, and the effective occupation of areas of the south by federal troops who were holding military tribunals, carrying out executions of citizens and usurping local police and judicial control. Their excesses came to the attention of the post-war Congress and they passed the Posse Comitatus Act to forbid the military being used to enforce laws.
Further erosion followed the end of the Vietnam War, when police departments were increasingly militarized in training and equipment as well as employing a large number of returning war veterans. SWAT teams were created, a clearly militarized police function, getting training on military bases with advanced weapons.
When President George H.W. Bush came into office in the 1980s, his programs made increased use of military troops and equipment in the war against drugs, supporting police and collecting intelligence in regard to civilian crimes. Joint Military Task Forces were created that combined DoD, FBI, SWAT, ATF and local police in sieges at Wounded Knee, Waco, Texas and against MOVE in Philadelphia, using tanks and military explosives.
President Bush has ample authority under provisions of existing laws on disaster response to mobilize and command any and all federal assets, including military forces. State directed National Guard units have always worked in conjunction with federal troops without being put under federal control themselves. Both National Guard and regular military forces are authorized under federal and state laws to use force to protect lives, property and public safety during a declared emergency. Police functions have been wisely left to local police and state National Guard forces, except when the situation was so dire they could not function.
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image008. jpg
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image009. jpg
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image010. jpg
Executive Orders and PDDs Say How They Will Do It!
Once martial law is invoked, then the Executive Orders (EOs) concerned with national security or defense issues are then ALSO invoked. These were previously known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they were renamed 'Presidential Decision Directives' commonly known as PDDs.
For example PDD 63, issued in 1998 that speaks to protecting America 's critical infrastructure "including telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, and transportation-that supports the U.S. economy, government, and military."(12)
"The aim of PDD 63 was to introduce an improved information system infrastructure that is secure and interconnected by the year 2003, and to significantly increase security to government systems by the year 2000. PDD 63 designed a new configuration to protect the country's critical infrastructure. Some of the components are as follows:
· A national coordinator to handle critical infrastructure, as well as foreign terrorism and domestic mass destruction;
· The National Infrastructure Protection Center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation to bring together representatives from various agencies for information sharing and collaboration;
· Information Sharing and Analysis Center to be set up by the private sector in cooperation with the government;
· A National Infrastructure Assurance Council made up of private sector leaders and state/local officials to provide advice for a national plan; . . ."
Why and who will be those from the 'private sector' running our government in a time of crisis. Will it be those international bankers and industrialists? It gives no parameters. It is concerning that they could ALL be the very people who want a One World Monopoly and the creation of the North American Union. What better, quick and efficient way to enforce their plans than to have them spring forward using a domestic tragedy like 9/11. But then that has always been their game plan.
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power."
Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders."
But Today's Executive Orders Go FAR Beyond Those Rules As These Quotes Attest . . .
"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998 (13)
"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999 (13)
Read over the following Executive Orders so you can understand what TOTAL, COMPLETE, and DICTATORIAL POWER these orders will invoke. Go here to search for the actual text for the Executive Orders as well at the current disposition of those Executive Orders: (14)
Go to that Federal Register and check out the following Executive Orders: 13010, 13130, 13228, 13231, 13234, 14284, 13284, 13286 (transfers control of 12919 to DHS - Dept. of Homeland Security).
Pay Particular Attention to Executive Order 12919 . . .
The president of the United States , with the help of federal agencies, will have control over the following, as annotated by Paula Demers in 1996: (15)
(a) All transportation, "regardless of ownership." This means that if they need your car, they’ve got it. They will control all public transportation also.
(b) All forms of energy, including "petroleum, gas (natural and manufactured) , electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal), atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines)." This means the federal government will have complete control over who will have power (electricity, etc.) and who won’t. They will be able to "pull the plug" on us at their discretion.
(c) All farm equipment. Farmers will not have to be part of "the production or preparation for market use of food resources." They did this in Russia . The farmers worked for the government.
(d) All fertilizer. This means that any product, or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements--nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium--will be able to be confiscated by the government. The reason they have this combination is because it includes anything that can be used as a plant nutrient. If you want a garden, forget it.
(e) All food resources. ALL means ALL. This includes all "commodities and products, simple, mixed, or compound, or complements to such commodities or products that are being ingested by either human beings or animals...." This includes all "starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool mohair, hemp, flax fiber, and naval stores."
That means they can come into your house and take all your food. Period. Catherine Bertini, the executive director "UN World Food Program" made an interesting comment in Beijng, China, at the UN 4th World Conference on Women in September, 1995. She said, "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize." [Henry Kissinger has infamously said: 'Food can be used as a weapon!']
(f) All food resource facilities. This means "plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for production, processing, distribution and storage (including cold food storage)." They go on to say that it includes "livestock and poultry feed and seed." In other words, they will control anything that has to do with food.
(j) All health resources. This means EVERYTHING. They will have control over all "materials, facilities, health supplies, and equipment (including pharmaceutical, blood collecting and dispensing supplies, biological, surgical textiles, and emergency surgical instruments and supplies)." They will be able to come into your home and take your medicines.
(k) All metals and minerals. [Think gold and silver confiscation]
(m) All water resources. ALL usable water from all of the sources within the jurisdiction of the United States . All the water that can be "managed, controlled and allocated to meet emergency requirements. " Not only will they be able to turn off your water supply, they can come and take any water you have stored in your house.
Speaking of Water . . .
Did you know that some senators in the state of Washington were working to get a bill passed that would require you to obtain a permit in order to collect rainwater on you own property? Who were the sponsors of such an absurdity? Why they included a Rockefeller of course, who else? What did Senator Dick Boxlightner have to say about such insanity: "What's next, a permit for collecting strawberries off plants in your garden?" Little does Senator Boxlightner know that's EXACTLY where they are heading.(16)
The Monopolists Want to Control ALL Seed Production . . .
Huge monolithic corporations like Monsanto are viciously going after farmers whose crops became genetically modified when the WIND cross-pollinated their crops with the PATENTED (monopolized) crops planted by Monsanto. Companies like Monsanto have created, and then deliberately left unidentified, where their test plots of patented crops are growing all across America . That way they can know where and who you are, but you cannot protect yourself from them until they claim your crop is contaminated with their patented technology and sue you for illegally using their patented materials. In fact, Monsanto has sued so many farmers that there is now a national hotline (1-888-FARMHLP) set up to assist them.
Monsanto employees will walk right onto your land without your permission and take samples of your crops off to their labs for investigation, then they'll haul you into court for stealing and not paying for their genetically modified products. You will be deliberately ruined financially AND psychologically. Your farms that have been in your family for generations will be taken from your by extortion and threat of a mega-lawsuit OR when they win their court suit against you. In the legal process they can ruin you financially or psychologically before you ever get your day in court. It's happening all across America and Canada . Get the picture? Educate yourself!
If you disbelieve such claims . . . you should watch all the YouTube and Google videos on genetically modified seeds, in particular the ones about Percy Schmeiser a Canadian farmer. Or, you can purchase the DVD by Deborah Koons Garcia titled: The Future of Food: There's a revolution happening . . . Educate yourself about how the One World Monopolists are already working hard to take over ALL seed production via monopolistic patents.
FYI . . . The Monopolists ALREADY Control the Seed Production in Iraq
Before the U.S. invasion, agriculture in Iraq was the product of centuries of culling and refining heirloom seed collections so that the best seeds suited for a given location, weather, soil and water source were saved and used. The war in Iraq conveniently destroyed the country's seed industry, putting the country's domestic food supply at risk.
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image011. jpg
L. Paul Bremer, III; aka Lewis Paul Bremer; aka Jerry Bremer
May 11, 2003 - June 28, 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq
The solution to the seed problem was solved by U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer to Iraq when he delivered some 100 written orders for governing Iraq . As Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Bremer issued the following CPA Order #81 about Iraqi seed production:
"Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and under the laws and usages of war, and consistent with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1483 and 1511 (2003) . . .
Recognizing that companies, lenders and entrepreneurs require a fair, efficient, and predictable environment for protection of their intellectual property, [and] Noting that several provisions of the current Iraqi Patent and Industrial Design Law and related legislation does not meet current internationally- recognized standards of protection,
Recognizing the demonstrated interest of the Iraqi Governing Council for Iraq to become a full member in the international trading system, known as the World Trade Organization [WTO], and the desirability of adopting modern intellectual property standards,
Acting in a manner consistent with the Report of the Secretary General to the Security Council of July 17, 2003, concerning the need for the development of Iraq and its transition from a non-transparent centrally planned economy to a free market economy characterized by sustainable economic growth through the establishment of a dynamic private sector, and the need to enact institutional and legal reforms to give it effect, . . ."(17)
"The important information about Iraqi Order 81 is that it was designed to have a major impact on the way farming is done in Iraq . This order prohibits Iraqi farmers from using the methods of agriculture that they have used for centuries. The practice of saving seeds from one year to the next is now illegal in Iraq. Order 81 wages war on Iraqi farmers. They have lost the freedom to choose their own methods of agriculture. The legalese in which the orders are written creates confusion about their exact meaning, but the desired result is obvious. Order 81 prohibits the farmers from using their own seeds, on their own farms, to grow their own crops."(18)
"In the name of agricultural reconstruction this new law deprives Iraqi farmers of their inherent right, exercised for the past 10,000 years in the fertile Mesopotamian arc, to save and replant seeds. It enables the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow Chemical and other corporate giants that control the global seed trade."(19)
How will they enforce such a diabolical order? They will probably use 'Terminator Seed' technology to do so.
