Archive for the ‘Neo-Cons’ Category

“Karl Rove calls himself Moby Dick. One speechwriter sees himself as St. Francis. Another sees him as Iago. All regard Bush as Abraham Lincoln. In Washington, reality is a myth.”

Read the article by Sidney Blumenthal at

We love Garrison Keillor! Sit back and enjoy his take on Karl Rove – aka “Turd Blossom” from

Aug. 15, 2007 | What truly cheers me up through these dog days of summer is the thought that two old friends of mine are up north on a canoe trip in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and that I am not there with them. I am here, reading the paper, and if I wanted to go to a movie, I could go, and if I wished to use a flush toilet, I could do that, too. But for the grace of God, I could be sitting on the ground, filthy, embittered, a homeless person, eating freeze-dried food and listening to the Master Woodsman tell you what a great experience you’re having and meanwhile the woods are not lovely, just dark and deep, and a cloud of mosquitoes has come out to avenge the white man’s colonizing of North America. I have been on canoe trips, I know what goes on.

Every canoe trip has a self-appointed Master Woodsman. In civilian life he may be a mild-mannered clerk in a cubicle, but out on the trail he is transformed into the song leader, pathfinder, the great helmsman, the tier of correct knots, and the authority on bears. He shows you how to do everything except the things you really need to do, such as 1) move your bowels in some dignified manner and 2) get out of here and find a hotel. Your body aches from sleeping on the ground, your bowels have turned to stone, and you are thinking about “Lord of the Flies” and what it says about the fragility of civilization, but he is relentlessly upbeat. And then it dawns on you: Your suffering is what turns him on. The man is a sadist.

Read the rest.

This is from a site called “Family Security Matters.” The article – “Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy” – received bad press and was removed from the site but the cache is still available. Here are some excerpts (the emphasis is ours): **10/26/07 – the cache has now also been removed.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead.


The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide.


When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.


Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.


If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege [sic] while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq… Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world?…….

Wow – you give information to the New York Times – and then cite The New York Times as a source to validate your information! What a Trick!

You’ve heard Chris Matthews and others use this term regularly – but do you know hwat it means?

…let’s look at some of the basic principles of Neo-Conservatism:

The godfather of the Neo-Con movement was an intellectual disciple of Machiavelli named Leo Strauss. Strauss was a German Zionist who immigrated to the US in the 1930s and mentored people like William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz while advocating his philosophy of a dog-eat-dog world.

In essence, the Straussian philosophy and teachings are now known as Neo-Conservatism. Below are some of the more interesting and perhaps surprising or even disturbing aspects of Neo-Conservatism as taught by Strauss: 

  • Nations cannot consider collective action and multilateralism unless it is 100               percent in line with their own selfish interests
  • Strong leadership is required
  • Military power is essential
  • Leadership ought not be encumbered by human rights discourse or a moral conscience but nonetheless must “appear” to advocate such ideas.
  • Rulers need not observe the laws they impose on the ruled.
  • A ruler can cheat and lie and do all sorts of things but should at all time maintain the outside appearance of adherence to human rights and caring for people.
  • Leaders can use religion as one of many tools to ensure the nation keeps on course as formulated.
  • Outside threats help ensure social cohesion under domestic leadership
  • Altruism, environmental protection, justice etc, are not the concern of governments and ruling elites. They have no part to play in the equation of power
  • Strauss questioned how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist.
  • Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society, especially a liberal society because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.
  • Secular society is the worst possible thing, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society’s ability to cope with external threats
  • Nazism was a nihilistic reaction to the ungodly and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic.
  • Religion should impose moral law on the masses who would otherwise be out of control.

Machiavelli’s political doctrine serves as the foundation of Neo-Conservatism and it denies the relevance of morality in political affairs. It states that that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.  It implies that when it comes to achieving or maintaining power the end justifies the means. This is essentially the core of Machiavellianism and serves as the foundation for Neo-Conservatism: The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. Machiavelli discusses frankly, the necessity of cruel actions to keep power. He was in the business of power preservation not piety. According to the originator of Neo-Conservative ideology the leader of the state must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.

Let me repeat this last principle of Neo-Conservatism because it plays into the “believability factor” when considering claims made by people who accuse the Bush administration of unconscionable actions:  “The leader of the state must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.” These people believe that evil is acceptable and necessary at times!

