AFTER THE ATTACK
WHAT HAPPENS?
By: Alan Stang
Between the time you read this and the electoral charade in November – in which you will exercise your unalienable right to "choose" between Democon and Republicon Bonesmen – Islamocommunist terrorists will hit the United States with Weapons of Mass Destruction. At least that is what geheimland security boss Tom Ridge and other foreigners are saying in the District of Criminals.
We are told it will be a massive strike, big enough even to get the attention of Christians waiting to be "raptured." The targets could include the Democon and Republicon nominating conventions or other manifestations of American civilization and power. Both legs on the Hegelian dialectical bug – the left Communist media represented by people like Katie the Kook, and the right Communist Bush media represented by belligerent ignoramuses like Mike Savage – are now talking about it.
They tell us the Islamocommunists may have recruited terrorists who look like Europeans or Americans to conduct the strike. Maybe they will look like Katie the Kook; but of course they would be a lot smarter. They will travel in families to "reduce their profile." Some of them may actually be pregnant women. So, be on the lookout for stupid, pregnant females.
But, as we go to press, the one thing the District of Criminals and the Communist media have scrupulously not mentioned (unless it got by me) is the question of what happens after the attack. What happens after a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon takes Bonesman Hanoi John or Bonesman Bush home to Satan?
Suppose you are conspiring to submerge the United States in a totalitarian Socialist world dictatorship. You have discreetly seized control of the nation’s institutions and government. Now you need to come out of the closet and impose that power. Now you need to nail the dictatorship down. How would you do that?
You could not just announce your plan and take over. Once you cross the Hudson and head west, the nation is teeming with heavily armed rednecks until you enter Los Angeles – including the most dangerous creature that ever stalked the earth, the Marine Corps sniper – men who keep their women in subjection and refuse to register anything except illegal aliens and sodomites. You would need some subterfuge.
How about a foreign attack on the nation that would allow you to "busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels?" My colleagues and I have been warning for many years that the conspiracy for world government would use such an emergency to trick us into demanding our own enslavement as the "solution." In fact, you could impose your dictatorship only in that way.
There is historical precedent for such a technique. In 1861, our first Communist President, Dishonest Abe, tricked Americans into reoccupying Fort Sumter and precipitated the War for Southern Independence. In 1898, imperial elements destroyed the Maine in Havana harbor, and fomented war with Spain. In 1941, Frank Roosevelt finally pushed the Japanese into killing 3,000 Americans at Pearl.
Remember General Tommy Franks? He led U.S. forces in last year’s invasion of Iraq. Last December, in an interview he gave to Cigar Aficionado, he said that the acquisition and use by terrorists of a N(uclear)B(iological)C(hemical) weapon that kills many Americans would be "the worst thing that could happen" to our cherished republican form of government.
If that were to happen, said General Franks, "the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy." Forget the fact that we’re not supposed to have a democracy. Why would we lose those things because of such an attack?
"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."
I am not in the military, and I don’t know about you, but when a four-star general speaks, I listen. How likely is it, do you think, that a four-star general, who has just led our invasion of Iraq, would spout such stuff off the top of his head? Or is it more likely that his comment was a test sanctioned by the District of Criminals to see how well it would go down?
There are two reasons to think that could be so. First, his remarks appeared in a very limited-circulation magazine. Few women smoke cigars and read Cigar Aficionado. (Janet "the Man" Reno and Hillaroid, the nation’s leading cause of lower back pain, are not women.) Second, notice that the District of Criminals said not a word of denial to "correct" their commander’s inflammatory remarks.
Remember a few years back, at Twenty Nine Palms, the U.S. Marine Corps base that is bigger than many members of the Communist UN – even bigger than Hanoi John Kerry’s head – gyrenes were asked whether they would fire on Americans who disobeyed an order to turn in their guns. The District of Criminals just wanted to know.
Thank God, the pride of the United States said they would not. Of course, when the feces hit the fan, when a parent found out, the District of Criminals said it was a mistake; said that the questionnaire was an unauthorized exercise by a minor Navy officer doing research for a graduate degree. Oh, yeah.
By the way, last week’s special offer of scenic vacation lots in lovely sun-drenched downtown Fallujah, garden spot of the Middle East, the ancient home of Nebuchadnezzar, was a boffo success. We do have a few choice corner lots left that will be available at fire sale prices only to Alan Stang readers as soon as our brokers clear away the corpses, but you must act quickly, my friends. This offer cannot be repeated.
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
This is what Henry Kissinger is supposed to have said in Evian, France, on May 21st, 1992, at a meeting of the Bilderbergers, one of the extrusions of the conspiracy for world government. We are told that Kissinger didn’t know a Swiss delegate to the meeting was taping his speech.
In his book, Henry Kissinger, Soviet Agent, the late intelligence specialist Frank Capell wrote that Heinz Kissinger is exactly that. The quotation above has been all over the patriot community and now the Internet for years. In my opinion, it is suspicious for two reasons: I don’t believe any Swiss delegate to a super-secret Bilderberger conference was taping anything; and, the clarity of syntax in the statement is uncharacteristic of the usually opaque, labyrinthine Doktor Kissinger.