What Exactly ARE 'Terminator Seeds' You Ask?
To fully understand the truly 'dark side' of a monopoly, how about using "food as a weapon" as was once declared by Henry Kissinger. All food starts with seeds and there is now a patented technology invented by a company called Delta & Pine Land, which is about to be acquired by Monsanto, because they engineered a 'Terminator' seed which cannot be used for the next year's crop because it automatically self-destructs at the end of the growing season. How sick is that?
In a well researched and documented story you will find a litany of twisted devious financial and political connections concluding with three paragraphs that state: "The key scientific member of the Delta & Pine Land board since 1993 has been Dr. Nam-Hai Chua. Chua, 62, is also head of the Rockefeller University Plant Molecular Biology Laboratory in New York, and has been for over 25 years. The labs are at the heart of the Rockefeller tax-exempt Foundation’s decades-long support which has spent more than $100 million of its own research grant funding to create their Gene Revolution." Chua heads a laboratory staff of twenty-one predominately Asian workers.(20)(21)(22)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image013. jpg
Rockefeller University - NY
Until 1995, Chua was also a scientific consultant to Monsanto Corporation, as well as to DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Chua is at the heart of Rockefeller’s Gene Revolution. And, clearly, Delta & Pine Land and their research on Terminator [seed] have been in the center of that work."(20)(21)
How Did America Become What it is Today?
If you think about it . . . by sending our manufacturing base to Mexico or off-shoring to other foreign countries, using H-1B visas and others to insource workers, and while at the same time out-sourcing jobs. By doing so, the One World Monopolists (OWM) have FORCED America into becoming global. All has been done in the name of 'profits' when in the past we were self-contained and produced all we needed for ourselves and exported our excess around the world. Now we are dependent on countries like Communist China , etc., to supply stores like Wal-mart with nearly all its merchandise. Thus we have become a de facto global economy without our consent and strident calls for it to stop. They are killing America slowly but surely.
In fact . . . you will find that the cabal working towards the NAU has gone one step further and created non-profit foundations to develop many of the road and infrastructure projects that are planned under NAFTA 'plus' called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). This means that NO TAXES will enter the coffers of America 's government till. Even worse . . . you will find that they are using all manner of federal tax dollars to fund some of the 'non-profit' projects that are already in place. Clever by half, wouldn't you say. Take taxpayer dollars, make money but pay no taxes in return, while America, by default, becomes the North American Union.
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image014. jpg
Are You Angry Yet? Have You Any Fear Yet? If Not . . . Read On . . .
"EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a 'new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis'."(23)(24)
The Escalating Role of the Military . . .
"The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders.”(4)
"In other words, the law facilitates the 'transfer' of the newest in so-called 'crowd control' technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier “technology transfer” agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime."(4)(25)
Are You a Border Crosser Listed in the Automated Targeting System (ATS)?
"Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders since 2002 have been assessed by the Homeland Security Department's computerized Automated Targeting System, or ATS . . . [using an] unannounced assignment of terrorism risk assessments to American international travelers by a computerized system managed from an unmarked, two-story brick building in Northern Virginia."(26)
"The travelers [you] are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years. Some or all data in the system can be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring, contracting and licensing decisions. Courts and even some private contractors can obtain some of the data under certain circumstances. "(26)
"It is simply incredible that the Bush administration is willing to share this sensitive information with foreign governments and even private employers, while refusing to allow U.S. citizens to see or challenge their own terror scores," Leahy said. This system 'highlights the danger of government use of technology to conduct widespread surveillance of our daily lives without proper safeguards for privacy'."(26)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image019. jpg
Secretary of the Air Force - Michael Wynne
Some Examples of Military Technology and Tactics Already Being Used On YOU!
According to Sec'y of the Air Force Michael Wynne: "Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield . . . The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne."(27)
What 'others' does he mean? We American citizens? Certainly not the news media because they are in league with the monopolists!
"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."(27)
Oh, so now we know . . . he is not concerned with complaints from 'We the People' . . . only those in the 'world press.'
Lastly . . . "The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved."(27)
That's a backhanded admission that people ARE injured by use of 'non-lethal' weapons. Don't you wonder if they will do a five year study to determine if there are any long term effects to being microwaved? That's probably not in their plans. They could care less about Americans. If injury does result in future medical problems they can do what they have always done and deny there was any 'cause and effect' as in 'Agent Orange' or depleted uranium (DU). Their only concern is about being 'vilified in the world press'. Comforting isn't it?
Then there was the school safety drill . . .
In Wyoming , Michigan there was a 'school safety drill' that included police officers in riot gear with weapons.
"Students, who were unaware police were conducting a drill, were taken from the classroom into the halls, patted down by officers and asked what they had in their pockets . . . Officers wore protective gear, including vests and helmets, and carried rifles that were unloaded and marked with colored tape to indicate they were not live weapons . . . "(28)
Diana Silva, a parent of an eighth-grade student, said the drill went too far. "My child was with his face to the wall in the hallway of the high school . . . I certainly don't want anything like this happening to my child."(28)
"Principal David Britten said students weren't told ahead of time to make the drill as realistic as possible. Teachers were informed moments before it took place, he said. "I think this is the best way to do it," [School Principal] Britten said. "We're not looking to scare anyone, but we want a sense of urgency."(28)
"But Wyoming Police Chief James Carmody said his officers were not aware students and parents were not told. He said his department will mandate that parents be notified ahead of time in the future."(28)
Just more practice done on the unsuspecting public. Children, some of whom "were so scared, they just about wet their pants . . . "(28)
Surprise . . . the Military was Ready Even BEFORE the NDAA Bill Was Signed . . .
In "April 2002, Defense Dept. officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States . Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this 'the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946'."(29)
"The NORTHCOM commander, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced, is responsible for 'homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).... He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters'."(29)
Take, for instance . . . Hurricane Katrina in Sept. 2005. According to the Washington Post: "White House senior adviser Karl Rove told the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, that she should explore legal options to impose martial law 'or as close as we can get'. The White House tried vigorously, but ultimately failed, to compel Gov. Blanco to yield control of the state National Guard."(29)
Even then the Bush administration was pushing for martial law. Some have said that FEMA's spectacular failure to respond to Katrina resulted from the White House policy to cut back FEMA and head the department with someone totally unqualified for the job was done in order to strengthen the proposal and funding for a military response to disasters. Thus the multi-million funding for detention facilities will give substance and support for expanding NORTHCOM's ability to respond to any domestic disorders.
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image020. jpg
The New York Times Chimes in with Their Propaganda:
"As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis."(30)
"To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. "(30)
You did notice that it was Ms. Blanco and not Gov. Blanco whose title denotes the right to call out and control the National Guard of her state of Louisiana ? Subtleties abound when propaganda is concerned.
The New York Times article go on to say: "At a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said, 'The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe'."(30)
Chertoff's announcement is actually calling for an end to the 'traditional model' of Posse Comitatus and 'creating a new model' by overriding the Insurrection Act. His propaganda has left unsaid the damage that will be inflicted by ending your centuries-old rights and protections. Once the 'new model' is law . . . THEN, too late, you will understand that your important Constitutional protections are gone forever.
Was FEMA Really Incompetent or Was It ALL About Promoting the Need For Martial Law?
Why was FEMA so late, ineffective and accused of dragging their feet, cutting communication lines used by local first responders, turning back truckloads of water and supplies as well as refusing to let volunteer local boat owners, of which there are many in that area of the country, go in and rescue people. You don't suppose FEMA's 'problems' were just a really opportune way to promote and get the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 signed, sealed and delivered?(31)
You can find a list of FEMA's blocking of relief efforts with clickable URLs to the source material here: (32)
There are many, including this author, who believe that the use of the National Guard to enter and confiscate the lawfully possessed weapons from homeowners in New Orleans after Katrina was simply a 'trial run' to discover how or IF the American citizens would react to such a blatant violation of their Constitutional rights!
You can watch the video of the National Guard Confiscating Guns in New Orleans on the Stop the North Ameican Union 'Videos' webpage found here to see how they violated and infringed our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right "to keep and bear Arms." Or . . . you can purchase and donate to the NRA at the same time by purchasing their video Never Again! A Shocking Story of Gun Confiscation in America .
How did we arrive at this sorry state of affairs? There is a solid article written in 1996 titled Mission creep: the militarizing of America . Unfortunately, it is not referenced, but it will guide you through the maze of events that brought into being these outrageous rights-stealing new laws.(33)
Sadly . . . Carl Rove Got His Desired Martial Law!
