Saturday, August 25, 2007

R.I.P. Aaron Russo - American Freedom Fighter

Aaron Russo, renegade film-maker, passed away yesterday. Aaron ran for governor here in Nevada, and then as the Libertarian presidential candidate. He could at times be gruff, and a bit rough around the edges, but I don't think anyone ever doubted the man's courage, conviction, passion for liberty, and his love for his country. Aaron was a staunch supporter of another man of courage, Congressman Ron Paul.

Aaron's last film was America: Freedom to Fascism, which he put up on googlevideo for free, because he wanted the American people to see it. You can still watch it there by clicking below. - Stewart

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Understanding Neocons: The Power of Nightmares

Understanding the Neocon Government Supremacist Necromancer Spell: The Key is FEAR

One of the very best films produced on the neocons, and the islamacists, is this British documentary, The Power of Nightmares.

This film explains how the radical islamacists and the neocons are two sides of the same radical, totalitarian coin, with both groups convinced that the society they live in has grown weak, immoral, and corrupt. But neither the militaristic neocons, nor the radical islamacists could gain enough power to fulfill their respective visions - not without each other. The neocons need the islamacists, and the islamacists, such as Bin Laden, need the neocons. Each needs to point to the other as a grave threat to their respective civilizations in order to gain political power and support from the people.

The threat of terrorism from islamacists helps the neocons to gain and retain support for their agenda. Likewise, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and other actions during the "war on terror" have gained the radical islamacists support in the modern Muslim world they would otherwise not have.

It is a symbiotic relationship, with two different, but oh so similar, parasites living off of the blood of the rest of us.

Yes, there are entirely insane radicals in Islam that desire to spread a fundamentalist vision of Islam by the sword. But those islamacist nuts cannot gain real power within the Muslim world unless they convince Muslims that the West intends to destroy them. I do find Islam a troubling religion, but we need to make a distinction between the radicals, such as al Qaeda, and the Muslims that support al Qaeda. You can't do much with a wacko like Bin Laden other than kill him, but you can do much regarding his support structure.

Our foreign policy has a direct affect on how much support and perceived legitimacy bin Laden and others like him have with the rest of the Muslim world.

Likewise, the actions of bin Laden and other islamacists greatly affect the degree of support the neocons have here at home.

This film, being made by a leftist, contains some leftist bias against conservatives in general, and especially American Christians. This film also makes no mention of the close similarity between neocons and radical communists, who have a similar contempt for our society, and a similar radical, extremist view of how they want to "transform" us, and is thus blind to the totalitarian impulse on the far left. But it is still a good expose on both the neocons and the islamacists.

Below is the trailer, and then the full length one hour segments. It is well worth your time if you are interested in better understanding what is happening ih the "war on terror" and what the ideology and goals of the neocons are all about. - Stewart Rhodes.


The Power of Nightmares - Trailer

The Power of Nightmares, Part I: Baby Its Cold Outside (A fantastic expose on how the neocons and the radical Islamic fundamentalists share a contempt for modern society).

The Power of Nightmares, Part II: The Phantom Victory

The Power of Nightmares, Part III: The Shadows in the Cave

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Don't be Neoconned. Ron Paul on Understanding the Grave Threat to Our Constitutional Republic

NOTE from Stewart: If you consider yourself a conservative, and a defender of the Constitutional Republic the men of April 19, 1775 founded when they stood their ground and fired the shot heard round the world, but you have also taken to calling yourself a "neoconservative," I urge you to reconsider placing that label on yourself.

I also urge you to take a hard look at the intellectuals who make up the leadership in the Neoconservative movement. Neoconservatives are neither anything new, nor are they conservative. They are but the latest manifestation of the totalitarian, statist mindset that has plagued mankind for thousands of years. Their worldview is incompatible with that of the Founding Fathers.

Neoconservatives do not believe in limited government. They have no respect for the principles of unalienable, natural rights our Declaration of Independence proclaimed "to a candid world." And Neoconservatives, like their close cousins, the socialist far-left revolutionaries, despise the Constitution of the Founders, with its limited, divided, dual sovereignty structure. They worship not just executive supremacy, but government supremacy.

Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
  1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

  2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

  3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

  4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

  5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.

  6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

  7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

  8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

  9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

  10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

  11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

  12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

  13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

  14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

  15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

  16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

  17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Neoconservatives are as much mortal enemies of our constitutional republic as the communists were during the cold war. In fact, as Congressman Ron Paul explains, you can trace the modern origins of noecoservatives to communist revolutionary leader Trotsky.

Congressman Paul's speech on the House floor, entitled Neo-CONNED, is one of the very best explanations of the actual beliefs of neoconservative scholars and political leaders. I urge you to read or watch this speech and learn the full extent of the threat to our Republic by the noecon siths who have cloaked themselves as real conservatives when they are anything but. I have posted video of the speech and then an excerpt and a link to the written transcript. - Stewart


July 10, 2003

Neo – CONNED !

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

Read the rest here.

Philip Atkinson on America's Choice and Why FSM stands for Fascist Sado Masochists, Not Family Security Matters

Ah yes, even after Philip Atkinson wrote back in May of this year that the U.S. should enslave or exterminate all illegal Mexican immigrants and then invade and conquer Mexico, to impose our culture on them, Family Security Matters (FSM) did not bat an eye and continued to publish Atkinson's articles on their website.