The quotation is too perfect, too clear, precisely because it sure does sum up what we are talking about. As I write, the process is well under way. I mentioned belligerent ignoramus Michael Savage. He is supposed to have a doctorate from Berkeley, and he is mouthy enough to qualify, but his vaunted knowledge of history is as thin as the hair on Dick Cheney’s head.
Savage is another Clear Channel phony who caters to Republicons fed up with Boy Bush. He is even allowed to criticize Bush, which makes his spiel so much more credible. In the end, however, he screams that no way would he ever vote for a Democon again and that if you love this country you will vote for Boy Bush despite his warts or you are nothing but a traitor. Do you understand what I’m telling you?
Even my mouth fell open yesterday when Savage demanded loyalty oaths, national identity cards and internment – yes, internment – because he has had enough, do you understand what I’m saying? Enough! Happily, some callers did disagree, but he persisted in his assertion that the Savage Nation can be saved only if we re-elect Bush and enslave ourselves.
Was it my imagination, or did I hear the Horst Wessel and the Internationale playing softly in the background? Please explain the difference in dictatorship between doing it to ourselves and someone else doing it to us. Would it make any difference how we get there?
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
http://www.etherzone.com/2004/stang052804.shtml
-------------------------------------------
Will Bush the Beheader use terrorism to become America's Pinochet?
May 28, 2004
Will George W. Bush use terrorism to become America's Pinochet?
Attorney-General John Ashcroft is priming the public for a terrorist attack, which can only mean Bush is sharpening his blades to behead the Constitution.
Augusto Pinochet seized absolute power in Chile on September 11, 1973. The US national security apparatus, including George H.W. Bush, used terrorism as an excuse to help Pinochet destroy what had been a constitutional democracy.
So is Shrub a president? Or is he a Pinochet?
By a 4:1 margin American historians have already rated W. "a failure." More than one in ten surveyed in the recent George Mason University History News Network Poll also rate Bush as "the worst president ever."
But ultimately, this Bush has no peer among US presidents. Let's look at three likely matches.
Richard Nixon trained Dick Cheney and Karl Rove as Dirty Tricksters. Nixon is Bush's role model for corruption, cynicism and personal psychosis. But Nixon was also a skilled, literate global diplomat who opened doors to China and the former Soviet Union and supported environmental protection. Bush has trashed all that.
Herbert Hoover callously presided over the beginnings of America's worst economic depression. Bush is right there. But Hoover was also a skilled, literate bureaucrat, and a Quaker-raised foe of war. Not exactly Bush.
Warren G. Harding was astonishingly corrupt. Bush, Halliburton and Enron have more than matched him. But Harding also hated repression and brought the anti-war socialist Eugene V. Debs straight from a federal prison cell to meet him in the Oval Office. Bush might well have had Debs executed.
Ultimately, Bush's real peers are not US presidents but Third World dictators, like Pinochet, many of whom his father also put in office. Their coda is clear:
Use of "terror" as an excuse for totalitarian control;
Official secrecy for its own sake;
Seizure of power in contempt of free elections;
Totalitarian militarism;
Abuse of human rights and liberties;
Love of the death penalty;
Hatred of a free press;
Imprisonment without legal recourse;
Widespread torture;
Brazen theft of public billions;
"Free market" smokescreens for corporate domination;
Taxing the poor to benefit the rich;
Hatred of labor unions;
Decimation of the natural environment;
Assaulting elected leaders anywhere, anytime;
Contempt for international treaties;
Reactionary alliance with right wing church groups;
Contempt for women's rights;
Manipulating divisions of race and class.
The one American actually offered a dictatorship, George Washington, turned it down, shaping the nature of the Presidency for more than two centuries....until now.
Meanwhile Bush has beheaded the American economy, replacing First World surpluses with Third World debt.
Reminiscent of Joe Stalin, foreign intelligence, economic assessment and even basic science must not contradict Rovian spin or fundamentalist prophecy.
American education, once the envy of the world, is in shambles, with global students now turning away for the first time. America's moral prestige, never higher than after September 11, 2001, has been trashed. No US president has ever been so personally hated.
And never has a would-be Third World dictator stood more ready to shred our Constitution.
Stalin once quipped that power resides not with those who cast the votes, but with those that count them.
Bush may try to follow Stalin's (and brother Jeb's) lead by stealing the 2004 election, as in 2000. Or he may try to seize power like Pinochet did on 9/11/73 in a repressive crusade against convenient terrorism.
But one thing is certain: if Shrub's hyped-up power play succeeds, the beheading of America will be complete.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US is available at www.harveywasserman.com. He is co-author (with Bob Fitrakis) of GEORGE W. BUSH VERSUS THE SUPERPOWER OF PEACE (www.freepress.org).
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2004/897
Would Bush kill one American to rule the other 288 million? Would he kill 10? 100? 1000? 1000000? After all, even a million killed in a staged terror attack is only one half of one percent, an "acceptible" price to pay to make the other 95.5% obedient slaves.