greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The recent undeclared war in Serbia highlights a problem that a lot of us Y2k-ers are concerned about: the violation of our Constitution by the increasing power of the Executive, and the withering away of representative government. We draw attention to the chilling "emergency powers" of dictatorial control obtained by the device of "Executive Orders" and secret "Presedential Decision Directives." These E.O.'s and PDD's explicitly give the President the power of a dictator: business and personal property can be seized; families can be separated and laborers conscripted without compensation; all television and radio stations may be seized and controlled by the government; all citizens must register and obtain identification papers at their local post office... Some people claim these do not exist, even while they can be found on the whitehouse.gov website! Some will point to dated E.O.s and PDDs, claiming that they have "expired," when in fact all the horrifying provisions listed above, and more, have been reincorporated and updated in subsequent E.O.s. More can be found at the following sites:




Please give this issue the attention and thought it deserves. Then consider how Y2k disruption might provide an excuse to implement this system of control. I recall Y2k "czar" Koskinen's statement that "the free market might not be the best way to distribute goods." Where are we headed, when this statement doesn't provoke outrage and incredulity among all citizens? Are our lives, our liberties, and our property merely a toy that the government gives us, and may take away at their pleasure? When was the government "...of The People, by The People and for The People..." replaced by this arrogant Empire of bureaucrats? This is the beginning; we have room to question, to determine how things will go - if only we are determined to rouse ourselves and to remain vigilant and energetic. If we are not, the history of the 20th century gives us example after example of what unrestrained government power will lead to: 56 million people killed by their own governments in the last hundred years. Please, even if you have never done this kind of thing before, write your representatives, your local paper. Talk to the people in your church, your synagog, your club, school or local bar. Download and study this information, and present it to them; get it in the hands of reporters and local politicians, and community activists. Post it to newsgroups whose members might be interested. Most of all, study the U.S. Constitution. It is our guarantee of freedom, the "source code" for our government and our way of life. If you know your Constitution, and your neighbors know it, Y2k, or depression, or war will not threaten our ultimate survival and prosperity. If we forget the primacy of the Constitution, and let lawyers and bureaucrats twist it beyond all recognition and relevancy, we, and our proud history as a free people, will mean nothing.

We are at a major historical turning point here. Congress has effectively abdicated it's power to declare war, to the Chief Executive. The E.O.s and P.D.D.s show just how far the power behind the new, Imperial U.S. Presidency is willing to go in this direction. We must act now, not by threats and revolutionary rhetoric (which will be used by government as an excuse for further power over the people), but by the firm and persistent exposure of this corruption to the light of day. This isn't about left or right. This is about life or death.

Here's an article that gives an overview of the kind of world that is being planned for you and me. Remember: if you join with others, you can determine your future, and that of generations to come. The only way they can get away with this is if we let them:

(begin article)

Third Way or Third Reich? Richard Poe May 18, 1999

What is the Third Way, and why is Bill Clinton pushing it?

During the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Mikhail Gorbachev promoted the so-called "Third Way" as an alternative to free markets. This new way of governing would be neither capitalist nor communist, but something in between. The Third Way flopped in Russia. But Bill Clinton thinks it will work here.

On November 14, 1998, while most of us were distracted by sex scandals, the New York Times quietly reported that, in response to the growing worldwide recession, "Mr. Clinton has proposed a third way' between capitalism and socialism."

Actually, Clinton has been touting the Third Way since 1992. But his evasive language prevented most people from figuring out what he meant by it.

"We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer," Clinton said in his 1998 State of the Union address. "My fellow Americans, we have found a third way."

Of course, most Americans didn't even know we were looking for one. But now that we've found it, how does it work?

Among other things, the Third Way calls for business and government to join hands as "partners.

"We are working with business to use technology, research and market incentives to meet national goals," Clinton told the Economic Club of Detroit in February. "Some have called this political philosophy the third way."

What Clinton means by this gobbledygook is that Big Business will own the economy (as under capitalism), while Big Government runs it (as under socialism).

Corporations will be bribed into obedience through subsidies, tax breaks, customized legislation and other special privileges.

It all sounds very cozy. But what would life be like under such a regime? History offers some alarming clues.

"National Socialist Germany has created a new economic doctrine," boasted Adolf Hitler in 1939, "which views ... the economy as the servant of the people." Hitler exemplified the Third Way. He left industry in private hands, but appointed government bureaucrats to run it.