His next article, entitled America's Choice, was published in FSM on May 30, 2007. As with all of his articles, this one too has been pulled from the FSM website after the uproar over his August 2, 2007 article calling for Bush to nuke Iraq and declare himself dictator of America. As with his other murderous, psychopathic rantings, I have pasted the America's Choice article below, toward the bottom of this post, in order to preserve it. A special hat tip to P. W. Frey for sending me a copy of the cashed page when I could not locate it.

In America's Choice, Atkinson tells us we must become an eternally violent, militarized empire, that imposes its will through the terror of nuclear annihilation, subjugating and
enslaving all others. And he argues that if we "fail" to be strong enough to nuke entire peoples off the face of the earth in order to terrorize the rest into being our helots - if we are too "weak" to do what is necessary, we will surely suffer extermination or slavery at the hands of "competing" civilizations. To Atkinson, it is kill or be killed, enslave or be enslaved, just like ancient Sparta.

I say: "This is madness!"

To which Atkinson would likely retort:

"Madness? THIS ... IS .... AMERICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!"

Now it is abundantly clear that this man's insane ideas, consistently expressed in all of his writings over time, were accepted by Family Security Matters. Pay close attention to Atkinson's definition of civilization in his article, posted below. I suspect that he is incorrect in his belief that he alone came up with the notion that a civilization is "a community that manages to impose its beliefs upon its neighboring communities by violence." I think he is in the company of a long line of totalitarian, would be world empires and dictators, and this same view is a strong undercurrent in neoconservative thought, which has been forming since long before Mr. Atkinson gave up working on computers and began his amateurish dabbling in "philosophy." In other words, Atkinson did not think up anything new. The neocon persuasion is emphatically a government supremacist, totalitarian world-view.

I'll have more to say on this later. Meanwhile ...

What does FSM stand for?

I believe that after reading Atkinson's America's Choice Article I may be onto the real meaning of FSM (Family Security Matters). Some in the bloggosphere have mused that FSM means Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But I don't think that's it. Just doesn't fit with the whole vibe. Atkinson's writings have a reoccurring theme running through them - a sort of insane internal logic and consistency, and that is a sado-masochist world view writ large. For example, here is Atkinson's definition of a civilization:
A civilization is a community that manages to impose its beliefs upon its neighboring communities by violence. Violence is necessary because this is the only way someone can be made to act against their own beliefs; and as a community is a shared set of beliefs, the only way one community can impose its understanding on another community is by violence.
a civilization can exist only as long as it dominates by violence all other communities, and the moment a dominant community recoils from violence, its rule is challenged. That is, it becomes attacked by all the other communities, in one way or another, as they attempt to assert their beliefs upon the faltering civilization.
Americans can now easily crush their enemies, but every hour the USA does not use its present superiority in nuclear weapons to dominate other communities, is another hour given to its enemies to develop and use their nuclear weapons to eradicate the American community. Americans have a choice: use nuclear weapons on their enemies or have their enemies use them on Americans; ruthlessly uphold 'Pax America' or blindly follow 'Pax Romana' into oblivion.
Yes, Atkinson thinks we are either an absolutely dominant country, or a totally submissive country. Tor Atkinson, there is no in-between possible. We are either the dominant, or the submissive. The slave masters or the slaves, just as in sado-masochist sex play.

Thus, I conclude that FSM stands for Fascist Sado Masochists.

Yes, it is true that in sadomasochism the participants are actually consenting adults, and they often use a "safety" word when they really, truly do mean "no," while in Atkinson's political version of S&M there is no such thing as consent, and there are no safety words. But it still fits. Just as Atkinson has, for the first time, discovered the true definition of civilization (he says so himself, so it must be true) he has also reinvented sadomasochism in his own image, with no limits! This is hardcore stuff here! But apparently, the nice "security moms" over at FSM were "up" for it!

FSM - Fascist Sado Masochists
In Atkinson's world-view, our only "choice" - if we wish to survive - is to be an uber-dominant, ultra-militaristic, violent dictatorship and empire, that imposes its power and authority world-wide and forces all other countries to submit absolutely, becoming our slaves or vassals, or be incinerated. We "punish" mercilessly, by means of nuclear missiles, anyone who will not be submissive and obey all our commands, and we reward those who do submit with life under our stylish leather combat boot.

Yes, yes, that's it! Given FSM's rather kinky love affair with the obviously sado-masochist writings of Mr. Uber-Disciplinarian himself, Philip Atkinson, FSM stands for Fascist Sado Masochists. The only other possibility is Fascist Security Moms, but I find Fascist Sado Masochists far more daring, sexy, and "out there" - don't you? I'm sure the nice ladies over at FSM would agree.

Makes me wonder if the "security moms" over at FSM are giving Atkinson a good, ol fashioned flogging or paddling right now, for having embarrassed them so in the blogosphere. I can just picture it. "Philip, you've been a bad boy. Bad philip, Bad!" Maybe that was what Atkinson was angling for all along. Perhaps Atkinson's crazy articles were all just a perverse version of a cry for help, being instead a cry for a good ol whoopin.'