As part of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, the Pentagon is provided an additional $500 billion plus to enable the president to employ the "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies . . . [such as] interference with State and Federal law . . . the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (”refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”(4)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image021. jpg
Once Arrested for 'Insurrection' or 'Domestic Violence' Where Will You Be Incarcerated?
"There [are] over 800 prison camps in the United States , all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached." (23)
"The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons."(23)
"Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation."(23)
"The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks , Alaska . The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people."(23)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image022. jpg
Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide “temporary detention and processing capabilities” in January 2006.(34)
The Propaganda Is That They Are Being Built For Rounding Up Illegal Aliens . . .
It has been REPEATEDLY stated by government sources that it is not "practical or feasible" to deport millions of illegal aliens. However, our government apparently has plans to transport millions of Americans across the country and imprison them in concentration camps, or gulags or 'detention centers.' For what purpose or reason? For more details and locations see "FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders here, including a word of caution from a Canadian Lady who questions some of the Canadian locations because of weather conditions, not by sightings]: (23)(35)
If you live near any of those alleged FEMA camps, it is your civic DUTY as American citizens to go to the locations mentioned in the 'FEMA Concentration Camps' report and determine for yourself, and others, if the report is accurate or not. If you find that these locations are not as identified, then you MUST report that to the website and others. If they ARE as stated then further their knowledge base with photographs and any other evidence you may obtain.
"In September [2005], NORTHCOM conducted its highly classified Granite Shadow exercise in Washington . As William Arkin reported in the Washington Post, 'Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military's extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control'."(29)
Still Don't Believe It's True? Then Read This . . . (36)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image024. gif
Another Surprise! . . . the SAME DAY that the John Warner NDAA was signed the Army was ready:
U.S. Army North, the Army’s newest service component command reached full operational capability Monday, which means that it is fully manned, equipped and ready to assume its mission.
As part of Army transformation, USARNORTH was formed to become the dedicated Army service component command to Northern Command, the unified command responsible for defending the homeland and coordinating defense support of civil authorities.
Located at Fort Sam Houston , Texas , USARNORTH achieved initial operating capability in September 2005, and is responsible for specific missions, including:
• Execute homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities missions.
• Provide training and readiness oversight of certified weapons of mass destruction—[ for] civil support teams.
• Conduct the Army-to-Army portion of the theater cooperation mission with Canada and Mexico .
• Coordinate the activities of defense coordinating officers and their elements assigned in each Federal Emergency Management Agency region.
• Organize up to two task forces that, with augmentation, can become joint task forces and deploy within the operational area to command and control Department of Defense forces responding to homeland defense or civil support operations.
For the past 12 months, USARNORTH has been building its organization, readiness and mission capability. USARNORTH officially assumed the Army component command duties from Forces Command on Oct. 1.(37)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image025. jpg
And . . . Where Will the Army Practice its Defense of the Homeland?
After all the uproar over the nationwide military base closings under BRAC, the "U.S. Army is eyeing another MILLION ACRES of southeastern Colorado ranch and croplands for additional training grounds for its modernized Army, and landowners who don't want to lose their homesteads could be facing condemnation proceedings. . . The protest group said Las Animas County likely will be the most impacted by an army site expansion, and there are 567 farms and ranches with crop sales of $761,000 and livestock sales of more than $20 million that would be endangered."(38)
Those that are fighting to keep their land out of the clutches of the military-industrial complex have said: "Agriculture is one of the cornerstones of society, even though many people take it for granted, it is very much a national security issue. The United States is already dependent on foreign oil, what will happen if we become dependent on foreign countries for our food supplies as well? . . . We also hold firm to the belief that our national security relies as much on our efforts to produce food as it does on a good national defense, The group said entire towns would be removed from existence, 'except as maybe [those that are useful as] urban warfare training sites'."(38)
In a 'dodge' by the military's spokeswoman Karen Edge at the Fort Carson Army Base, it was stated that those concerns were premature. 'All we've done is identify a training land deficit,' . . . There currently is a moratorium on acquiring more land, so the Army will have to ask the Department of Defense for a waiver, and move forward from there.(38)
"Army officials said the base needs to have 'a dynamic, fully integrated battlefield environment' to train soldiers who are able to operation [sic] in smaller units and still control 'significantly greater battle space'." This quest for land is in addition to the 234,000 acres currently existing at Fort Carson. (38)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image026. jpg
Lastly, a peek into your future . . .
In the small town of Morristown , TN : "The khaki-clad state troopers hup-hupped into formation on opposite sides of the courthouse lawn, wearing riot gear and clutching batons. About 100 state and local officers stood on the square this summer, some carrying M-16 rifles. They were more than a match for an equal number of mostly middle-aged locals arriving for the anti-illegal immigration rally. It was one of the most confounding spectacles this little town of 25,000 had ever seen. The only way to step on the lawn between the rows of troopers was through a security checkpoint, surrendering anything that looked like it could be used as a weapon. Ted Mitchell and his flag never made it in."(39)
"'It's an American flag!' Mitchell sputtered. You can bring the flag into the rally, a police officer explained, but you have to leave your flag pole. Mitchell's face got redder. His yelling got louder. In an instant the 62-year-old man was scuffling with the police. They pushed him to the ground, cuffed him and carted him off in a police car."(39)
Just where will they take the future, perhaps MILLIONS of flag waving patriots like Ted Mitchell? Watch this video detailing the preparations for the coming gulags or as they are euphemistically known as, 'detention centers' here on the Stop the North American Union (NAU) website's 'Videos' webpage.
The Conclusion . . .
The goal of the One World Monopolists is to gain total and complete world domination. An determined oligarchy of monied elites who believe they are destined to rule and that you are destined to be ruled. They will answer to no one and run the world as they see fit.
According to Antony Sutton, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University: "While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to go political and make society go to work for the monopolists-- under the name of the public good and the public interest."(40)
"Frederick C. Howe revealed the strategy of using government in a 1906 book, Confessions of a Monopolist: These are the rules of big business . . . Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics . . . "(40)
Are we moving from . . . Freedom to Fascism as the Aaron Russo's documentary video claims. You can watch his film which is archived on the Stop the North American Union 'Videos' webpage found here and judge for yourself!
The 'Shadow Government' working in plain sight, to create the North American Union using the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). They are well on their way to a One World Monopoly and they have begun their final mad dash to the finish line.
The oligarchs have become ever more arrogant and bold. They have concluded you are either asleep or brainwashed and propagandized into complacency. They are so close to complete conquest that they are now blatantly abusing our Constitution, Bill of Rights and laws in more ways than you can imagine in your wildest of dreams.
If the One World Monopolists succeed . . . they will consign us all to a living hell on earth!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. ~ Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: All bracketed [ ] notations within the quotes, are added for clarification.
Note 2: All underlining, bolding, color and italics within the quotes and elsewhere, are done for emphasis.
Note 3: Melvin Sickler, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission: The two organizations that run the United States , http://www.prologne t.qc.ca/clyde/ cfr.html.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. lectlaw.com, habeas corpus: Defined and Explained, Accessed October 26, 2006 , lectlaw.com, http://www.lectlaw. com/def/h001. htm.
2. Doug Hornig, The Passing of Habeas Corpus, Accessed November 15, 2006 , caseyresearch. com, http://www.caseyres earch.com/ wwnk.php.
3. Robert Longley, Bush and Lincoln both Suspended Habeas Corpus, Accessed on November 7, 2006 , usgovinfo.about. com, http://usgovinfo. about.com/ od/rightsandfree doms/a/habeuscor pus.htm.
4. Frank Morales, Bush Moves Toward Martial Law, October 27, 2006 , rinf.com, http://www.rinf. com/columnists/ news/bush- moves-toward- martial-law.
5. Joe Wolverton II, J.D., Are YOU the Enemy?, October 30, 2006 , The New American, http://www.thenewam erican.com/ artman/publish/ article_4269. shtml.
6. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Military Commissions Act of 2006, Accessed November 14, 2006 , cfr.org, http://www.cfr. org/content/ publications/ attachments/ military% 20act.pdf.
7. Anup Shah, Military Commissions Act 2006 -- Unchecked Powers?, October 2, 2006 , zmag.org, http://www.zmag. org/content/ showarticle. cfm?ItemID= 11095.
8. Jim Garamone, President Signs 2007 Defense Authorization Act, October 17, 2006 , PressZoom.com- Global News Service, http://presszoom. com/story_ 119492.html.
9. Michael G. Leventhal, 1878 Military Law Gets New Attention, November 21, 2001 , dojgov.net, http://www.dojgov. net/posse_ comitatus_ act.htm.
10. John O. Edwards, Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack, November 21, 2003 , NewMax.com, http://www.newsmax. com/archives/ articles/ 2003/11/20/ 185048.shtml.
11. Cynthia A. McKinney, Dissenting Views in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, Accessed November 29, 2006 , .pdf pp. 12-36 (Document pp. 511-534), http://a257. g.akamaitech. net/7/257/ 2422/15may200615 14/www.gpoaccess .gov/serialset/ creports/ pdf/hr109- 452/views. pdf.