Production goals were set and price controls imposed from Berlin. Jobs were created through public works, tax incentives and government credits.

"Hitler ... anticipated modern economic policy," enthused liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1973. "That a nation oppressed by economic fear would respond to Hitler as Americans did to FDR is not surprising."

Nor should it surprise us that some might look back with nostalgia on Hitler's strong-arm tactics, now that global depression lurks around the corner. Is the Third Way a coded expression for fascism? Perhaps.

This new ideology does not come with jackboots, goose-stepping thugs or delirious crowds shouting, "Sieg Heil!" But maybe it doesn't have to. Back in 1980, a leftwing political scientist and urban studies professor named Bertram Gross, in his book Friendly Fascism, foretold a kinder, gentler brand of tyranny. "Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of this creeping fascism..." he wrote. "In America, it would be supermodern and multiethnic -- as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile."

Most people would accept the new order without distress, Gross predicted. They would have fewer rights, of course, but more gadgets, perks and entertainments. Troublemakers would be blacklisted and discredited, but rarely jailed or killed. When violence became necessary, it would be done discreetly.

"One can look forward to improved capabilities ... for the use of ... induced heart failure ... induced suicide ... and `accidental' automobile fatalities," wrote Gross.

The author of Friendly Fascism was no wild-eyed Cassandra. He was a leading architect of liberal social policy under presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Carter. As such, Gross unwittingly helped build the partnership of Big Government and Big Business that he later decried. He recognized his guilt only late in life.

While writing his book, Gross dreamed that he was searching through a huge, empty house for "friendly fascists." He found one at last.

"I flung open one of the doors," Gross writes. "And there sitting at typewriter and smiling back at me, I saw myself."

Over the years, Gross had helped draft such Big Government legislation as the full-employment bills of 1944 and 1945, and the Employment Act of 1946.

"I sought solutions for America's ills ... through more power in the hands of central government," Gross admits. "In this I was not alone. Almost all my fellow planners, reformers, social scientists, and urbanists presumed the benevolence of more concentrated government power."

But they were wrong. Gross realized that centralized power was, in fact, the linchpin of tyranny. "Big Business-Big Government partnerships ...," he wrote, "were the central facts behind the power structures of old fascism in the days of Mussolini, Hitler and the Japanese empire builders. ... I see Big Business and Big Government as a joint danger."

If only the Clinton cheerleaders were capable of such introspection. Gross died in 1997. But his spirit lives on, a fading spark of leftwing conscience, unsung and unheeded in the mad rush to the Third Way.

(end article)


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 18, 1999


On the Pournelle scale, Fascism is considered to be irrational worship of the state. For comparision, Communism is considered to be rationalized worship of the state, Ayn Rand is on the rational distrust of the state side, and traditional anarchists are out on the irrational distrust of the state end.

Rational and Irrational in the above have nothing to do with reasonable - they merely mean the position is well rationalized or is supported by emotion. Appeals to the Fatherland or glory or the Furher are not rationalized - they are emotional.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.


What's your point? Pournelle is a science fiction writer. We're talking about reality, where facism is the nationalization of industry and the ownership of the individual by the State, which is run by bureaucrats and owned by a plutocratic elite. I would rather refer to the U.S. Constitution when diagnosing the ills of the body politic, than science fiction.

Are we to believe that Nazism was mere hysteria? That the socialism and the revision and/or suspension of the Constition being pushed on us now cannot be "facism" because it is not emotional enough? There are no angry speeches, no bonfires, no pagentry? This is an astonishingly superficial approach, coming from an adult.

Is Clinton's justification for his undeclared blitzkrieg of Serbia more rational than emotional? Or are you saying that we can trash the Constitution for an undetermined period of time - just trust the absolute power of a "temporary" totalitarian State to limit and finally dismantle itself - if there is a "rational" reason for it? Are you saying that the Nazis were merely irrational, and did not present elaborate arguments and rationalizations for their nationalization of industry? Are you saying the German people, one of the most advanced and sophisticated populations of it's time said, in effect, "none of this makes any sense, but it sure feels good, so let's do it"? They didn't. The Nazi program was very rational. All governments are purposeful and rational in their presentation, and all make emotional appeals for support as well, playing upon the cultural predispositions of their intended victims.