In fact, Atkinson might even be enjoying the public flogging he is receiving right now on the blogosphere. I can just see him saying, with glee, "thank you Sir! May I have another?!"

What a strange, odd world we live in. - Stewart Rhodes

Exclusive: America’s Choice
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: May 30, 2007

FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson explains how the imposition of one civilization’s belief systems upon others has marked global conflict throughout the millennia. How is America’s current dilemma similar to that which caused the fall of Rome? Read his powerful analysis.

America’s Choice

By Philip Atkinson

In 1952 Professor Arnold Toynbee predicted that Western civilization would be attacked by barbarian war bands. His claim was based upon his observations, published in "A Study Of History," that all declining civilizations became subject to attacks by barbarian war bands, and as Western civilization was declining, it too would be attacked.

On the 11th September 2001 Toynbee was proved right as 2,752 people were killed in a deliberate suicidal attack by a barbarian war band that destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York.

What Toynbee did not explain was why a declining civilization is attacked by barbarian war bands. Toynbee did not know because he did not know what a civilization was, for this has only been revealed by the recent work "A Study Of Our Decline"[written by none other than Mr. Atkinson himself], which explains both what a civilization is, and why it is attacked when it declines.

A civilization is a community that manages to impose its beliefs upon its neighboring communities by violence. Violence is necessary because this is the only way someone can be made to act against their own beliefs; and as a community is a shared set of beliefs, the only way one community can impose its understanding on another community is by violence.

For example, some communities believe that women should hide their faces in public, whereas other communities believe women should not hide their faces in public.

Regardless of what proponents of either belief claim, there is no rational way of deciding which belief is correct; so to resolve the issue one side must give way to the other.

Forcing people to act against what they believe requires the use of violence, which of course includes not just the use, but the threat of violence. Anyone who has handed over money at gunpoint will know that threat is an act of violence; so one community can dominate others merely by threat.

This simple principle means that different communities, which harbor different sets of beliefs, are irreconcilable enemies who will attempt to dominate each other through violence. This is why the history of humanity is the history of violent struggles: war.

Ancient Rome was a graphic example of a community that managed to dominate other communities through violence and compel the widespread adoption of its beliefs. 'Pax Romana' was obtained only by the violence inflicted by the Roman Legions upon all those who resisted ancient Roman domination.

The collapse of ‘Pax Romana’ and the Roman Empire started when the ancient Romans recoiled from violence and refused to countenance the mass slaughter of their enemies. Trapped between the advance of the Huns and the river Danube, a natural boundary of the Roman Empire, the Gothic nation faced extinction. Their attempts to force entry into the empire had already been repulsed with heavy losses, so they begged for, and received, from the Emperor Valens, permission to enter the Roman world. This act of mercy, the admission of a huge number of unconquered tribes of barbarians into the precincts of the Roman empire, lead inevitably to the destruction of the empire and the fall of Rome. After the Goths crossed the river they changed from refugees to invaders, killed the Emperor and sacked the Empire.

Hence a civilization can exist only as long as it dominates by violence all other communities, and the moment a dominant community recoils from violence, its rule is challenged. That is, it becomes attacked by all the other communities, in one way or another, as they attempt to assert their beliefs upon the faltering civilization.

Technology has now sped up the nature of war. Once it required massive human effort to conquer a nation by use of arms, now it does not: it requires just resolve and an advantage in technology.

The power of modern weapons means that an unknown attacker can destroy a city in a flash, which means that an undeclared enemy can destroy a group of cities, which is a community, in a flash. Technology has not only dramatically sped up the clash of communities, but it has introduced uncertainty as to the identity of the aggressor.

Now to wage war successfully a community must be ruthless, merciless, resolute and unhesitating: the moment it believes it can smite its enemies is the moment it must act. Otherwise, it will only discover that its enemies have acted when its own cities are incinerated.

Israel, an American ally, has been warned that it will be wiped off the face of the earth by its Iranian neighbor. This means that unless Israel razes Iran, Iran will make good its threat. The choice now facing Israel is the choice now facing all nuclear armed communities: inflict genocide or commit suicide.

American military efforts are now undermined by the timidity of the American nation for Americans fear to employ modern weapons. When General Douglas MacArthur made it clear that victory in Korea could be obtained only by using nuclear weapons, he was hastily removed from command: but he was right. The Korean War was not won, but concluded by a truce that has allowed the enemies of America to improve their weapons and become a much more dangerous threat to the USA than they were in 1953.

There was no need for the Americans to repel with tanks and troops the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; the Iraqis could have been compelled to withdraw merely by the use, or threat, of a few nuclear missiles.

There is no need for the current (2007) presence of American troops in Iraq. By judicious use of nuclear weapons, either the Iraqis would all be dead, or the survivors would be obedient to American demands.

The once all-powerful Americans, who ruthlessly incinerated Nagasaki and Hiroshima, have declined into a people who believe nuclear war is 'unthinkable'. This is the opposite view of their enemies who publicly demonstrated their glee at the announcement of 911; imagine their joy at the news that New York had been vaporized: these people dream of wiping out America.

Americans can now easily crush their enemies, but every hour the USA does not use its present superiority in nuclear weapons to dominate other communities, is another hour given to its enemies to develop and use their nuclear weapons to eradicate the American community.