 Read the entire article here.

There has been a great deal of talk in the alternative press the last few days (certainly not in the mainstream media, as pointed out by many of our readers) about the Executive Order signed that effectively allows the President to confiscate the property of anyone deemed by this Administration to be a danger to national security or the stability of Iraq.

Also of great concern should be the Nation Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive of May 9, 2007 that effectively gives the Executive Branch dictatorial powers. This blog had not been started at that point – here’s what we wrote at

According to the newly signed “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,” in a “Catastrophic Event” (“any incident, regardless of location [our emphasis], that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions”), President Bush will become more than “The Decider.”

Say “When.”

REPORTER: Fran, do you know if Osama bin Laden is still on a dialysis machine, is he still ill? What? I mean, could you tell us about that? I mean, because — it might be laughable, but people are finding it hard, six years this man is sick, moving around from cave to cave, and can’t be found — with a dialysis machine?

MS. TOWNSEND: Have you ever been to the tribal areas? I suspect not.

REPORTER: No, I haven’t, but I’ve seen some great pictures from Ken Herman as to the rough terrain over that way. (Laughter.)

MS. TOWNSEND: It’s not exactly easy. If it were easy he’d be dead.

REPORTER: But it’s not easy for him to travel around with medics and machinery if he’s sick. I mean, is he — do you know from your intelligence if he’s still sick? What do you know about that?

MS. TOWNSEND: I’m not going to talk about that.

Townsend immediately went on the defensive before cutting the press conference short and leaving the room.

Judging from all the available evidence, the White House knows for certain or at least strongly suspects that Bin Laden is dead and has been for many years, but they have chosen to maintain his myth for the purposes of political propaganda and as a hook on which to pin the advance of the imperial Neo-Con agenda. Townsend’s reaction to the question is a clear indication that the Bush administration don’t even want to be drawn into a debate on whether Bin Laden is still alive. The premise that he might be dead cannot even be entertained because it would strip “Al-Qaeda” of much of the menace that the Neo-Cons need to attach to the group in order to keep Americans frightened and obedient.

 Read the rest.

“My administration knew that there would be more attacks from these terrorists who hate us and our way of life and are determined to destroy every one of us. If only more of you had believed me and supported my war on terror these new attacks would not have happened. Our security efforts were impaired by the Democrats’ determined attempts to surrender to the terrorists by forcing our withdrawal from Iraq and by civil libertarian assaults on our necessary security measures. If only more Americans had trusted their government, this would not have happened.”

From Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald ReaganRead his entire piece “My Wake-up Call” here.

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.  The frog’s survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.

Say “When.”

The greatest threat now is “a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities.” — Dick Cheney on Face the Nation, CBS, April 15, 2007

After reading this article at Rense ( I had a momentary flash of pre-cognition, or was it indigestion from last night’s beer and pretzels? I’m not sure because I don’t think I’m psychic. Any way, earlier I read where the West Coast was going to be the next target of terrorist attacks. This doesn’t make sense to me since San Francisco and L.A. have been so demonized in America it probably wouldn’t galvanize us to war with them; them being the forces of evil, and us being the righteous soldiers of God. Then again there is a large Mexican and Central American population in L.A. They are the potential new recruits, and there is nothing worse than a Mexican vendetta. Still as heinous as that would be many Americans might just view it as a solution to the illegal alien problem.

Getting back to my pre-cognition, or was it the after glow of my Sunday morning Bloody Mary, if there were to be a terrorist attack, either real or false flag, it wouldn’t be on the West Coast. It would be in the heartland, somewhere near or in the evangelical Bible belt where obsolete technology still dominates the landscape. Since of course the next terrorist attack will be nuclear according to Cheney’s gut feeling, probably Iranian enriched plutonium. Somewhere where people feel especially safe, because it’s in God’s country. Somewhere where the staunch supporters of the Iraq war and this administration reside. What better way to galvanize the people into the next world war than to strike the people who feel they are removed from the real threat? What better ways to start the next crusade than to have attacked fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims? Besides you’ll still need L.A., i.e., Hollywood to make all those upcoming war propaganda films, like “Allah, the real threat to ‘IN GOD WE TRUST'”.

Note: On Tuesday President Bush will make a speech at the Charleston Air Force Base.

Greystone – A common laborer.