Again, if you have a point, let's hear it. If you haven't noticed, this isn't an abstract exercize in political science (or science fiction) for me.


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 18, 1999.

In Clinton's State of the Union address this year he proposed investing half of the Social Security Trust Fund in the stock market - of course with ironclad safeguards to prevent the investment process from being politicized (yeah, right).

I am horrified at the prospect that the government could become the majority shareholder in thousands of publically traded corporations. Clinton knows exactly what he is asking for - he wants government to own the economy. In my view, that was what Clinton's health care plan was all about - an attempt to take over 14% of the economy. He's still looking for a way.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), May 18, 1999.

Corporations "owning" the government or government owning the corporations - is there any meaningful difference?

There should be a firewall between business and state, just like the separation of church and state.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 18, 1999.

Pournelle has a PhD in Political Science. I was referring to his thesis.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

Emotional worship of the state pretty well defines the Nazi party. Are you saying that the people of the US worship Clinton? I haven't seen anything to support that contention - yes he gets good numbers in job related polls, but in anything else the numbers stink - down around the 10-15 % approval range.

You have a bakers dozen congresscritters who are yelping about the fighting in Kosovo - and a refusal of the opposing party to vote to support a lame duck president.

Hardly the Facist way of doing things - or have the thugs broken down your door today? Hitler would have shut down the Internet in about a minute - he could no more stand any sort of free discussion than could Stalin.

Comparing Clinton to Hitler is just silly - Clinton may show up as a poor president when history tallies the tab, but Hitler was a disaster for an entire continent - economically, physically, morally - I just don't see the basis for the comparison.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.


I'm talking about the incipient stages of facism. We're not there yet. Please address the question of the Executive Orders. Would the implementation of these represent a totalitarian state? Does the Constitution contain any provision for it's own "temporary" defacto suspension? Pournell's thesis aside, facism is a very definite economic and political relationship between government, industry and the population; it is not defined by the what the people may or may not appear to feel or think (unless we are academics, concentrating on epiphenomena, to no practical end. We are not.). I'm concerned with the legal, factual basis of the real and present danger of absolute state control in America: Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives that effectively suspend Constitutional Government.

I am not claiming that Clinton is Hitler. I was fishing for some kind of sense in the first non-opinion that you didn't express. We are not dependent, as yet, upon a "cult of personality," though one will no doubt be foisted upon us some time AFTER the provisions in the Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives have been put into effect. Nazism was not created by Hitler alone. If it hadn't been Hitler it would have been someone else. And while greeted as a savior, he was not worshiped as a god until democratic governance in Germany had been decisively put down. First, the legal basis for a totalitarian state must be created. The road to facism must be paved. I'm saying it has been paved by concentrating legislative and warmaking power in the Executive, and by the clear and evident provisions for a totalitarian state as evidenced by the E.O.s. The President could legally announce that these are in effect at any time, though I suspect Y2k disruption and economic disaster, combined with some staged conflict with Clinton's Chinese employers, could allow for the conditions under which these E.O.s could be inflicted upon us (call it "Fascism" or just totalitarianism, or make something up that sounds even better, as they have).

Do you deny any of the substance of what I'm saying here? Do you welcome the provisions in the E.O.s as moderate and acceptable alternative to regional self-organization by States and local governments during time of disaster? Remember that you are defending conscripted labor, seizure of media, seizure of private businesses. Are you comfortable in that capacity?

Let's not talk about whether Clinton needs to have a funny moustache for it to be "facism." Let's talk about 1) Concentration of power in the Executive branch of government, and 2) Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives. The links are in the first post.


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 18, 1999.

Anyone who reads Jerry Pournelle knows that he knows political philosophy- and by "reads" I don't mean his fiction novels, but rather his columns.

I don't know that one could call the "Third Way" stuff anything like true fascism. More likely, Clinton was trying to evade the liberal past of the Democrats, while attempting to reclaim Reagain Democrats and some Republicans by hinting or implying that he was willing to adopt certain conservative or Republican ideas, thus molding them all together into one "new" philosophy, which combined the best of both. This would appeal to what some in the Washington/New York media call the "sensible center" - and would no doubt go over big with many of Clinton's own consultants and pollsters. Certainly, it *could* work with the public, much of which is disgusted with the political bickering in Washington, and would prefer bipartisanship. I imagine that's what "Third Way" is really about- a political bumper sticker, invoking the idea of melding Roosevelet & Reagan, so to speak.