Americans have a choice: use nuclear weapons on their enemies or have their enemies use them on Americans; ruthlessly uphold 'Pax America' or blindly follow 'Pax Romana' into oblivion.

# #

# # Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at

read full author bio here

© 2003-2007 All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

On Iraq: Trust Airborne Troops or Brookings Institution Think Tank Weenies? I'll Go With the Airborne Troops, Thank You Very Much.

Who do you trust to tell the truth about Iraq, the combat veterans who have been there and done it, and speak up when they see the situation in Iraq being FUBAR'd (fucked up beyond all repair), or a couple of penny loafer wearing think tank weenies from the Brookings Institute who played tourist in Iraq?

This past Sunday, the New York Times published a scathing op-ed entitled The War As We Saw It, written by combat veterans of the 82nd Airborne, serving in Iraq right now. Their picture on the situation in Iraq was the polar opposite of a piece written last month, entitled A War We Just Might Win, by a couple of Brookings Institution "scholars," Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, who took a short, safe, guided tour of Iraq and then pronounced their optimism.

Who should we trust? For my money, I agree with Paul Rieckhoff over at I'll trust the Airborne troops, thank you very much. As Riechhoff puts it, "right now, we need their experience and opinions. These guys spent a year in Iraq, not eight days, which is why they can read between the lines on Pentagon statistics."Tucker Carlson discussed this "unusual" situation (of enlisted combat troops speaking up) with Ret. Col Jack Jacobs. Tucker doesn't like it at all, not one little bit. What a surprise. Tucker starts his broadcast by noting that "these are not retired generals, not the ones you see on television. These are active duty enlisted men."

Oh, the horrors! These aren't our black turtleneck wearing paid ex-military neocon "analysts." These are just dirty, grimy grunts who may not have even gone to college (gasp!) and certainly have not even been through the makeup department! Goodness, I need another latte! Watch Tucker get his gentrified panties all in a wad:

Tucker Carlson is "uncomfortable with it" because he thinks that enlisted combat troops speaking up, on their own initiative, somehow violates the separation between active duty troops and politics. Tucker, who never spent a second in the military, nonetheless tells us with authority that "service members kind of act out the policies of the U.S. government, right or wrong, but they don't comment upon them, because you want civilian control of the military."

Tucker Carlson is an idiot. As if a few enlisted men speaking out, rather than just being good, silent cannon fodder while the brass smiles and tells us all is well, is somehow an attempt by the military to subvert civilian control. Funny how Tucker has no problem with paid, sell-out retired generals and colonels, like his guest, chiming in. And I'll bet he wouldn't even bat a well manicured eyelash at currently serving generals going on TV, so long as they loyally parroted the Commander-in-Chief's talking points (which they always do) . But Tucker thinks the sky is falling when mere enlisted men speak up.

Tucker also tells us that like most Americans he respects the military but he thinks the troops daring to speak out "squanders the awesome moral authority that these guys [combat vets] already have." But what is the point in those combat vets having that awesome moral authority if they are expected to keep their mouths shut? Moral authority to do what? Look good in pictures? Look good standing around the President during some photo op? Moral authority to support the President in whatever hair-brained military adventure He Decides to embark on -such as war with Iran?

No, the troops have an obligation to use their moral authority and their boots-on-the ground knowledge by speaking up when they see the situation in Iraq being royally FUBAR'd. The courageous action of these troops in speaking out is an act of patriotism and a credit to the spirit and resolve of the Airborne. It is precisely because they are combat vets, who have earned our trust and respect, that they should speak up and we should listen.Perhaps I am biased, since I also served as an Airborne grunt, but I am not at all surprised that it was a group of enlisted Airborne troops who had the gumption to buck the sell-out, ass kissing brass and go against the grain of the official propoganda party line scripted in the White House and parroted by all the medal and star seeking toadies down the chain of command.

Airborne troopers are renowned for thinking outside the box and acting on their own initiative. It is what we are trained to do in combat, where we can expect to often times have no contact with the chain of command, in the midst of chaos, often behind enemy lines, surrounded by foes, in a fast moving, ever fluid combat environment. You can't train men for that without them being in the habit of thinking for themselves. And so, the military brass, and the "commander in chief" are now embarrassed because these troops display the initiative that is the hallmark of the infantryman, who's motto is "follow me!" (to which the 82nd adds "All the Way").

We NEED to hear from the troops with their boots on the ground, where all the theories and grand strategies of the martini sipping think tank chickenhawk wonks go to hell in short fucking order when RPG's start wooshing in. For far too long the information from the battlefield has been constrained and controlled by those who think themselves our betters, but wouldn't last ten seconds in a firefight.Here is some of what these Airborne troopers had to say about Iraq:
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day .... The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
As if speaking directly to all the weenie think tank guys who go on controlled, sanitized little tours of Iraq, the troopers tell us:
The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
The troopers concluded by saying:

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

Of course, Tucker Carlson's paid talking head of an ex-military officer, Col Jack Jacobs, thinks the troopers are unqualified to make the assessment that we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. But I'll take the word of the troopers who have been there, among the Iraqi people, and have looked into their eyes. Who do you trust? -Stewart Rhodes

Clergy Response Teams: "Resistance is Not Just Futile, It Goes Against God's Word! Resistance to Tyranny, BAD! Martial Law GOOD! ... Obey My Dog!"