12. Regulations & Standards, US Laws and Executive Orders, PDD 63: Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures, emergency-managemen t.net, http://www.emergenc y-management. net/laws_ pdd63.htm.
13. Jeffrey C. Fox, What is an Executive Order?, Accessed August 7, 2006 , thisnation.com, http://www.thisnati on.com/question/ 040.html.
14. The Federal Register, Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index, Accessed December 5, 2006 , archives.gov, http://www.archives .gov/federal- register/ executive- orders/dispositi on.html.
15. Paula Demers, The Executive Order Above All Executive Orders, Accessed July 2, 2006 , proliberty.com, http://www.proliber ty.com/observer/ prt0397a. htm.
16. NewsWithViews, Permit Required To Collect Rainwarter In Washington State?, January 21, 2005 , newswithviews. com, http://www.newswith views.com/ NWVexclusive/ exclusive76. htm.
17. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 81, Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Inormation, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law, April 26, 2004 , CPA, http://www.export. gov/iraq/ pdf/cpa_order_ 81.pdf.
18. Rosemarie Jackowski, IRAQ: CPA Order 81 Is Even Worse Than Originally Reported, August 12, 2005 , corpwatch.org, http://www.corpwatc h.org/article. php?id=12547.
19. Michael Meacher, My sadness at the privatisation of Iraq , August 12, 2005 , http://www.timesonl ine.co.uk/ article/0, ,1072-1731547, 00.html.
20. F. William Engdahl, Monsanto Buys 'Terminator' Seeds Company, August 27, 2006 , Global Research, http://www.globalre search.ca/ index.php? context=viewArti cle&code=ENG20060827&articleId=3082.
21. Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D., Treason Abounds, Gov't Cabal Plots North American Unioin (NAU), September 4, 2006 , Updated November 4, 2006, StopTheNorthAmerica nUnion.com, http://www.StopTheN orthAmericanUnio n.com/TreasonAbo unds.html.
22. Rockefeller University , Members of the Laboratory of Plant Molecular Biology, Accessed December 4, 2006 , rockefeller. edu, http://www.rockefel ler.edu/research /labmembers. php?id=22&memberId=28.
23. Friends of Liberty , FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders, October 6, 2006 , sianews.com, http://www.sianews. com/modules. php?name= News&file=article&sid=1062.
24. Gerald R. Ford, Executive Order 11921: Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignment to Organization and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies, June 11, 1976 , fas.org, http://www.fas. org/irp/offdocs/ eo/eo-11921. htm.
25. Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection, National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
26. Michael J. Sniffen, U.S. Gov't Terror Ratings Draw Outrage, December 2, 2006 , military.com, http://www.military .com/NewsContent /0,13319, 119898,00. html.
27. Associated Press (AP), Air Force chief: Test Weapons on testy U.S. mobs, September 12, 2006 , The Seirra Times, http://www.sierrati mes.com/06/ 09/13/mobs. htm.
28. Associated Press, School Safety Drill Upsets Some Parents, October 28, 2006 , abcnews.go.com, http://abcnews. go.com/US/ wireStory? id=2613229&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds031 2.
29. Peter Dale Scott, Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps, February 6, 2006 , pacificnews. org, http://news. pacificnews. org/news/ view_article. html?article_ id=eed74d9d44c30 493706fe03f4c9b3 a77.
30. Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt, Thom Shanker, Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop Aid, September 9, 2005, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes. com/2005/ 09/09/national/ nationalspecial/ 09military. html?ex=12839184 00&en=aa642c94881e7c01&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.
31. Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, FEMA Deliberately Sabotaging Hurricane Relief Efforts, September 6, 2005 , prisonplanet. com, http://www.prisonpl anet.com/ articles/ september2005/ 060905femasabota ging.htm.
32. Rense.com, FEMA's Blocking Of Relief Efforts -- An Amazing List, September 8, 2005 , rense.com, http://www.rense. com/general67/ femwont.htm.
33. Sam Smith, Mission creep: the militarizing of America , March 1996, Progressive Review, http://prorev. com/mil.htm.
34. Katherine Hunt, KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M, January 24, 2006 , marketwatch. com, http://www.marketwa tch.com/News/ Story/Story. aspx?guid= %7B62C8724D- AE8A-4B5C- 94C7-70171315C0A 0%7D&dateid=38741. 5136277662- 858254656.
35. Canadian Lady, Re: FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders, October 6, 2006 , sianews.com, http://www.sianews. com/modules. php?name= News&file=comments&sid=1062&tid=150&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0.
36. What Really Happened, Concentration Camps in America: Are They For You?, Accessed August 2, 2006 , whatreallyhappened. com, http://www.whatreal lyhappened. com/concentratio n.html.
37. Staff report, U.S. Army North up and running, October 17, 2006 , armytimes.com, http://www.armytime s.com/story. php?f=1-292925- 2274936.php.
38. World Net Daily, Army eyes 1 million acres for warfare training; Landowners unwilling to sell could face condemnation proceedings, November 7, 2006 , WorldNetDaily. com, http://www.worldnet daily.com/ news/article. asp?ARTICLE_ ID=52819.
39. Kim Cobb, Our Town -- The Rally: More immigrant arrivals mean more fears in Appalachia , October 23, 2006 , Houston Chronicle.com, http://www.alipac. us/modules. php?name= Forums&file=viewtopic&t=44771.
40. William Blase, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the New World Order, 1995, conspiracyarchive. com, http://conspiracyar chive.com/ NWO/Council_ Foreign_Relation s.htm.
© Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D., All Rights Reserved
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/Fear_ PF.html
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: |
| It Could Happen Here
by Gregory Meyerson and Michael Joseph Roberto
A deepening crisis pervades Pax Americana and with it a rising interest in fascism and the fear that it may be coming or is already here. While some observers are alarmed at the prospects of fascism, others dismiss the topic as conspiracy theory or just plain rubbish. In the most absurd recent use of the term, George W. Bush has declared America at war “with Islamic fascists seeking to destroy freedom loving societies.” It is hard here not to invoke Huey Long’s famous idea that fascism would come to America clothed as anti-fascism.
The fact that more is being said about fascism in America indicates that a thorough and ongoing debate is now in order. Yet discussions of this sort will inevitably take us into a virtual minefield, especially given the commonplace perception of fascism as a form of totalitarianism that occurred in the past and can never happen again.
We propose that the current talk about fascism has arisen from conditions that can be best summed up as a general crisis of Pax Americana. By general crisis we mean a convergence of developments, long-term and short, pervading the social order that have rendered much of it dysfunctional and dystopian. Stated in another way, the concept of a general crisis describes Pax Americana in economic, political, social and cultural decline. Its long-term causes are rooted in the mid-1970s, where we see the beginnings—brought on in part by the oil shocks to the American economy attributed to the rise of OPEC, and the military defeat in Vietnam—of the dissolution of U.S. economic hegemony over the global capitalist system. These proved costly to U.S. credibility around the world and suggested that the idea of American invincibility was indeed a myth. Despite the so-called triumph over communism trumpeted as a victory by the Reagan administration, the heralding of a New World Order by George H. W. Bush, or the hollow economic boom brokered by Bill Clinton’s neoliberalism, the crisis of Pax Americana deepened throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
Then, the terrorist attacks in September 2001, made the crisis acute, setting into motion a chain of events that have brought the Middle East to the brink of wholesale regional war and exacerbated the economic, political, and ideological contradictions within the totality of the American Empire. From the current vantage point, past troubles pale in significance when compared to:
the geopolitical nightmare in Iraq;
the barbarous Israeli invasion of Lebanon undertaken with U.S. support;
the growing belligerence of the Bush administration toward Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela and the threat of conflict with any or all of these countries;
mounting public and private debt in the United States;
global currency wars that threaten the stability of the dollar;
the steady and seemingly irreversible deterioration of U.S. living standards causing an unprecedented polarization between wealth and poverty;
the growing power of the disciplinary state and the parallel weakening of the welfare state;
the near total loss of international credibility;
the whole package of threats to civil liberties with the passage of the Patriot Acts and the creation of Homeland Security;
the supreme court’s decision eroding protection for whistle blowers;
the increasingly routine references to “clash of civilizations” and World War III.
In short, the general crisis of Pax Americana becomes acute with 9/11 and the U.S ruling class response to it. We suggest that this acute stage of the crisis may become the basis for what we call a fascist trajectory in the United States.
Amid the complexities characterizing the general crisis, current discussions about the threat of fascism today are largely reduced to the dangers of Christian fundamentalism and neoconservative extremism in the Bush administration, along with their synergies. Furthermore, such discussions have generally focused on political, ideological and cultural factors split off from the dynamic context of class rule within the changing particulars of capitalist crisis, in this case the general crisis of Pax Americana. While they do not ignore political economy, most analyses distort its crucial role by reducing it to a concern with plutocracy. Representatives of this genre include the recent writings of Chris Hedges, Mark Crispin Miller, Davidson Loehr, Lawrence Britt, Lewis Lapham and socialists such as Carl Davidson and Jerry Harris.(1) Some of these writers offer astute observations on the “fascist” character of religious fundamentalism. Others see the possibility of fascism coming in the form of a neoconservative coup or rogue ruling class at the top which, aided by a mass base, destroys the electoral process through multifaceted mechanisms of corruption.