Of course, the question is- will that work in tough times? You can say almost anything in good times, and people won't care. But should 1980 or 1991 come around again in an election year, people will only care about ousting the incumbent, and a candidate who asks, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" If the answer is no, slogans like "Third Way" won't make any difference then.

On fascism, it should be remembered that Nazism stood for national *socialism* - not exactly what most would consider equal to a "right- wing" or conservative philosophy (I would hope, anyway).

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 18, 1999.

Imagine the spectrum of political ideology lying along a circle. At zero degrees we have Constitutional-Republicanism. At 180 degrees, there is Totalitarianism. If starting at Constitutional-Republicanism, whether traveling to the Left or to the Right, at the extreme, the destination at the other side of the circle remains the same.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 18, 1999.


You are a ray of light.


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 18, 1999.

Dear Dano,

Thank you so much for your various posts. Your post is correct, but I see no pleasant solution. We as a nation have, in my opinion, passed the point where self rule by the masses is possible. Self rule requires that a preponderance of the voters have intellectual and moral integrity, and the sheeple no longer have such qualities in sufficient numbers.

I wish it were not so, but the dreams of Franklin, Jefferson, et al, are coming to an end. I will consider myself lucky if I see a rebirth of such philosophy in the remainder of my life.

-- Nebi (measured@found.wanting), May 18, 1999.


I believe that our intellectual and moral integrity is dormant, not entirely absent. While I do think there are dangers associated with the Y2k crisis, and a real threat by socialists to supplant constitutional government, I think that crisis will also bring out the best in the American People. I take comfort in the following quote: "The days of palmy prosperity are not those most favorable to the display of public virtue or the influence of wise and good men. In hard, doubtful, unprosperous and dangerous times, the disinterested and patriotic find their way, by a species of public instinct, unopposed, joyfully welcomed, to the control of affairs." EDWARD EVERETT 1794-1865

There are such men. They have long been driven from public life by a corruption that even now begins to consume itself. They know who they are. Let's hope they answer the call.


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 18, 1999.

Dano, I have e-mailed the following letter to all of the Republican Senators now, and some of the Democrats. I also sent it to Ron Paul with a request that he read it on the House Floor. I request that each of you who recognizes what is happening to this Nation do the same. Just cut and paste it to an e-mail and fire it off. Or write one of your own. We have to let these people know they are being watched, and we do not approve of our constitutional rights being used as political bargaining chips. P.S. If you aren't E Coli you're a damned good copy, ha ha

WE THE PEOPLE are deeply saddened and angered by the Republican majority caving in to the socialist democrats' gun control plans. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the Constitution of the United States can tell you that the primary reason for the Second Amendment is to ensure that WE THE PEOPLE shall retain sufficient and capable weaponry, to defend ourselves against domestic government run amok and against foreign invasion. All attacks against so-called assault weapons in this light are clearly unConstitutional and represent a clear and present danger to Our Constitutionally- Acknowledged God Given rights, and your support of said legislation is a blatant violation of your Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution Of the United States.

WE THE PEOPLE of this Great Nation have elected you as Our Representation in this Our Republican form of Government. Your job as Our Representation is not to bow to every opinion poll or political action committee but to stand firm on Constitutional issues. This is the entire reason We have a Republican form of government: to prevent democratic chaos and anarchy from rendering this into a nation without direction, guided only by the polls of the moment.

Our Freedoms as Citizens of this once great nation are under constant assault by the NWO globalists and the socialist democrats who pursue their agenda and their money. Please rejoin the ranks of Patriotic Americans who are fighting a last rearguard action against the destruction of Our National Sovereignty and Our Rights as American Citizens. We have seen the Treasonous actions of Our President place this country in great peril from nuclear anihilation and his unConstitutional war against Serbia, which is further destabilizing an already intolerably dangerous situation. His destruction of the American Military coupled with the castration of our nuclear defenses and insane foreign policy have led Us to a point of extreme vulnerability, and in fact, invites an all out nuclear attack on this Nation. It is quite plausible that the Communist powers are planning such an attack even now and are merely waiting for the GPS rollover and Y2K problems to initiate. We as American citizens will need all the firepower we can muster to stem a follow- on invasion of this country if this comes to pass. Irrespective of the Communist threat and the Treasonous actions of the fornicator-in- chief, these gun control laws will only lead to the creation of millions of felons in this country and to the further disenfranchisement of the Most Loyal and far sighted American citizens, as We en masse refuse to obey these Unconstitutional Laws. The Federal Government is directly responsible for the growth of violence in Our culture, through such things as the ill-advised welfare programs, the removal of school prayer, the revolving-door prison systems, the totally mismanaged and overcrowded schools, the failure to secure Our borders against the illegal immigration of machismo-oriented Latinos who have spread this culture like a virus among the gangs, the destruction of our industrial infrastructure and thereby Our job security, and the totally farcial war on drugs.

