Topic: Secession
Is America FUBAR? Currently there are two Americas separated by irreconcilable differences. A divorce is in order.by Servando Gonzalez
(libertarian)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
FUBAR: Vietnam era Army slang acronym for "F****d Up Beyond All Repair."
Out of these troubled times, our objective -- a New World Order -- can emergeToday, that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known
--President George H.W. Bush, September 11, 1990
In a college textbook published in 1984, American Government: The Rules of the Game, professor David Schuman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, wrote that, despite superficial differences, Americans of both main political parties were ideologically very similar. According to Schuman,
In the final analysis, like it or not, people who live in the united States have a great deal in common: we speak the same language, watch the same television, wear the same kinds of clothes. Even given the regional differences, we are culturally a lot alike.
In the classic sense, politically we are all liberals.* No matter which party you like, it is a pretty good guess that you believe in individualism, private property, capitalism, competition, limited government, free speech, and the like. On a different scale, we believe in democracy, the Constitution, the rule of law, and most of the First Amendment freedoms.
* Classical liberalism, the political philosophy that seeks to promote individual liberty and progress, traces its origins to the writings of John Locke.
I have no doubt that when professor Schuman wrote his observations, they were a quite accurate description of American society at the time. But today, just a quarter of a century after, though it is obvious that the two main political parties are more similar than never before, Americans cannot be more different. Lets take a closer look at it.
A Fractured America
According to Professor Schuman, in 1984,
1. Americans, " speak the same language"
But in 2009 Americans no longer speak the same language, and they don't want to. In cities like Los Angeles, San Jose, and Miami, and in most of urban California, the predominant language is rapidly becoming Spanish. In some other cities, Chinese is becoming another dominant language. A large segment of the residents of Oakland, California, speak an almost unintelligible native dialect called "ebonics." The fact that even some government forms are printed in several languages indicate that Americans don't speak the same language anymore.
On the other hand, the fact that Americans don't speak the same language is not as divisive as the "English only" crowd believe. Switzerland has four different official languages, and the country has not lost its identity. But multilingualism in America is actually the manifestation of deeper underlying divisions.
2. Americans, "watch the same television"
Americans don't watch the same tv programs, nor read the same newspapers and magazines. Following the growing foreign language audience, tv channels in foreign languages, on the air and on the Web, have proliferated. Most Latin Americans in the US watch their soap operas in Spanish and are Soccer fans. Chinese films and soap operas are watched on Chinese channels. In the last decade, the vertiginous increase of Internet users has contributed to this informational fragmentation -- a fact which I think is more positive than negative.
3. Americans, "wear the same kinds of clothes"
Just a short stroll on San Francisco's streets show that we don't use the same clothes any more. The difference in the clothes we use is so different that some Americans could well be Martians, and nobody seems to care. Not only the clothes favored by young blacks and Hispanics are diametrically different from the ones sported by young Anglos, but we now see more people wearing clothing favored in the middle east countries. In the San Francisco Bay Area, it is not uncommon to see people sporting African-style clothes.
4. "Even given regional differences, we are culturally a lot alike"
Actually, we cannot be culturally more different. Southern Florida, Central California, Northern Arkansas, Southern Alabama and Northern Louisiana, just to mention the areas in which I have lived for some time, are so different culturally that it makes you think you are in different countries.
6. Americans, "believe in individualism, private property, capitalism, competition, limited government, free speech, and the like. On a different scale, we believe in democracy, the Constitution, the rule of law, and most of the First Amendment freedoms."
Today, most Americans do not believe in individualism any more. Out of envy or ideology, most Americans have lost respect for other people's private property, capitalism has become a four letter word, big corporations aim at destroying competition, limited government is only given lip service by so called "conservatives", and free speech is admitted by so called "progressive liberals" only when it does not oppose their ideas.
America is a country where the moral norms of civil society are systematically subverted; a country where, under the pretext of a fight against terrorism, citizens' rights guaranteed by the Constitution are disappearing at a fast rate.
Currently, most Americans have a low opinion of democracy, don't know and don't care about the Constitution, think that the rule of law is a bad joke, and have shown that they can willingly renounce to their First Amendment freedoms protected by the Constitution in exchange for promised security or government handouts.
The traditional interpretation of the U.S. Constitution was that maximum power resided on the people, not on the State, much less in the Federal government. Today's interpretation seems totally the opposite. A large segment of the American people apparently believe that it is okay if all powers reside in the Federal government, and that it is fully justified if the president takes any action whatsoever without consulting with the people.
Currently, the most divisive issue separating the American people into two factions is their view of the 9/11 events. While 35 percent of Americans have accepted the official explanation offered by the government, the other 65 percent is firmly convinced that either the U.S. Government allowed the 9/11 events to happen, or the attacks were an inside job planned and carried out by people at the highest levels of the U.S. Government.