Our interpretation contests such assumptions. We oppose the idea that fascism or an intensification of fascist processes could emerge through a fundamentalist movement, a rogue ruling class, or both.(2) While recognizing that current conditions are fueling the idea of fascism via a neoconservative hijacking of American democracy, we argue that the intensification of fascist processes will come—if it does come—from the ruling class as a whole.
In this article, we defend a class analysis of fascism in general and regard it as a methodological introduction to a larger work, where we chart the origins and development of the general crisis with special attention to its acute post 9/11 phase. On the basis of this more extensive treatment, we will propose with some trepidation that fascism is a plausible response by the U.S. bourgeoisie to the general crisis of Pax Americana. Put another way, if the various components of the acute phase of the general crisis converge in any number of ways, then fascist processes will certainly intensify. In the larger work, we will respond to prominent interpretations of fascism coming from what we describe as the left liberal camp. We then defend our position against one version or another of the view that the general crisis can be solved by recourse to a “new New Deal.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To begin, we view fascism as a functional (structural, intrinsic, causal) property of monopoly capitalism in crisis. As we will see, everything turns on understanding the particular, i.e. historical, character of the crisis. Our view is close to the classical or orthodox definition proposed by R. Palme Dutt in his 1934 work Fascism and Social Revolution. While we are somewhat sympathetic to Dutt’s position, we differ as well in important ways. For example, although Dutt correctly recognized fascism as a particular crisis-ridden form of capitalist class rule, he insufficiently characterized the particulars of capitalist crisis in the 1930s. This led him to define the New Deal as fascist. In retrospect the presumed inability of class analysis to distinguish between Nazi Germany and the New Deal has occasioned much mirth among so-called nonvulgar Marxists. Nevertheless, we think that a more fine-grained analysis of crisis can account for such differences quite well.
Some theoretical comments are in order. To view fascism as a structural tendency of a predominantly capitalist form of class rule in crisis, we must avoid taking past definitions as constituting the meaning of fascism in general. It is interesting to note that Marxian functionalism is relatively uncontroversial among Marxists as an analysis of the changing forms of dominant ideology, the changing forms of racism and racial inequality, and changing forms of imperialism. Let us consider imperialism. Marxists argue that capitalist imperialism is a property of capital, a consequence of the laws of capital accumulation. Imperialism has taken many forms, from outright territorial conquest to current forms of neoliberalism, which until recently did not involve territorial conquest but other processes – outsourcing, financial domination through debt, restructuring, etc. Now we have a new form, what John Bellamy Foster calls “Naked Imperialism.”(3)
Were we to define imperialism based on nonfunctional, i.e. merely descriptive criteria as many liberals and conservatives are wont to do, we are led to the position that imperialism may have existed in the past—British imperialism, U.S. imperialism in the Philippines, the Belgian Congo, other examples of territorial conquest and their affiliated ideological justifications (white man’s burden, the superiority of western civilization, etc.)—but no longer exists or would only exist if it repeated these past forms. No Marxist accepts such a definition, in part because it rules out the possibility that forms of imperialism change in response to changing configurations of class rule in the context of the class struggle and interimperialist rivalry. As with imperialism so with fascism. If we define fascism in terms of its past forms or its nonfunctional or non-causal properties, we come up with a plethora of fascism’s more descriptive components: corporatism, extreme racism, anti-Semitism, militant and organic nationalism, the transcendence of class conflict, a form of rule with relevance only to the particular context of the war against Bolshevism, Christian fundamentalism in the present case, the requirement of an explicitly fascist party, charismatic leaders, paramilitary formations, etc.
When descriptive definitions or causal definitions based on past fascisms take the place of a functional definition, what happens is that one form of fascism then stands in for all forms, and fascism’s changing historical character and role in capitalist development become obscured.
For example, consider the approach by Jurgen Kocka. In his analysis of the emergence of National Socialism in Germany, Kocka stresses the role of traditional elites, including:
the great power of the Junkers in industrial Germany and the feudalizing tendencies in the big bourgeoisie; the extraordinary power of the bureaucracy and the army in a state that had never experienced a successful bourgeois revolution and which was unified from above; the social and political alliance of the rising bourgeoisie and the ever resilient agrarian nobility against the sharply demarcated proletariat; the closely related antiparliamentarian, anti democratic and anti liberal alignment of large parts of the German ruling strata.(4)
For Kocka, this is not one form of fascism but fascism per se. In other words, this convergence of traditional elites is prescribed as a general formula for fascism, at least implicitly. Alan Dawley was quick to recognize that definitions such as Kocka’s “automatically rule out fascism in liberal democratic regimes such as the United States.”(5) From Dawley, we see the shortcoming of Kocka’s approach: without traditional elites in crisis, one cannot have fascism.
Even Paul Sweezy committed a version of this error when in The Theory of Capitalist Development, he stated that the rise of fascism was “the product of the impact of imperialist wars of redivision on the economic and social structure of advanced capitalist nations.”(6) Sweezy’s analysis here was constrained by the specific, historic examples of Italy and Germany. As we will see later on, however, Sweezy’s comments and insights on fascism went well beyond what he says here about historical fascism. Interestingly, Sweezy’s long time partner Paul Baran, writing in 1952 under the pseudonym of “Historicus” noted, in discussing the disturbing tendency of the left to deprecate “the threat of fascism in America,” that such views are “based on the following rather simple reasoning.” Baran continues:
For a political system to qualify as fascist, it has to display the German or Italian characteristics of fascism. It must be based on a fascist mass movement anchored primarily in para-military formations of brown shirts or black shirts. It must be a one party regime, with the party headed by a Fuhrer or a Duce symbolizing the principle of authoritarian leadership. It must be violently nationalist, racist, anti-Semitic. It must be frankly illiberal, intolerant of opposition, hostile to civil liberties and human rights.(7)
Arguments like the one Baran here criticizes, along with those of Kocka and even Sweezy lead us to “concentrate on the forms of political events and pay insufficient attention to their social content and historical significance.”(8) They confuse the form of fascism with its ongoing functionality under capitalism. Fascism and fascist processes take many different forms in different periods, waxing and waning with changes in configurations of class rule. And they spread during moments of capitalist crisis, but not just any capitalist crisis.
The point here is that it would be wrong to define fascism as requiring, let us say, a state racism in which racism is the official state policy. On the contrary, we hold that a contemporary U.S. fascism could in fact come in multicultural garb, accompanying or even serving as the alibi for a deepening racism. In the same vein, it would be wrong to equate fascism with corporatism or corporatist ideology. Conversely, we would argue that not all corporatisms are fascist. We would distinguish between corporate liberalism and fascism. The focus on corporatism blurs such distinctions and can lead to the utopian view of fascism advocated by Lawrence Dennis in the 1930s, where corporatism presumably transcends class conflict. Or, despite the very different perspective, it can lead to Bertram Gross’s “friendly fascism,” which viewed fascism in America as the logical outcome and perfection of U.S. corporatist rule, a form of total integration, the triumph of one-dimensional society. More recently, a similar view has been put forward by Lewis Lapham.
Our view is consistent with the trenchant observation made by George Jackson when he says that “[w]e will never have a complete definition of fascism, because it is in constant motion, showing a new face to fit any particular set of problems that arise to threaten the predominance of the traditionalist, capitalist ruling class.”(9)
We would make two further points of clarification. One, while our functional definition allows us to see fascism’s changing forms under capitalism, what does not change is, of course, this very function itself! Two, we must recognize that there are different kinds of functionalism and our class-analytic-functional definition needs to be distinguished, to take an important contemporary example, from Robert Paxton’s version in his recent book, The Anatomy of Fascism.
Paxton treats classical fascism correctly as a crisis of class rule. Accordingly, he concludes that the ruling classes in both countries, regardless of their differences, ultimately united in order to prevent social revolution from below; in both, he says, conservatives and liberals were the “two principal coalition partners.”(10) Paxton criticizes what he understands as the orthodox Marxist definitions of fascism – “the instrument” of the big bourgeoisie against the proletariat when the legal means of the State proved insufficient” or “the open, terrorist dictatorship of finance capital.”(11) But his analysis reflects a basic Marxist tenet that fascist movements in Italy and Germany by themselves did not bring about fascism. At any rate, Paxton’s “functional equivalent” of fascism becomes disconnected from class analysis when he speculates about possible contemporary fascisms, including the United States.
Paxton maintains that the language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would have little to do with the original European models; rather they would be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the original symbols and language were to Italians and Germans. For Paxton, American fascism will mean:
No swastikas, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. … Around such reassuring language and symbols and in the event of some redoubtable shock to national prestige, Americans might support an enterprise of forcible national regeneration, unification, and purification. Its targets would be the First Amendment, separation of church and state (crèches on the lawn, prayers in school), efforts to place control on gun ownership, desecrations of the flag, unassimilated minorities, artistic license, dissident and unusual behavior of all sorts that could be labeled antinational or decadent.(12)
Paxton offers valuable insight into the possible forms of American-style fascism, but his “functional equivalency” operates purely on an ideological and cultural level. Protestant fundamentalism becomes “the functional equivalent of fascism to regenerate and unite a humiliated and vengeful people.”(13) Here, fascism is principally about fundamentalism as expressive of some deep anthropological impulse, not crises of capitalist rule.