WE THE PEOPLE demand that Government accept responsibility for its actions, or lack thereof, and cease and desist from further violations to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

WE THE PEOPLE demand that the Federal Reserve be abolished and the power of printing money be returned to the Treasury, instead of a private corporation.

WE THE PEOPLE demand and that all frivolous debts to this corrupt and unConstitutional band of robbers be declared null and void.

WE THE PEOPLE demand that the War Powers Act and the power of Presidential Executive Orders be immediately repealed and demand that the legislative power be returned to the Congress.

WE THE PEOPLE demand that the Supreme Court uphold its Oath to preserve and Defend the Constitution and quit interpreting Our Constitution to fit the needs of the moment.

WE THE PEOPLE demand that henceforth any unConstitutional law offered for consideration before Congress result in the instant impeachment of the Authors and sponsors, for violation of their Oath of office and for TREASON.

WE THE PEOPLE are neither blind nor deaf. We see what is going on in Washington D.C. and are outraged by it. We implore you to do your duty and remove Us from this path which will ultimately result in either civil war or the destruction of this nation. The founders of this country in their wisdom delivered to Us the means to keep Our freedom secure from Government infringements.


As God as Our witness, if the government of this country cannot see fit to abstain from fits of drunken abuse of power and corruption by big money interest, this right will be exercised by the remnant of American Citizens who have NOT been blinded by media propoganda and have an understanding of just how corrupt Our government has become.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 18, 1999.

More and more I hear the word "partners" being used by government controlled groups, and it's sending up red flags for me...

The schools want to be "partners" with the parents... and and now a new health insurance program here in Texas (through the state) for "the children" is being offered at discount fees or no cost, but the promotional piece states, "but you MUST be WILLING to be our partners"... well, parent beware!...it is just a clever tactic to make the gullible masses believe that "they" care sooo much about our children, when in reality "they" are psychologically manipulating the parents into relinquishing many of their parental rights...

The only partner I want is the one I married...and everyone else stay the h--- out of my family's personal business.

-- Texas Terri (DeepInTheHeart@Texas.com), May 18, 1999.

The best definition of Fascism that I have ever heard was coined by one of Mussolini's more intellectual supporters. (It do not remember his name, but I believe that he was professor.) He said that Fascism is Corporatism. That is, the government creates monopolies that completely control the economy. They in return do the state's bidding by producting armaments and paying secret kickbacks to the Leader and his cronies. All real labor unions are suppressed and the terror of the police state keeps the people in their place.

In countries where rabid nationalism has taken control, like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the carrot of national pride does even more to control the populace. In others that are not as unfortunate, like Chile and even Fascist Italy, only the stick of the police state keeps the people in line.

The ultimate goal of Fascism, like Communism, it totalitarianism. That is, the complete control of all aspects of national life, including religion and the family.

-- Mr. Adequate (mr@adequate.com), May 18, 1999.

Excellent Piece, Nikoli!

-- Texas Terri (DeepInTheHeart@Texas.com), May 18, 1999.

Fascism is the same as Communism, but with snappier uniforms.

and give me irrational distrust of the state anyday.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), May 18, 1999.

This Clinton quote:

"We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer," Clinton said in his 1998 State of the Union address. "My fellow Americans, we have found a third way."

He is wrong. He has "found" nothing. There is no "third way". There is no "debate". And this country was founded upon the resolution of the "debate", if there ever once was a "debate".

Beyond a certain, limited point, government has always been, always is, and always will be "the enemy". His "third way" is just "government is the answer" in a new wrapper. There are but "two ways" and only "two ways": The People control the government or the government controls The People.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 19, 1999.

This is Fascism.........