Apparently the influence of the insidious neocon government supremacist siths and wormtongue necromancers has not just corrupted the GOP by twisting and perverting the meaning of the Constitution, they are now, through FEMA, also corrupting the clergy in this nation, and their flocks, by twisting and perverting the text of the Bible to make it God's will that we unquestioningly obey government. If you have not yet watched this video, it is a must see:

You can read the text of the story here. This mainstream news report describes how FEMA is recruiting pastors all across the nation to join "Clergy Response Teams" to assist in quelling any resistance to the government during an emergency, such as a declaration of martial law, and to preach obedience when the government seeks to confiscate firearms from the people, as was done during Katrina.

FEMA has tasked these pastors with convincing their flocks that the
y must obey the government, because the government comes from God himself. As the pastor interviewed in the video. Dr. Tuberville, puts it we MUST obey the government "because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And that's what we believe in the Christian faith, that's what's stated in the scripture." He is referring to Romans 13, which is the principle tool of persuasion the federal government is urging these pastors to use.

Gee wiz, and I thought it was we the people who establish government. Doesn't our Declaration of Independence declare that:
".... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
While our rights come from nature and nature's God, we establish government amongst ourselves.

Now, I am no theologian, and I'll leave it to others to refute this draconian reading of Romans 13 as commanding that we must submit to and obey the government, but I seem to recall the Bible teaching that Satan, out in the desert, tempted Christ in part by offering him command of all the governments of the earth - so it would seem that if any supernatural force is establishing governments, it is the Devil, not God (and that would make a whole lot more sense, given the horrid history of governments, which behave rather devilishly).

But really, what clues me in that this is a perversion of scripture is that under this view it was "wrong" for the Founding Fathers to resist the King of England. Under this perversion, the entire American Revolution was somehow an affront to God, since we flat out kicked ass on a government "established by the Lord," not just dumping its tea into Boston harbor, but also shooting the holy crap out of the King's troops and his Hessian mercenaries in a bloody revolution, replacing that usurping and corrupt government with one of our own choosing.I wonder what fiery American Revolutionary Patrick Henry, a devout Christian, would have to say to this "pastor" preaching unqualified obedience to whatever government happens to be over us? I'll bet Henry would have some choice words for Pastor Tuberville, starting with "forbid it almighty God!" and getting far more colorful from there.

Under this sick, servile reading of scripture, not only should we still be part of the British Empire, but it was also wrong for anyone to resist Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or any other tyrant and murderous dictator in human history. Or did the Lord only establish the government of the United States? I'd be curious to see if this pastor would still preach absolute obedience to government if Hillary Clinton were president.

This just goes to show that any text, whether it is the Constitution or the Bible, can be twisted and perverted into a tool of tyranny and oppression, and "useful idiots" are easy to find in a population ignorant of its own history. When the sacred fire of liberty goes out in the hearts of men, no text is immune to such bastardization. As Justice Learned Hand once said:
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."
Have we as a people finally come to this? Have we become so ignorant of our place in the eternal struggle for liberty that fools like these pastors are considered "leaders" in their communities? That such men actually command an audience on Sundays, who look to them for guidance?

All I have to say to men like Pastor Tuberville is what Sam Adams said to the quislings and toadies of tyrannical government of his day:
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Thomas Jefferson once famously remarked that:
“The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
I would only add to that list the blood of useful idiots, and I fully expect that if these Clergy Response Teams actually go out after a declaration of martial law, whether by a president Bush or a future President Clinton, and attempt to assist in the disarmament of the American people, their bullshit will be added to the pile of manure refreshing the Tree of Liberty. - Stewart Rhodes

PS- If you don't "get" the Zoolander references, please see the comments, below, where I patiently explain them. It's all about brainwashing us, OK? Just like Mugatu was ordered by the secret cabal in the movie to do to Zoolander. Doesn't anybody see that? God, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! If you have not seen Zoolander, you're missing out.

(Her name is Yeti, by the way, because she is a white big foot of a dog).

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Neocon Think Tank Calls for Enslaving or Killing All Mexican Immigrants and Invading Mexico. Philip Atkinson & Family Security Matters at it Again!

"The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans" - Philip Atkinson, Neocon Wacko, May 11, 2007.
It really should come as no surprise that Philip Atkinson, the neocrazy who urged Bush to kill all of the Iraqis and colonize Iraq with Americans, and then set up a dictatorship in the U.S., also wrote, in an earlier, May 11, 2007, article that the U.S. government should enslave or kill all illegal Mexican immigrants and invade and colonize Mexico as well. This earlier, but equally crazy article is entitled The Barbarians are Coming: How Our Decaying Civilization Will End, Too Enfeebled to Resist Invasion.

As with Atkinson's August 2, 2007 paean to an American Dictatorship, this article offering Atkinson's "final solution" to the "Mexican question" has also disappeared from the Family Security Matters website. I found a Google Cache page of the article, but since Google Cache pages don't last forever, I have copied and pasted it in its entirety below.