It is important to emphasize that we are not offering the definition of fascism. For example, our thesis about fascism and the ruling class would not hold for many instances of what is commonly called third world fascism, in part because these fascisms often contain weak ruling classes whose divisions can be sown and/or used by ruling classes and governments in the imperialist core. This is regularly the case in the examples drawn from Chomsky and Herman’s The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism and would describe the processes of class formation and fascist rule in a country like Pakistan. In such countries, fascism emerged through one section of the ruling class disciplining or smashing the other. That sort of process, we argue, cannot happen here.(14)
One of the central criticisms of a class analysis of fascism is that it is reductionist, one consequence of this reductionism being that Marxists cannot explain theoretically the differences between the New Deal and Nazi Germany. The general argument goes something like this. If fascism is the expression of monopoly capitalism in crisis, then given that both Germany and the United States went through economic depressions of similar magnitude, why did we get the New Deal in one place and fascism in the other? As Alan Dawley put it, “fascism and New Deal liberalism represented alternative solutions to the same problem of restoring political legitimacy undermined by the Great Depression.”(15) Dawley suggests that the difference in the two solutions is explained neither by the personalities of Hitler and Roosevelt—though he says there is something to this argument—nor by “impersonal economic trends.” “Economic contours alone,” he asserts, “could not have caused such different political outcome. … Similarity can never explain difference.”(16) Marxists who cut their teeth arguing with postmarxists about reductionism know where this is heading even if Dawley, himself a Marxist, won’t quite go there. The Great Depression is “monopoly capitalism in crisis” which, however, produced vastly different outcomes. Class analysis, equated with the “economic” or the explanatory power of “impersonal economic trends,” is perhaps necessary but clearly insufficient. So if class is part of the analysis, other causal categories are needed.
However, if we reduce class analysis in this way—splitting the economic from the political and equating class with the former—we will have to import other causal categories to explain the differences. From the Marxist standpoint of totality, however, the crisis, as Dawley and critics of class reductionism see it, is too narrowly defined. While Germany and the United States went through similar economic crises, they were met by quite different alignments of class forces. Economic crisis alone does not necessarily lead to fascism.
The Great Depression in America emerged from the Hoover years of plutocracy. This plutocracy followed a period of intense class struggles in which the ruling class brought to bear the full force of a “racist antiradicalism” to thwart class struggle, antiracist struggle or their union. It was predicated on the smashing of labor and so racist was the period that Dawley deems it “the biological republic.”(17) As Pem Buck notes, a more appropriate parallel – though by no means exact – to the situation producing the Nazi seizure of power would be the early twenties in the United States, with the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan paralleling the rise of the Nazis.(18)
The first Roosevelt administration, with its famous hundred days, faced an economic crisis but not a crisis of class rule, as was clearly the case in late Weimar. As David Abraham argues in his superb book The Collapse of the Weimar Republic, the fierce stalemate that undermined the coalition between capital and labor (sozialpolitik) resulted from “an economic crisis that was in good measure a profit crisis engendered by a militant reformist labor movement.” Put another way, the crisis was a “structural problem” that “went well beyond the pressure of reparations and high interest rates.”(19) Furthermore, Abraham argued that this crisis of class rule resulted from the Social Democrats’ assumption that democracy could overcome capitalism on its own terrain, a terrain guided by the logic of capital accumulation. But the assumption produced the paradox whereby “the best that can be accomplished is the worst that can be done: paralyzing capitalism without transforming it.”(20)
While we cannot do justice to Abraham’s complete analysis, it is crucial to note these summary comments: “Just as industrialists—without much enthusiasm—collectively compromised with the socialists in 1918 in order to maintain what was theirs and improve their future prospects, so they did the same with the less threatening national socialists.”(21) As Abraham shows, individual members of the ruling class had diverse feelings about the Nazis, ranging from enthusiastic support to grave distrust. These feelings bore some relation to the tensions between ruling class fractions, i.e. export oriented versus heavy industry that characterized the Weimar period. But by late 1932, according to Abraham, “there were no longer any real alternatives to a leading Nazi role in the new government.”(22) Another crucial point is that the same members of the ruling class who supported the coalition with labor, however vulnerable, as a form of social control, often later supported the Nazis for the same reason. The class fractions that were divided at one stage of Weimar united in helping to bring about its collapse. A parallel process took place in the United States with one notable exception: the order was reversed as the class fractions, despite much complaining and considerable opposition, united behind the New Deal.
This point is important for two reasons. First, it shows quite clearly that class analysis does not involve the domination of big business defined as a collection of malign, conspiratorial individuals (this was the view of George Seldes, an often astute observer of fascist tendencies in the United States in the late 1930s). Second, it helps us to understand how ruling class fractions during the New Deal era overcame their divisions on behalf of Roosevelt’s drive toward a war economy, which provided jobs for labor and a strengthening of ruling class power. Both points are central to combating a rival liberal interpretation of a fascist trajectory in the present.
In the case of Nazi Germany, understanding class analysis in this way, with fascist processes waxing and waning in response to different alignments of class forces, shows what is wrong with well known critiques of Marxist analyses of fascism like those issuing from the pen of Henry Turner, in his German Big Business and the Rise of Fascism. To savage Marxist analysis, Turner makes full use of the ideological apparatus of positivism, with its distrust of structures of power, to equate class analysis with conspiracy theory on the one hand—evil bosses planning fascism from 1918 to 1933—while on the other hand rescuing the ruling class by trusting everything they say. If Marxist analysis turned on the requirement that Big Business was united for Hitler, secretly funding him from the start, an analysis perhaps in fact suggested by taking too seriously John Heartfield’s famous montage of Hitlers’s small hand in the form of a fascist salute taking money from the large hand of Big Business, then Marxist analysis would indeed be in trouble. Ironically, liberals and left liberals in fact tend to treat business in this manner. For example, George Seldes sees big business and one of its policy-making arms, the National Association of Manufacturers, as essentially fascist.(23) For Seldes, this was true even during the war, when he then referred to them as fifth columnists.
As we will show, this view leads in the present to the rogue ruling class hypothesis, with a possible fascist trajectory solved by voting democratic or, in Michael Mann’s view, throwing the militarists out. Various historians have shown in the New Deal years that a significant split in the ruling class developed between the New Dealers who thought corporate liberalism might stabilize capitalism and those represented by the Liberty League and subsequently the America First Committee. These organizations temporarily called for isolationism and even an alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union as part of constructing a “Fortress America.” This contradiction was largely solved by the war, with Roosevelt’s attempt to prosecute certain isolationists for treason coming to naught. For example, Sears Roebuck’s Leonard Wood was one of the architects of the America First Committee, yet it was Sears’ Donald Nelson who played a crucial role in consolidating the direction of the war production board. As late as 1936, Roosevelt himself was open to proposals emanating from Hitler that might keep the peace. According to Kees van der Pijl in his book, The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class, this reflected the continuing strength of the sphere of interest policy in international relations, with its connection to Germany. But such a stance came to an end with Roosevelt’s 1937 speech that called for a quarantine of the aggressors. Van der Pijl notes that during the brief social redistribution phase of the New Deal, which culminated in the Flint sit-down strike (sit-downs were soon made illegal), well-known liberals like Will Clayton and James Warburg joined the Liberty Leagues, which called for the smashing of labor—similar to what took place in Nazi Germany. But with the primacy of industrial capital established and coupled to an internationalist, expansionist thrust, (the corporate liberal synthesis), “men like Warburg and Clayton rejoined the Roosevelt regime and became missionaries of the corporate liberal ideal.”(24)
This economist reduction of class analysis mentioned above has also been central to the work of Michael Mann, who has written Fascists, a major work on fascism between the wars, and an important book on the current crisis, Incoherent Empire. Mann’s books are well respected on the left so it is all the more important to point out his mischaracterizations of class analysis, mischaracterizations that are typical and that lead him and others who follow this trajectory to misunderstand both past fascism and present fascist possibilities.