From: PNEWS Archives [March 95]

From: Richard K. Moore

12 March 1995

Look at the history of the Third World since WWII. Everywhere you look (Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa) you see military dictatorships set up and funded by the USA military and intellgence services (and cooperating international funding agencies.) The USA trains the military and para-military forces, provides practical advice on torture techniques, and (by various methods) insures that the media downplays human-rights abuses -- until a decision is made to "reorganize" the local government. At that point, the media suddenly "uncovers" abuses (e.g., Phillipines, Panama, Iraq.)

The role played by these dictatorships is to offer a safe haven for capital investment. They suppress worker organizations, prevent democratic elements from participating in government, impose minimal taxation on corporate profits, and ignore such "annoying" issues as environmental protection. They are stooge governments -- little more than puppet regimes with window-dressing democratic formalisms -- and their attitude toward civil-liberties and democratic participation is indeed FASCIST.".........

And three quick links on how it's done,




-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

The Barristers Inn simply calls the situation Socio-Fascist.

The third "unclean spirit like unto a frog."

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), May 19, 1999.

One further example is this Profile of learning Bullshit. It it is allowed to run it's course, a business won't be able to hire ANYONE who dosen't have their completed graduation standard.

-- rick (I'mset@home.house), May 19, 1999.

Trouble is Dano, you are getting bent out of true over a problem that every Civilization before us has had, and will probably continue to be a problem in the future. The short form of this problem can be stated as:


Can't be done. If you wait to take a vote every time an emergency comes up, you are simply going to die. Period.

The founders were quite aware of this problem - read the letters they passed back and forth, or the minutes of some of their meetings. It is of grave concern that someone who has de facto dictatorial powers due to an emergency might decide to keep the powers, cancel the next election, and blow off the Republic. But what can you do? YOU CAN'T RUN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION BY THE COMMITTIE SYSTEM. And emergencies on the national scale do happen.

That particular rock has bothered citizens and founders of every democracy and republic in history. It is the reason we HAVE a president, rather than another assembly chamber for the executive branch. If you have a workable solution for that one, I hope you go into Political Science.

Now with that as a background - YES, without a doubt, if all the emergency powers the president has were activated all at once, you sure would be living with a dictator in the White House. BUT, you are assuming the military forces of the US would move as he directed and shut down Congress. Check the military oath sometime - it is NOT directed at serving the President.

Why did not Ab Lincoln declare himself dictator? Why did not Roosevelt become king? They certainly had the opportunity - moreso IMHO than Bill Clinton has.

Now as to the constant attacks on personal liberty - yep, there sure are. And just as many come from the right side of the aisle as from the left side. Fact is, most people can't leave their neighbors alone, they have to meddle. And you get every stupid thing imaginable, from prohibition to laws regulating the length of skirts and the cut of swimsuits. Only cure for that is - get the vote out, and run for office! Don't sit on your hands, and them come crying to me about how you don't like the govt.

Now the ultra conservatives have pretty much ruined the Republican party, so now is the perfect time to push for a new party. Since you don't like Democrats, join one of the 200 odd other political parties, publish yourself a free website over on geocities and WORK TO CHANGE THINGS. Your party may not catch on, but any movement towards your direction will be noted and adopted by the established parties - and that is what you want isn't it? To get your ideas adopted? Do something or admit you are just a guy who likes to gripe.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.


I think you would gain some insight into my point of view by a study of Fabian Socialism. Rev up that search engine and check out this gradualist camp of socialists. They are, at their core, the banking families who are running this show. They want precisely what has been described on this thread: a monopolistic oligarchy with a totalist government doing their bidding. Again, you focus on Clinton - he is insignificant.

You ask:

> Why did not Ab Lincoln declare himself dictator? Why did not Roosevelt become king? They certainly had the opportunity - moreso IMHO than Bill Clinton has.