Atkinson is steadfastly consistent in his mad advocacy of mass killings, genocide, enslavement, dictatorship and empire. Still, I have to wonder why Mr. Atkinson, in contrast to his categorical call for genocide of all Iraqis - man, woman and child - at least contemplates enslaving Mexicans as an alternative to just executing them.

Perhaps he is thinking that Mexicans are rather useful laborers, after-all, and besides, as the history of American slavery of blacks shows, there can be "special perks" that come to an aging gentleman slave owner which he would not otherwise enjoy.
["Juanita, since you were such a good girl and cleaned the toilets so well, I'm going to reward you with a little break from your duties. While I go out shopping, Philip is going to show you his box of "special" toys! Isn't that nice? Now be a good girl and go change into the pretty little maid outfit I laid out for you in your quarters."]
Ah yes, it is good to be the slave-master, isn't it Philip!

With this equally nutty article, we see yet another reason why Family Security Matters (which is a front organization for the neocon Center for Security Policy) has now "disappeared" one of its own "contributing editors" from its website. Once Atkinson's nutty modest proposal regarding Iraq became more widely known, and condemned, Family Security Matters (FSM) must have decided to disown all of his prior writings.

But note that the "kill or enslave all the illegals and invade Mexico" article was published on the Family Security Matters website on May 11, 2007, over three months ago.

Despite my suspicions that FSM really did not have a problem with Atkinson's August 2, 2007 Iraq genocide/American Ceasar article (until it brought such negative attention), I was willing to give FSM the benefit of the doubt and at least leave open the possibility that Atkinson had suddenly gone nuts and his nutty Iraq article had slipped through the cracks.

But now we see that he was just as nutty back in May, and FSM continued to publish his articles. Evidently, FSM did not find his views all that reprehensible. The introduction to the article advocating slavery or mass murder of Mexican immigrants and invasion of Mexico describes it thusly: "
FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson offers a realistic view of our precarious predicament."

A "realistic view"? While one article can be explained away, it
is highly unlikely that a website would publish a string of articles making essentially the same argument unless it was in general agreement. For example, I think it is safe to say that any article submitted to Family Security Matters that called for an end to the occupation of Iraq, for impeachment of Bush and Cheney, or for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act or Military Commissions Act, would have a snow-ball's chance in hell of being published on that website. In contrast, articles that promote the neocon ideals of an "aggressive" foreign policy and the concept of total war, requiring extraordinary emergency security measures both at home and abroad, would likely be accepted.

Yes, the wacko Atkinson finally went too far even for the neocons at Family Security Matters, and all of his articles have been pulled, but it is telling that even after his May 11, 2007 call for enslavement or execution of illegals and the invasion of Mexico, that article was not disavowed or pulled, and he went on to write several others, such as his May 30, 2007 piece entitled America's Choice where he advocated mass genocide by nuclear weapons against any competing culture. This man has consistently advanced, over a string of articles published by FSM, his advocacy of the use of mass genocide and enslaving empire as a necessary policy tool for nearly everything that ails us.

I suspect that Mr. Atkinson did not really exceed Family Security Matters philosophical, ethical, or policy outer limits, but simply became a public relations liability in the past week. Note that FSM has yet to publish a retraction or condemnation of any of Atkinson's wacko views, but is instead using the rather Orwellian tactic of simply making it all disappear from its website, as if it never happened.

I suppose we could still try to give FSM the benefit of a doubt, and presume that, while its board members were apparently fine with calls for the enslavement, genocide, and imposition of dictatorship over swarthy Mexicans and Arabs, they finally balked at Atkinson's call to do the same to white Americans (how reasonable of them). But given this man's consistency in his worship of the path of Roman Empire, with its string of genocide, military coups, and all powerful emperors, I really don't think FSM deserves that benefit.

I suspect that, like other Neocons who worship war, autocratic rule, and empire, these people are in agreement with Atkinson in desiring to follow the example of Rome to the very hilt of the bloody
gladius. They just don't want the rest of us to be overtly aware of their deepest desires and ultimate goal. Instead, they want us to think they are simply good Americans concerned about "security."

Atkinson tells us that "the
simple truth that different cultures are irreconcilable, and that one must dominate the others, means that the now impotent cultures of Western Civilization will be overrun." That sentiment is entirely consistent with the general neocon world-view that we are either the conquerors or the conquered, and our only path to "peace" is through a bloody military empire, and thus we must transform our Republic into an Empire just as ancient Rome did.

If Atkinson went too far, it was simply in taking off his mask too much and publicly voicing their shared desires for the precise opposite of the Constitutional Republic of limited and divided powers, under the consent of the people, that the Founders gave us.

Members of the Neoconservative cabal are mortal enemies of our Republic, just as much as members of the Communist Party were during the Cold War. Neoconservatives are neither conservative, nor anything new. They are but the current manifestation of the totalitarian, statist mentality that has always plagued mankind.

Neoconservatives are government supremacist wormtongues and Sith, cloaking themselves in the trappings of conservatives, mouthing loyalty to the Constitution which they really hold in contempt as they do all they can to subvert it and twist it into their desired image - the image of the Roman Empire and its despotic Emperors.