Mann largely rejects class analysis by equating it with economic reductionism. For Mann, class analysis is reduced to a scenario whereby fascism results from “economic deprivation, unemployment or declining wage levels.”(25) But as he puts it, that’s part of it, but not all of it. So, he says, economic crisis is necessary but not sufficient for explaining fascism. He also argues there must be ideological crisis, political crisis, cultural crisis, and military crisis, no one category reducible to the others. These separate crises follow from his analysis of social power. Mann’s causal pluralism separates out as autonomous centers of social power what Marxists understand as functioning in the service of the dominant class. At least at the level of the system as a whole, for a Marxist it would be very odd to divide categories up in this way since, however complex the system can be, it is hard under relatively normal conditions of class rule to see how the ideological would be autonomous of class or the military, etc. Though Mann offers his pluralist model in response to Marxism’s supposed economic reductionism, Mann’s artificial splitting of political from military from economic distorts the character and function of class rule. For example, in the case of Germany in the 1930s, the ruling class cannot be equated with economic powers alone. As Franz Neumann noted of Germany’s ruling class:
the ruling class is composed of those who command the means of violence (physical and moral) and the means of production, and those who possess the administrative skill. There are thus four groups: the Nazi leadership, which controls the police and propaganda; the army leadership; the industrial hierarchy; and the high civil service.(26)
Mann’s multi causal model lets capitalism off the hook. The autonomy of the political for Mann is cashed out in two complementary theses as relates to fascism. One, that the main rival to fascism is not labor, socialism, communism, etc., but the old regime. According to this interpretation, fascism succeeds or fails, is able to get beyond the movement stage or not, in inverse proportion to the old regime’s strength. Fascism succeeds in Nazi Germany because the old regime is weak—oddly enough for Kocka, it is strong—whereas fascism does not succeed in Hungary because the old regime retains power.
Two, the presence of the old regime, whether strong or weak, is connected to the absence of a well developed parliamentary regime, which for Mann blocks fascism. In turn, this developed parliamentary regime is associated with the domination of enlightenment values—science and instrumental reason. For Mann, this ideological character of mature parliamentary regimes discourages fanaticisms, which he sees as based on adherence “to substantive values,” to be distinguished from instrumental reason’s commitment to procedural values. If the presence or absence of the old regime is an example of the autonomy of politics, here we have the supposed autonomy of ideology.
Mann’s analysis relating the emergence of fascism to the breakdown of the old regime raises significant questions. Why not analyze the Hungary/Germany difference in terms of the presence or absence of a powerful but vulnerable capitalist class in crisis, one vulnerable to a working class movement? One reason Mann does not go in this direction is due to the fact that in Hungary and Romania, home-grown fascists (leftists had been previously smashed) represented the proletarian interest against the old regime dominated status quo, so presumably that example undercuts a Marxist thesis. But the Marxist view does not focus primarily on fascist mass movements because they are not primary engines of fascism. Marxism analyzes fascism as a form of class rule dominated by a monopoly capitalist fraction that turns to fascism when its normal options are no longer available.
With respect to the distinction between instrumental values and substantive values, Mann asserts without argument that “[s]ocial and political ideologies do not require and cannot obtain scientific validation.”(27) This point is, to say the least, highly contentious and in fact almost surely false, based on a fact/value dichotomy that has been undergoing deconstruction for some time now. Values like racial equality, or so moral realists argue, are rooted in facts about human capacity and, to take another basic example, recent discoveries that “race” is an illusion carry moral implications. As Hilary Putnam notes, there are moral facts, and facts and values are often entangled.
Mann’s adherence to this outmoded distinction allows him to assert that the dominance of instrumental reason facilitates the moderate give and take of parliamentary regimes. The distinction simultaneously allows him to rule out radical and progressive alternatives committed to substantive values of equality, in part by tacitly equating these values with fundamentalisms. Ironically, though, if substantive values cannot obtain validation, neither can instrumental values and so his preferences for instrumental values cannot be justified. Mann’s contradiction follows strictly from his own fact/value split. His claims about old regimes’ causal connections to fascism rule out the possibility of a fascist America, while allowing it for fanatical (rooted in substantive values) third world regimes.(28) But as we suggest briefly above, while there is certainly such a thing as third world fascism, it cannot be separated from imperialism in the core, a separation, it seems, encouraged by Mann’s analysis.
When Mann turns his model of social power on current conditions, it leads to his thesis of the United States as an incoherent empire driven by a rogue Bush regime—senseless, fanatical, the result of a “neoconservative chicken hawk coup.”(29) Mann clearly demarcates the neoliberalism of Clinton from Bush’s neoconservatism, viewing them as distinct primarily on an ideological plane. It is clear that he sees the Bush administration as an irrational throwback, a version of the old regime we might say, an anachronism, a move away from the “mild and democratic nation states” they are supposed to be. Mann does not talk about anything like a fascist trajectory in the United States simply because he views the political system as an example of well entrenched parliamentarism. For Mann, fascism in the United States could only come from outside this system, meaning a coup.
Mann of course sees this parliamentarism as a pure and simple democratic advance and not as an advanced form of class rule. So Mann sees the collapse of the Weimar republic resulting in part from a democracy deficit. But, according to Abraham, the weak parliamentary setup or tradition in Germany enabled a political pluralism that could not be sustained precisely because it was too much democracy—for example, the SPD’s insistence on increasing sozialpolitik at a time when capital needed to smash labor to restore profitability.
The differences between Mann’s pluralism and our position are abundantly clear.
We would also note that if Mann’s ideas about the relative maturity of parliamentary regimes underestimate the democratic potential in Germany, it overestimates that potential in the United States during the same period. In the larger work to follow, we make several references to observers in the 1930s who believed that the United States might go fascist. That prediction turned out wrong. But on Mann’s account, such predictions were foolish because they failed to recognize the maturity of U.S. democratic institutions, meaning that it couldn’t happen then. Our view, of course, is that didn’t did not mean couldn’t. Had war spending and mobilization not opened up opportunities for capital, had the depression been worse than it was, had the alignment of class forces been slightly different, we doubt that Mann’s so-called mature institutions would have saved the United States.
Oddly enough, fiction is more tenable than Mann’s social theory. Consider Sinclair Lewis’s novel, written in 1935, with its fictional timeline beginning in 1936 and ending in 1939. Lewis portrays America in 1936 as in a depression considerably worse than it was in fact, with the number of unemployed in the novel about double. Our view is that without rearmament and a second imperialist war, the nosedive of 1937-1938, where unemployment rates jumped from 14 to 19 percent, could have made Lewis’s fiction a reality. In fact, this is more or less the scenario Lawrence Dennis foresaw in 1936 in his book, The Coming American Fascism. Dennis saw fascism as the only alternative short of anarchy to the utter collapse of liberal capitalist democracy.(30)
Returning to the present, we might agree that Pax Americana is an incoherent empire. But the incoherence is not the result, as Mann sees it, of the four autonomous social powers out of phase with one another—primarily due to the Bush gang fouling up a system which should operate rationally and in sync. Rather, the incoherence results from the contradictions of Pax Americana in decline. To return to the claim that Mann’s categories, while including class in his scheme in a variety of error prone ways, let capitalism off the hook, here is the gist: fascism waxes or wanes in inverse proportion to the presence or absence of the old regime, and is blocked in societies with well entrenched parliaments. However multicausal Mann’s models claim to be, this example makes it clear that, for Mann, culture does most of the explanatory work. Further, Mann’s discussion of the Bush administration as a kind of anti-modernist throwback opens the door to conceptually similar analyses coming ironically from the Bush administration itself, with its view of Islamic fascism, rooted in fanaticism and anti-modernism understood as largely autonomous processes.
Finally, we have this to say about Mann. In his discussion of the weaknesses of Marxist claims that fascism serves the interests of the ruling class, Mann notes how often ruling classes “go for the gun too quickly” and admits that he hasn’t yet “solved the problem of hysterical overreaction.”(31) He suggests that it might have something to do with “basic human sentiments of fear, hatred and violence” and perhaps “other basic human sentiments not to forgive but to kick our enemy when he or she is down, especially after he or she has scared us. But it may also be because of the role that ideology plays in defining ‘interests’ more broadly than rational choice theory suggests.”(32) Here, Mann makes clear how the inadequacy of the concept of class interest requires the turn to “basic human sentiments,” but also to autonomous ideological, political and military crises. But just as Mann facilitates his pluralism by equating Marxism with economism, he now repeats the maneuver by equating Marxist notions of class interest with rational choice theory. Admittedly, this is a difficult problem and the concept of class interest is often taken for granted and undertheorized, but a few comments are in order. When Mann suggests that the ruling elites have this tendency to pick up the gun too quickly, one meaning of “too quickly” might be that Germany between the wars was not in a revolutionary situation, or perhaps that the United States did not need to invade Iraq for oil-related reasons but could have cut a deal. But if ideology is meant to legitimate the illegitimate, then exaggerating the threat to class rule by normalizing the rulers and demonizing enemies is paradoxically a necessity. Further, given that we are human beings with our basic human sentiments and not purely rational beings—class society would not be rational according to such beings—it would not be unusual for members of the ruling class to believe their own ideology. Still, Mann would be hard put to argue that crises of rule were primarily ideological instead of being rooted in properties intrinsic to class rule, like the contradictions of capitalism or the permanent desire of the masses to resist its ruling classes—a desire that expresses the substantive values he sees as at odds with modern democratic states.