Abe Lincoln and Roosevelt both played their part. Lincoln absolutely crushed the constitutional mandate of States Rights, and turned the federal government into the monolithic entity we know and love today. Roosevelt inflated the fed into a socialist welfare state (this is the state that FORCES you to "save" for retirement, then robs that confiscated "savings" freely, to the point of insolvency. It pays farmers NOT to raise crops, pays you NOT to work, etc.). Rome wasn't built in a day. When, in the aftermath of whatever contrived "crisis" they throw at us next, this monolithic, socialist entity is going to tighten the noose that we've been taught (through compulsory state education on the model of Prussia's totalist militarization) to accept as a mark of civilized distinction. And it will seem the next logical step. After all, don't only "right-wing christian religious nuts" believe that our rights come from God and not The State? What the State giveth, the State can taketh away. Since the U.S. Constitution reflects this "religious" outlook, we'll need to edit it of course - separation of church and state, you know. Hell, since we're in crisis and all, let's just write a new Constitution, to reflect the new reality in which we find ourselves. Call it "progress." A bridge to the 21st century...

So running the "lifeboat" can reasonably involve conscripting forced labor (slavery)? You envision a crisis in which television stations might be stormed by government troops and forbidden to broadcast new which contains facts about what the government is doing - just as we see with the current lies about the body count in Serbia. Only these bodies will be our families, friends and neighbors who resist conscription and internment, and the seizure of the small businesses they've worked all their lives to build, in spite of mega-corporate-run government regulatory interference. I notice you aren't disputing the existence of these Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, and the powers they give the President. Rather, you are defending the "need" to revert to a totalitarian state in a crisis. Would Reichstag fire do? How about NY or DC disappearing in a puff of smoke? Do you think there aren't people who are willing to perform that kind of slight of hand in order to obtain the hideous power unleashed in these Executive Orders? We're talking about people who fund wars. The people who farmed South American humanity and manipulated governments with the method outlined by R. Wright, above. This isn't "conspiracy theory" - Clinton, ironically, just apologized for it on his South American trip this year. But to see what is legally required for these orders to be put into effect, we have only to look at the orders themselves, which clearly state that not nuclear attack, but merely "economic crisis" is all that is necessary for these vile infringements on our rights to be inflicted upon us. Who would do such a thing? The man who intervened in the civil war of a sovereign state, Serbia, when only 2000 had been killed on both sides, and BOMBED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND ALL ITS (SURVIVING) CITIZENS BACK INTO THE 19th CENTURY, killing many thousands more, in a much shorter time? No, he doesn't have a tendency to overreact, or does he...? The point is, that plans are on the books to nationalize all industry, to tag all persons with a universal identification system, to make all persons the unpaid employees of the State, and seize all media, putting it under government control. This could happen tomorrow, and it could happen legally, just as did the election of Hitler and the dissolution of the German Republic in favor of the Third Reich. You seem to be okay with that. You seem to think it can't happen here - even when the key elements of the control system are the same, much of the rhetoric is the same, the immoral and criminal behavior of the key players is the same...

You, with your arrogant assumptions about my activities, remind me of the guy on the "contrails" thread who told me to tell it to the media, or my congressman, but "shut the hell up!" and "get off the internet!" What makes you think I'm not active in many of the areas you mentioned, and more? Paul, just think about what I'm getting at; try to comprehend this worldview. The basic idea is that the people who own everything don't just let things happen. They manage things. "Conspiracy" just means people getting together discretely and planning things. Every family is a "conspiracy" between Mother and Father. It's something we can reasonably expect interested parties to do, and the more interest they have, the greater the compulsion to do it; but it's something that is tellingly omitted from the established approach to history. In this case, the interested parties are the financial powers behind the international banking system (try researching this system in any significant depth and see how far you get). They are planning the formation of a global, totalitarian state. That's evident from the international bodies they've set up and funded, like the U.N., with it's demands for global power of taxation, and a global army. All you need to do is study their paternalistic rhetoric and their casual disregard for the rights of the individual, in order to see their philosophical orientation. We are not even children to them. We're more like a bug collection. A bee hive. They may "care" for us, but only in that sense. They're ultimately interested in the honey. Compassion is not something they know; it is a weakness to them, which they exploit in us for ideological purposes: they are the saviors; they must be given unprecedented power over us, because only they see the problems and can do something about them; only they can rise above national and commercial interests to save humanity... Very appealing stuff. It sells.

Please make a vigorous and sustained attempt to comprehend this view. I think you are honestly perplexed by my outlook, and not just blindly opposing what I have to say, and I respect that. If you follow some of the leads I've dropped, you will discover that behind the apparent "paranoia," there is a solid foundation for this deep distrust of government, and the financial powers that have controlled government, to one degree or another, in the last several centuries. But primarily, my view is supported by the document that makes us what we are, the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution. It is, you will find, a profoundly "anti-government" tract.