Back in 2003 Congressman Ron Paul
warned us of the true nature of "neoconservatives." Heed his warnings, and act accordingly. - Stewart Rhodes

Exclusive: How Our Decaying Civilization Will End, Too Enfeebled to Resist Invasion
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: May 11, 2007

The appearance of “terrorists” is in fact an unpleasant confirmation of Professor Arnold Toynbee’s 1952 prediction that barbarian war bands would attack our declining civilization. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson offers a realistic view of our precarious predicament.

The Barbarians are Coming:

How Our Decaying Civilization Will End, Too Enfeebled to Resist Invasion

By Philip Atkinson

The Roman Wall

I was born in England, in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne which is proud of its long history, which can easily be traced back to the period of ancient Rome’s occupation of Britain. There are many vestiges of the occupation but the most famous remains are those of Hadrian’s Wall. This was a stone wall extending from the east coast to the west coast of England, built to protect the Roman occupied country south of the wall from raids by northern barbarians, or so I was taught. I have never questioned this explanation until recent events have caused me to consider another purpose for Hadrian’s Wall.

Barrier Only To Unarmed Invaders

The Roman wall would never have stopped an attacking army, unless it was manned along its whole length. But to garrison the wall in such a fashion would be to undermine the ability of the Roman army to confront a barbarian host, who would invariably outnumber them. Dispersing its soldiers along an 80-mile front could not, and was not meant to, repel a mass attack, but to overcome a problem identical to that which Western Civilization is now facing. It was erected to stop the steady stream of migrants from the barbarian-ruled areas entering the Roman Empire. And this was done because, even though the barbarians entered the Empire peacefully, they did not come to help the Roman Empire, but to exploit it. They did not want to become citizens of Rome, but to retain their own culture within the Roman community, which made them a liability to the Roman Empire.

Declining Culture Vulnerable To Parasites

The impact of the intrusion of an alien culture upon a failing culture is similar to a parasitic attack suffered by any failing creature. Though the citizens of a declining community are slowly losing their attachments to their own community, they still feel some sense of obligation towards it. It is their community, full of their own kind, which is their tribe, so regardless of their growing indifference to their society’s tradition, they still feel a concern for its welfare. Whereas migrants from alien cultures have no such concerns; they are among strangers with a different culture. These invaders have not come to improve their host’s society, but their own, at the expense of their host. Hence such invading minority communities are parasites upon their host community.

Parasitic Nature Of Invaders Initially Masked

Initially, while the invaders are present only in small numbers, they will treat their host with care and respect. The contempt they must feel about their host’s culture will be dissembled, along with their intention to exploit the wealth of their host while avoiding any demands the host may place upon them. They will naturally subscribe to those laws of the host that carry the real threat of penalty or offer profit, but only because of convenience, and not for respect for the notions underpinning those laws; while all other laws of the host community will be silently treated with contempt except in those rare instances where they match their own culture.

Incompatible Nature Of Invaders Will Eventually Be Revealed

As the invaders numbers grow so will their confidence and their own culture will start to assert itself publicly. The invaders’ general contempt for the culture of their host will become evident and will generate resentment between the different cultures, but while this may fester and flare from time to time, the host will confirm the decaying nature of its own culture by being unable to take effective action against the invaders.

A Modern Wave Of Unarmed Invaders

In the last few decades those countries considered part of Western Civilization have become subject to an unarmed invasion by other races and cultures. The wealth and safety currently enjoyed by England, France, Germany, USA, etc., have made them desirable places to live for the poor and frightened of other countries, such as India, Pakistan, Mexico and others. While this has been true for a long time, the barriers that previously prevented the citizens of poor countries from migrating to the wealthier countries have been removed. The previous firm resistance by the citizens of the wealthier countries has been undermined by deterioration in the character of their citizens.

Invasion Flows From Vigorous To Feeble

Once the citizens of Western Civilization were determined as well as able. Therefore, they dominated the countries occupied by weaker cultures. These subject countries became colonized— they were forced to adopt the language and culture of Western Civilization— and the superior understanding of Western civilization was promoted throughout the world, along with its peace and wealth. However as the citizens of Western Civilization became selfish, they lost their resolve, so the control exercised by Western communities declined. This allowed the colonies to recover their independence and re-assert their own culture, which inevitably obtained the poverty and misrule, which had existed before colonialism. As Western Civilization has abdicated its rule over its colonies, wealth and peace have given way to poverty and anarchy. The example of the social collapse of South Africa has been repeated all over Africa. For many citizens of these colonies, modest means enjoyed in peace have been replaced by a perilous poverty, and the only escape from this misery is to go to where wealth and peace still exist, the home countries of their erstwhile colonial rulers. The tide of influence has reversed. It is no longer flowing from, but to, Western Civilization; and instead of peace and wealth, it is poverty and anarchy that are now being spread.

Invasion Is Colonization

The result of this migration is inevitable. The invaders take over their new homeland by sheer weight of numbers. The original manners, customs and beliefs of the destination country are slowly replaced by those of their invaders. This can be easily seen in the USA where the actual border with Mexico is slowly moving further north every year. The culture of the white Americans is being displaced by their mainly Hispanic invaders; peace and wealth created by the white American culture are being replaced by poverty and crime brought by the invaders. This represents a take-over made obvious by the replacement of the use of the English language with Spanish. Miami is now a Spanish-speaking city even though it is technically in America -- an English-speaking country.