These two interpretations are so diametrically opposed that they cannot coexist. Disregarding of who is right or wrong about the interpretation of the 9/11 events, the sole fact more than half of Americans believe that its own government conspired to allow the murder of 3,000 of its citizens, indicates the existence of a chasm dividing this nation.
Another issues violently dividing Americans are evolution, global warming, gay marriage, illegal immigration, socialized medicine, widespread pornography, abortion, and the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to mention a few.
The unavoidable fact is that we are living in a widely fractured America. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing, the middle class is in remission, ethnic and racial hatred is on the rise, and the ethics of the land is not Judeo-Christian anymore, but the intellectually dishonest situational ethics of political correctness.
A cursory look at America today shows that this country has shifted from a predominantly Christian worldview (even if not all Americans considered themselves Christians) toward a totally different one. Currently, the predominant worldview in America is one based on a materialistic, humanistic religious worldview. Cardinal in the change of this worldview is the role played by the Supreme Court and other lesser courts in debasing the Constitution.
The term humanism is intentionally misleading. Though the term "humanism" evokes the idea of humanitarianism, that is, being kind and helpful to people, and treating them humanly, it has nothing to do with it. Nor it has anything to do with the Humanities; the study of art, music, literature, and other fields of human culture. Actually, Humanism is a new godless religion that places Man at the center of everything and makes it the measure of all things.
These two worldviews are so antithetically different that they cannot coexist; at least not for a long time. Eventually one of them will eliminate the other. The fact that despite its dogmatism the Christian worldview has proved to be more tolerant of other worldviews than the materialistic, humanistic one, indicates that days of Christianity in the present Disunited States of America are numbered.
The Covert American Revolution
Normally, peoples and governments do not change their direction or policies drastically, or rapidly, or easily. Actually, when such drastic changes in a society occur in a short time, we call them "revolutionary."
Though the changes I mentioned above began sometime after WWII, they began evidencing to keen observers in the late seventies. Today, it has become obvious for anyone with eyes to see that 2009 America has not much to do with the America of the 1950s. Robert Bork expressed it clearly on the title of his book, A Country I Don't Recognize. How come this country has changed so much in such a short period of time? Even more important, how come only a few Americans noticed this social phenomenon of radical transformation two or three decades ago?
Only a revolution can produce such drastic changes in a country in such a short time. Therefore, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that this country has experienced a revolutionary change. But revolutions don't happen by chance. They are the direct result of the actions of professional revolutionaries who conspire in the shadows to overthrow the established system of society and replace it with a different one. But there was no revolution in the U.S. in the past 50 years -- at least not an overt one. May it be that America has experienced a subtle, covert revolution?
In fact, it has.
The new American revolution, contrary to the violent revolution advised by Marx and Lenin, has been a disguised, covert one. The new American revolution has not used (at least, not yet) guns and cannons to enforce its rule, but stealth, cunning, deception, psychological warfare and lies. Though the ideology of the new American revolutionaries who conspire to impose it upon the rest of us is a mixture of fascism and communism, which they euphemistically call the New World Order, the techniques they are using to implement it have been copied from the British Fabians and Antonio Gramsci.
The British Fabians were advocates of Communism as conceived by Karl Marx, but, contrary to Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and other communist ideologues, they believed that the right way to do it was by infiltration, capturing the existing institutions from inside, and putting them to work for their goals. No wonder the symbol of the Fabians is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian communist who lived in the early 20th century. After visiting the Soviet Union, he realized that the best way to implement Communism was not by coercion or brute force, but by influencing the domain of ideas. He called his system "cultural hegemony". The main tools to change the prevailing ideas was by infiltrating the mainstream media and the schools, in a way that is now known as the "culture wars."
The Conspirators Behind this Covert American Revolution
As I mentioned above, the drastic changes experienced in America in such a short time cannot be the product of evolutionary change but of intelligent design. Therefore, who are the revolutionaries secretly pushing behind the curtains this covert revolution down our throats?
They are not the typical communist or anarchist revolutionaries, dirty poor and angry against a society that has denied them everything. No. Actually they are the most successful members of the society they hate. They are the super rich. They are none other than the ones pushing the so called New World Order. They are the ones who, after creating an unequal world economic order, are now hypocritical pushing fora new, more equal world economic order.
Translated into plain English, the New World Order conspirators' alleged goal of creating "a new, more equal world economic order", actually means equality in poverty for the masses and unlimited richness and power for the dominant elite. The NWO is a new form of slavery in the form of a neo-medieval state composed of dirty-poor serfs exploited by a small group of rich, all powerful masters.
Who are these NWO conspirators?