Nikoli: Sometimes I wish I was "E. Coli." We do sound a little like we're from the same mothership, don't we? I know we've read some of the same books.

btw: Remove the slur against Latinos being gang-oriented by nature (many of them that I've met express their "machismo" by working several low-paying jobs to support their families; very decent folk, with the bad apples acting up so as to get all the attention) and I agree with your letter 100% - might even use it. Unrestrained immigration is a problem, for sure. We're not even training our own children in citizenship; much less those who descend on us from abroad. But once they get here, if they get a strong education, they end up carrying the torch for nationalism and freedom with more gusto than most natives. "Multiculturalism" is a globalist, socialist-agenda pantload. We need to tolerate all cultures, but we already have our own culture: one of LIBERTY (the word they ground off the new quarter-dollars - take a look), and that means individual freedom and individual responsibility. All the people that want to live here had better be up to that challenge, and be Americans first, and whatever else second. That goes double for the ones that were born here!


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 19, 1999.

Dano - am not going to address all your points right now - is time for bed. But a few things:

First - I have made no assumptions about your activities - I merely told you that now was a sterling opportunity for you to effect change as the old parties are in chaos.

Second - Running the lifeboat has caused forced labor/slavery for the duration of an emergency in the past - going back to nearly the beginnings of the country. Ever heard of the draft? And people did not like it any more a century and a half ago than they do now - read Mark Twain's account of the night he was conscripted to help put down the St. Louis draft riots. He played it for laughs - but the riots were real.

Third - the Constitution neither says our rights come from God nor that they come from the State. It says that THE PEOPLE assign the govt. certain duties, responsibilities and rights. Moreover, the idea that somehow the founders meant to start some sort of religious state or Christian oath of office (no, you did not say that, but I have had this discussion before, and it always seems to go in that direction) is not borne out by historical fact - because 12 of the 13 original states HAD such a requirement, and signed into the Constitution willingly GIVING UP the idea that public officials should be required to declare a belief in the Christian God.

Fourth - the govt. does indeed have the right to forbid certain types of speech during an emergency. In fact, if you try to convince an officer or enlisted man of the US military that he is committing a wrong act, or in any way influence him/her in such a way that he/she might be impaired in carrying out his/her lawful duties during a time of war (declared as such by Congress) you can be arrested, tried and jailed for a considerable time.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.


Thank you! Another brother in arms and enemy against the Fascist state.(NOTE: I did not say an enemy of the people!)


You blew off the whole point entirely.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 20, 1999.

Hey, don't think I LIKE some of the trails the country has gone down. But I don't think there is some mysterious group trying to turn us into some sort of fascist state either. Now some do try to push us towards socialism, that you might be able to make an arguement for.

And I have one of the new quarters right here - front side has LIBERTY right under Washingtons chin, obverse side (Penn. quarter) has VIRTUE/LIBERTY/INDEPENDENCE on the right side. If they ground LIBERTY off the quarter, they must have missed this one.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.

Yes, Paul, "LIBERTY," which used to be a banner, has now become the "fine print." Facism IS a type of socialism. The word "Nazi" is a contraction of the term "National Socialists." Nationalization of industry. Ownership of all property and individuals by the State. The Corporate oligarchy (Krupps, IG Farben and their bankers, Rothschilde, Warburg, Rockefeller, et al, and the managerial class) retain their positions, and gain abosolute control over "their" workers. First they tag everyone, control the media, take their guns, and create/declare a "national emergency." That's sort of the point of, like, this whole thread here...

There is a "mysterious group trying to turn us all into a fascist state," Paul. They're called "Facists." Do you think trying a dozen or so at Nuremburg made them all convert into Mormons, or Communists? Thousands entered the U.S. under "Operation Paperclip" (rev up that search engine), many, many thousands more went to South America - and took the wealth of Europe with them. The people who actually designed the Nazi war machine and the death camps never went on trial; they were never even accused. The companies that profited from Nazism are still making money today, and the sons of the same upper management are still in charge. Many U.S. citizens sympathized with them and still do. Read the book "Friendly Facism" to see how they are "going to get it right this time." It's not about nationalism, or hating jews - all that's just motivational black magic. It's about money and power. Know your enemy, Paul; he knows all about you. Or stick your head back in the sand and wait for him to kick you in the ass!


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