Hadrian’s Wall in America

The Americans have naturally tried to halt this invasion but their efforts are weak and ineffectual. The easiest way into America is by walking from Mexico, where a patrolled fence has been erected as a barrier (like Hadrian’s wall). Those Mexicans who are detected crossing the barrier are merely returned to Mexico to try again. Those who cross undetected are still subject to discovery but this is an unlikely fate, and the penalty is just a return to Mexico to try again. In many cases, the enforced return can be avoided by manipulation of the law.

Mexico now colonizing the USA

Mexico is now colonizing America and imposing its language and culture on it. Though the Americans still have the strength of understanding to recognize that the Hispanic invasion should be stopped, they are unable to take the measures required to achieve this end. The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans. But the citizens of the USA recoil from such ruthless violence embracing delusion instead. They pretend that their futile defense is not folly, ignore the slow but inevitable takeover of their country and persecute anyone who tries to dispel their illusions. America has lost its ability to defend itself and must eventually be overrun by people from other cultures.

Example Of American Failure Repeated

The example of the failure of the Americans to defend themselves is being repeated by every Western country. Sharing the same lack of ruthlessness required to repel their invaders these countries now find themselves no longer a single community but a group of different communities of varying races and cultures. Even Australia, which is isolated by vast areas of ocean, is being subject to invasion, and while no single Australian city has yet been taken over, there are now parts of these cities that mimic the original homes of their invaders.

This same failure of the Western countries to defend themselves reveals how the powerful understanding once created by Western Civilization has already dissolved. The two awful signs of impending communal death -- the extinction of genius and the loss of the military spirit -- are there for all to see. The mainly selfish citizens that now comprise Western Civilization may still possess the technology discovered by genius, but they no longer have the wit or the resolution to employ it.

Colonize Or Be Colonized

The simple truth that different cultures are irreconcilable, and that one must dominate the others, means that the now impotent cultures of Western Civilization will be overrun. How a particular culture dominates, or attempts to dominate, other cultures, naturally reflects the character of that culture. The fact that the Americans refrain from killing their enemies does not mean that their enemies will refrain from killing them, as America was recently reminded. On September 11, 2001, around 3,000 people were murdered in a barbarian raid upon the USA, when the fanatical followers of an Islamic sect deliberately crashed hi-jacked passenger planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The Barbarians Are Coming—With A New Dark Age

The World Trade Center attack is confirmation of Arnold Toynbee’s claim that the decline of a civilization means the appearance of Barbarian war-bands. And it is clear that, in one way or another, it is only a matter of time before the increasing senility of the countries that make up the Western world, will see them succumb to invaders. The result will be the final extinction of Western Civilization, along with its wealth and power, and a return to the Dark Ages: a time when there is no human community anywhere that is sane.

# # Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at

© 2003-2007 All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Neocon "Philosopher" Urges Bush to Declare Himself "President-for-Life" by Emulating Julius Caesar With A Military Coup d'├ętat

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, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons. - Philip Atkinson, neo-crazy author.
UPDATE: This is not the first time this same author has advocated genocide and enslavement of a foreign population. Back in May, in another article published on the Family Security Matters site, Atkinson advocated the enslavement or execution of all illegal aliens and the invasion and subjugation of Mexico. Hit that hyperlink above to read the full story, which I have likewise preserved.

So, I think it safe to say that this article advocating extermination of Iraqis and an American dictatorship was not some mistake that simply slipped through the cracks, but was perfectly A-O.K. with the neocons at FSM until they started catching flack for it from bloggers on the broader internet. -Stewart Rhodes

NOTE: I know it sounds like something written up by The Onion, but this neo-crazy
Philip Atkinson, Contributing Editor of Family Security Matters, published by The Family Security Foundation, Inc., actually thinks it is time to just scrap the Constitution, scrap elections, scrap the other branches of government entirely, and scrap any remaining restrictions on presidential power and have Bush, with the backing of the military, just declare himself El Presidente Bussshhh for life. Really. This guy is serious.

Well, at least he is honest. As I have written about before, other neo-crazy government supremacists try to "re-interpret" the Constitution to give the president absolute power, as if the Founding Generation, in all the debates about the proposed Constitution, somehow missed Article II granting totalitarian war powers to the executive branch. This guy at least comes out and admits that his brave new fascist world has nothing whatsoever to do with the Republic the men of April 19, 1775 founded when they stood their ground against tyranny.

This article first appeared on the Family Security Foundation, Inc. website, but has since been pulled. You can read the google cache page of the article here.

Since Digg will not let me submit the article in cache format, I have pasted it below, to preserve it and make it available for Digg readers to read in its entirety. Freako Phillip Atkinson can sue me if he doesn't like it. Fucking traitorous fascist pig. I consider him a mortal enemy of the Constitutional Republic I swore an oath to defend as a soldier, and I will treat him accordingly.

- Stewart Rhodes

PS - I'm not sure this guy even knows the difference between Julius Caesar, who was assassinated by Roman Senators in 44 B.C. , and his nephew, Augustus Caesar (
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus).

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

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. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

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 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, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

# # Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at