America does not ban books, other means—less evident, and so less controversial—have been deployed to vaporize them. Some almost never made it into print, as publishers were privately warned off them from on high, either on the grounds of “national security” or with blunt threats of endless corporate litigation. Other books were signed enthusiastically—then “dumped,” as their own publishers mysteriously failed to market them, or even properly distribute them. But it has mainly been the press that stamps out inconvenient books, either by ignoring them, or—most often—laughing them off as “conspiracy theory,” despite their soundness (or because of it).
In 1952 it took rare courage for Stone to write, after reading an Air Force briefing of the obliteration with “jellied gasoline bombs” of a North Korean city (p. 179): There is an indifference to human suffering to be read between those lines which makes me as an American deeply ashamed of what was done that day.… The mass bombing raid on Sinuiju November 8 was the beginning of a race between peace and provocation. A terrible retribution threatened the peoples of the Western world who so feebly permitted such acts to be done in their name. For it was by such means that the pyromaniacs hoped to set the world afire.
Stone was one of the few to write with compassion about the horrible consequences of this war for the Korean people. To think that the American Air Force could have dropped oceans of napalm and other incendiaries on cities and towns in North Korea, leaving a legacy of deep bitterness palpable four decades later, and that this was done in the name of a conflict now called “the forgotten war”—as memory confronts amnesia, we ask, who are the sane of this world?
==(Introduction to reprinting) The Hidden History of the Korean War: 1950–1951 (Forbidden Bookshelf) (Stone, I. F.)
A Russian (Read:American) variant of fascism is unlikely to go quite as far as nazism, with its unique racial obsessions. Unlike communism or nazism, Russian fascism would express itself through authoritarianism rather than totalitarianism, through chauvinism rather than ideology, and through statism rather than collectivism. It would not even have to proclaim itself to be fascism or embrace overtly the earlier Fascist doctrines. More likely, it would be fascism primarily in practice: the combination of dictatorial rule, state domination over a partially private economy, chauvinism, and emphasis on imperial myths and mission.
==Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (Zbigniew Brzezinski)
Fifty years ago, Bertrand de Jouvenel wrote, “The essential psychological characteristic of our age is the predominance of fear over self-confidence…. Everyone of every class tries to rest his individual existence on the bosom of the state and tends to regard the state as the universal provider.” But this protection costs the public far more than the high taxes that fund its provision because “if the state is to guarantee to a man what the consequences of his actions shall be, it must take control of his activities…to keep him out of the way of risks.
If we are to regain our liberties, we must reassert our responsibilities for ourselves, accepting the consequences of our own actions without appealing to the government for salvation.
We can have a free society or a welfare state. We cannot have both.
==Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society (Robert Higgs)
We want to believe these media when they tell us that Britain and America are attacking other countries out of humanitarian concern. We want to believe that the people in control are decent and rational. The alternative is disturbing, frightening; it can give rise to painful feelings of powerlessness. Above all, it can lead us to question whether we should assume moral responsibility for the state of our country and world – a burden many of us would rather avoid.
==NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century (David Edwards and David Cromwell)
This is an excellent piece by former CIA bin Laden hunting intelligence officer Michael F. Scheuer, but for one important aspect–the neocon conspiracy is only an important component of an overarching ideology, which includes much of what is espoused as neo-liberal, liberal and progressive objectives as well. It is a large tent that subsumes all but a few within the faux democracy sustained by myth, reconstructed history, an intentionally dumbed down, brainwashed population through an educational system designed to instill complacency, docility and communal obedience to the state, all enforced by increasingly authoritarian surveillance and police powers that are above the law. That ideology, if it can be called that, is designed for one objective, no matter what “party” affiliation the captive agents in Washington claim.
The variances in domestic policies are only derived from factions of the same true party, the Transnationalist Fascist Party of the United States. The only real political, social and economic objective of this party is to support the transnationalist corporations and the global crony finance-capitalist class by destroying nationalism wherever it arises and the potential barriers to enhancing the powers of the this transnationalist power elite, both domestically and internationally. Capital knows no nationality, it never has. Perhaps this is why its adherents and political supplicants have been interpreted as mysteriously guiding America and the world towards a unified transnational world, the so called One World Order.
Is it likely that all of the evidence over the past many decades, words from the mouths of these elites, points to an almost precognitive understanding of how capital would force the devolution of nation-states and the global commoditization and sucritization of all things, particularly labor and crown the new world order, not of an American national imperialism, but of an American supported and policed transnational corporate imperialism? Were they simply surfers on a wave they knew was coming, or where they, are they, finance capitals shepherds destroying all resistance to its domination? I think the evidence is clear.
21st Century fascism is a global, transnational “ism” that engulfs all to the benefit of a few and the detriment of the many. America’s pathway from it’s embryonic nation-state imperialism, fulfilling the supportive memes of manifest destiny, to a transnational state is not complete, but every effort from Obama and the majority of the political class is to make this transition complete. Open borders and immigration, the trade deals, even the enforcement of our police powers in foreign states in the recent, rather disgusting corruption of the most popular succor of the global proletariat, the FIFA scandals, all are designed to enhance the powers of the transnationalist agenda.
But this process has been going on in America long before the emergence of the military industrial complex and the neocon right. The Fabian war of attrition, the slow, methodical destruction of the American independent mind through the socialization of an educational system designed for the creation of a docile, communal oriented and malleable society has turned the once proud self-reliant individualism, that personified this nation from its very founding, into a lobotomized mass of functional illiterates and docile sheep.
Because there is, as in all things human, a power architecture that the elites in control are never willing to share, the promise of distributive, centrifugal technologies can never, under the current system, be allowed to disperse the benefits of nor any share in the benefits accrued by the transnational corporatization of the world. Thus the larger the system that needs managing, both physically and socioeconomically, the more need for an authoritarian power.There is only one way to manage a One World Order; a coercive, dominant group of global organizations, independent of the restraints of nationalism and supported by a hegemonic superpower or ideologically cohesive multi-polar police state.
Those men who wrote our Constitution made it perfectly intelligible to anyone who cared to read it. They also left some flexibility in its articles to ensure that as time passed and circumstances changed the document would remain viable as the indispensable protector of the republic they created and of the liberty of citizens who delegated a limited amount of their sovereign power to the national government through its provisions. And after a long and often angry ratification debate, the first congress added a bill of rights to the Constitution as that document’s first ten amendments. These amendments were fully as clear as the text — perhaps more so — but less flexible than the body of the document because they dealt with the tenets of republican liberty which, if regularly and deliberately violated by the national government, would require that Americans, to paraphrase Jefferson, demolish the existing government and erect a new one that would better safeguard their liberties and their republic’s security.
In recent decades, however, Americans have been treated to an endless stream of politicians, academics, lawyers, and pundits who describe the opaqueness of the Founder’s Constitution and the need for “experts” to decipher or infer what the document means. As a result, we now have presidents who take the country to war on their whim; politicians who are legally bribed by “campaign contributions” from rich individuals, corporations, labor unions, and foreign lobbies and governments based on an absurd reading of the Constitution; a public that is increasingly endangered by flamboyant blasphemers who seek violence and war under the protection of the First Amendment; and the routine criminality of executive branch officials who refuse to obey their oath of office to execute the laws.
We also have the overwhelming majority of both political parties willing to destroy the Fourth Amendment in the name of providing for national security against an enemy they have resolutely refused to either stop motivating or militarily annihilate. Together these realities amount to a more-than-full justification for Americans to recall that, as Jefferson wrote, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”