If the general crisis of Pax Americana in its acute phase contains a fascist trajectory, it will result from a crisis of capitalist rule, as history reveals. Equally important, it will look quite different from past fascist trajectories. In the case of Pax Americana in crisis, the intensification of fascist processes would unfold in a bipartisan political context, liberals and conservatives acting in concert – the whole ruling class. Looking back to the 1930s, this was the view of Carmen Haider, an astute observer and analyst of fascist processes and possibilities at the time.(33)
On a cautionary note, however important class fractions are to understanding the world, they must not be split off into autonomous groupings: unilateralists versus multilateralists; national capitalists with desires for empire versus internationalists; reactionary capitalists versus liberal capitalists. Of course, such people and the forces they represent do exist. But for purposes of understanding fascism, capitalism and crisis, it is better to understand these forces as moments of capital, moments of a paradoxical unity that cannot be transcended and cannot be fetishized. In this sense, we see unilateralist and multilateralists as bearers of contradictory social relations, and not as people with fully independent wills.
While seeming initially to equate fascism with the conditions producing it in Europe between the wars, Paul Sweezy noted that the seeds of fascism are always present in capitalism and he saw it also possibly taking other forms in response to different crisis situations. Sweezy wrote: “So far as history allows us to judge—and in questions of this sort there is no other guide—a prolonged and ‘unsuccessful’ war is the only social phenomenon sufficiently catastrophic in its effects to set in train this particular chain of events.”(34) Such a war might lead to conditions ripe for fascism, especially if they occurred at a time when capitalist structures were, as he put it, “severely injured and not yet overthrown.”(35)
Let us for a moment follow Sweezy’s thinking because it helps us to put the current situation as we see it in its proper historical perspective. For Sweezy, it was not inconceivable that a prolonged economic crisis alone could produce “substantially the same results,” meaning fascism, though only if “the structure of capitalist rule [had] already been seriously undermined.”(36) But Sweezy seemed uncomfortable with leaving it at that, since he was clear that capitalism always carried the potential for fascism. It seemed unlikely to him that World War II, a war fought against fascism, would usher in fascism in the United States. In 1942, it was clear to Sweezy that the structure of capitalist rule in the United States was indeed far from undermined. But Sweezy was aware that things could change, writing that: “To be sure, if we had to anticipate an endless succession of wars in the future, matters would almost certainly turn out differently.”(37)
We propose that the general crisis of Pax Americana in its acute phase represents the historic convergence of Sweezy’s two main criteria (in 1942) for fascism in the future: a “profound and long-drawn-out” economic crisis—one that Sweezy and Harry Magdoff later deemed “irreversible”—accompanied by an “endless succession of wars.”(38) Further, Sweezy contended that a possible fascism was “not a question of a single nation but rather of the world economy as a whole.”(39) In other words, fascism would likely reappear in forms differing from their historical predecessors given the changing structures of world capitalism. If fascism between the wars reconsolidated the nation states of Germany and Italy, readying it for imperialist expansionism, a U.S. fascism emerging from multiple crises would flow from an empire in decline—in some way corresponding to what István Mészáros has called capital’s structural crisis.(40)
We recognize how uncertain and volatile matters now stand with Pax Americana. But evidence is mounting for what we are calling a fascist trajectory. We will discuss the details of the general crisis, especially focusing on the events and developments that have brought it to its current acute phase, in our follow-up to this essay. For now, however, we wish to close with comments on a recent article by Nafeez Mossadegh Ahmed. Ahmed, author of Behind the War on Terror and The War on Freedom: How and Why America Was Attacked, notes the seeming irrationality of Bush administration plans to use the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as prelude to a long envisioned invasion of Iran. The catastrophic consequences of the Iran scenario, Ahmed notes, are well understood by elite planners: “irreversible ramifications for the global political economy,” “energy security in tatters” precipitating contingency plans for further resource wars in the Mideast, actions triggering “responses from other major powers with fundamental interests in maintaining their own access to regional energy supplies” – Russia and China. Ahmed adds that the dollar economy would be seriously undermined.
The question he poses to all of us is this: Why would the U.S. ruling class pursue its interests in this manner?
Because the “post-9/11 military geostrategy of the ‘War on Terror’ does not spring from a position of power but rather from entirely the opposite.” Ahmed claims that the “global system has been crumbling under the weight of its own unsustainability… and we are fast approaching the convergence of multiple crises that are already interacting fatally….” These crises include peak oil and climate tipping points, and a dollar denominated economy on the verge, according to no less an authority than Paul Volcker, of a currency crisis (the contradictory character of U.S. plans are indicated by the currency problem, both cause and consequence of a desperate strategy). Ahmed asserts that senior level planners in the policy making establishment have appeared to calculate “that the system is dying” but the last “viable means of sustaining it remains [sic] a fundamentally military solution” designed to “rehabilitate the system … to meet the requirements of the interlocking circuits of military-corporate power and profit.”
Ahmed ends his very recent article (July 24) with Daniel Ellsberg’s warning that another 9-11 event “or a major war in the Middle East involving a U.S. attack on Iran …will be an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree,” involving massive detention of both Middle Easterners and critics of the policy, the latter deemed terrorist sympathizers. Ahmed is well aware of how contingencies can postpone such plans. Nevertheless, we must all be aware of these plans and the crises which might bring them into being.
We can begin, at least now, 50 years after Baran’s words, by turning around “one of the most disturbing features of the present political situation in the United States” – the “widely observable complacency concerning the danger of fascism in this country.”(41)
Chris Hedges, “Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters,” in Harpers (May 2005), 55-61; Mark Crispin Miller, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too (New York: Basic Books, 2005); Davidson Loehr, America, Fascism + God: Sermons from a Heretical Preacher (White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2005); Lawrence Britt, Fascism Anyone? in free inquiry (Spring 2003); Lewis Lapham, “Notebook,” in Harper’s (October 2005), 7-9; Carl Davidson and Jerry Harris, “Globalization, Theocracy and the New Fascism: the U.S. Right’s Rise to Power,” Race & Class 47, no. 3 (2006), 47-67.
We borrow the term “fascist processes” from Pem Buck, Worked to the Bone: Race, Class, Power & Privilege (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001). Buck’s emphasis on fascism as a process avoids freezing the term into its past forms and emphasizes, as we do, fascist processes as a property of capital that waxes and wanes with major organizational changes in class rule. She notes rightly that only the ruling class can institute fascist processes.
John Bellamy Foster, “Naked Imperialism,” Monthly Review 57, no. 4 (September 2005), 1-11.
Geoff Eley, From Unification to Nazism: Reinterpreting the German Past (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 257.
Alan Dawley, Struggles for Justice (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991), 525.
Paul M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970), 329.
“Historicus,” “Fascism in America,” Monthly Review (October 1952), 181.
Historicus, “Fascism in America,” 182.
George L. Jackson, Blood in My Eye (Baltimore, Black Classic Press, 1990), 118.
Robert Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 22.
Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, 8.
Paxton, 202. Paxton adds that “an authentically popular American fascism would be pious, anti-black, and since September 11, 2001, anti-Islamic as well.”
Paxton, 203.
On Pakistan, see Aijaz Ahmad, Lineages of the Present: Ideology and Politics in Contemporary South Asia (London: Verso, 2000).
Dawley, Struggles for Justice, 396.
Dawley, 397.
Barbara Foley, Spectres of 1919: Class & Nation in the Making of the New Negro (Champagne, Ill: Illinois University Press, 2003), 122-158.
Buck, Worked to the Bone,155-164.
David Abraham, The Collapse of the Weimar Republic: Political Economy in Crisis (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1986), xviii.
Abraham, The Collapse of the Weimar Republic, xxi.
Abraham, xvi.
Abraham, xxxvii
George Seldes, Facts and Fascism (New York: In Fact, 1943), 80-102.
Kees van der Pijl, The Making of An Atlantic Ruling Class (London: Verso, 1984), 105-106.
Michael Mann, Fascists (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 19.
Franz Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism 1933-1944 (New York: Harper & Row, 1944), 396.
Mann, Fascists, 79.
There is a voluminous literature that dismantles the fact/value dichotomy from a realist perspective. For one example of this work, see Hilary Putnam, The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2002).
Michael Mann, Incoherent Empire (London: Verso, 2003), 252.
Sinclair Lewis, It Can’t Happen Here (New York: Signet, 1993); Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism: The Crisis of Capitalism (Newport Beach, Calif., Noontide Press, 1993).
Mann, Fascists, 63.
Mann, 63.
Carmen Haider, Do We Want Fascism? (New York: John Day, 1934), 242-247. Haider, who earned a Ph.D. from Columbia University and worked for a time at the Brookings Institution, went to Italy to study labor conditions under fascist rule. After publishing a book about her findings there, Capital and Labor Under Fascism, she returned to the United States, where her studies and extensive tours of the country prepared her to write Do We Want Fascism?.
Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development, 346.
Sweezy, 346.
Sweezy, 346.
Sweezy, 347.
Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy, The Irreversible Crisis (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1988).
Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development, 347.
István Mészáros, “The Structural Crisis of Politics,” Monthly Review (September, 2006), 34-53.
Historicus, “Fascism in America,” 181.
__________________________________________________ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
| Covert Actions Against American Citizens Living in America
Members of the Church Committee, which investigated the FBI's COINTELPRO, talk about covert actions against American citizens living in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zejpx_1Fs5w | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