They are mostly Wall Street bankers, oil magnates, CEOs of transnational corporations, and senior members of the military-industrial-academic complex. Even though they come in all sizes and colors, there is a link that unites them as a whole: most of them are members of the Council on Foreign Relations or some of its parasite organizations, the Trilateral Commission, the United Nations Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, just to mention a few.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a globalist organization founded in 1921 with headquarters at the Harold Pratt House in Manhattan. Currently several sub-Councils have been created in main American cities, all of them loosely linked to the original one. Since its creation, it secret goal has been the elimination of national sovereignty, and the creation of a global government under their control. In 1975, Adm. Chester Ward, a former CFR member who broke with the organization, wrote that the CFR stated goal is "submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful, one-world government." Furthermore, wrote the admiral, "this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the memberships."
Like the Wizard of Oz, the Council on Foreign Relations remained in the shadows for decades after its inception. This little-known, elitist organization has had among its members during the last 50 years at least 10 percent of senior government officials in active public service, during both Republican and Democrat administrations.
Surprisingly, and despite the fact that CFR members permeate the mainstream press, most Americans ignore the existence of this powerful organization. This invisibility, however, is not the product of chance, but of design. During one of the secret conciliabula of the Bilderbergers -- an international organization of globalist conspirators closely linked to the CFR -- in Baden-Baden, Germany, 1991, David Rockefeller, chairman of the CFR from 1970-1985, thanked his friends in the press for keeping the CFR out of the American eye,
"We're grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government."
But not all Americans have played the conspirators' game.
"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
-- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976.
You don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to reach the conclusion that an internationalist organization, whose goal is the elimination of the U.S. national sovereignty as a first step to create a one-world government, has infiltrated and is now in control of the U.S. government.
As an American, you should be concerned after knowing that the CFR, an organization whose members have not been elected by the American people, has successfully penetrated the three branches of the American government, particularly the executive branch. The CFR penetrated since its creation the U.S. diplomatic corps and its intelligence services. It is now in an accelerated process of penetrating the U.S. armed forces.
During the administration of George H.W. Bush, most Cabinet members were also CFR members. You should be even more concerned after knowing that the number of CFR members in the Clinton and the George W. Bush administration was even higher. In these three administrations, most members of the powerful National Security Council have been also CFR members. It seems, however, that the number of CFR members in the Obama administration will break all the previous records.
Given the fact that, like horse whisperers, members of the Cabinet and the NSC are the ones who tell American presidents what to do, it happens that the list of the people who have had a cardinal role in the revolutionary changes I mentioned at the beginning of this article, read like a membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations. This cannot be the product of a coincidence.
Actually, I have found out that behind every act of treason to the American people, and to the peoples of the world, you will find, hiding in the shadows, one or more members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
A New America?
Currently, there two different Americas in the U.S. territory. These two Americas are separated by irreconcilable differences, and the present United States of America is FUBAR. Probably we have waited too long, but now there is no way to legally and peacefully mend, fix or save this country, because the ones whose goal is the destruction of America do not play by the rules.
Everything indicates that there is no solution to the present social and economic crisis unless we the people liberate ourselves from the control of this corrupt government in the hands of the CFR conspirators. One possible solution would be to get rid of this government (and I use the word "government", not "administration", because the present administration is not different from the past ones), but this is not an easy task. Another solution would be to escape from it before it destroys us. Actually, given the present state of things, it seems that a divorce is in order.
Probably the less painful solution to the present problem would be for a group of states to peacefully separate from the current Union and create a different union of free sates. Now, the fact that Mr. Obama suddenly discovered his love for Dishonest Abe, the first American president who systematically began the process of trashing the Constitution, is highly disturbing, to say the least. It may be a sign, however, that the conspirators suspect and fear that we the people may choose that solution.
There is a problem with the secessionist solution, though.
Contrary to what the mainstream media pumps into our brains every day, George W. and G.H. Bush are anti-Christian, pro-gay, pro-abortion, and for gun control. Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as Barack Obama, are pro-war, pro-big business, and racists. They love each other, all of them are secret CFR agents, and hate the traditional America where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are individual rights protected by the Constitution.
But, thanks to the concerted efforts of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Amy Goodman and Daniel Schorr, just to mention some of the most notorious disinformers of the right and the left, most Americans still see the present problem as a political one. Just a division between party lines: bad Republicans vs. good Democrats -- or the other way around, if you have been brainwashed to be on the other side of the false dichotomy.
Therefore, in order for this experiment to be successful, we need to know the true reasons why the previous one failed so miserably. If we create a new America on the false premise that the Democrats -- or the Republicans, for that matter -- are the only ones to blame for the disaster, nothing will be achieved.
But, if we are willing to eliminate in the New America the true cause of the problem, that is, the anti-American globalist conspiracy, we should seriously think of giving it a try. Then, we will wait and see in practice who was right, the globalist conspirators or the freedom-loving patriots of all sides of the political spectrum. I am sure that, very soon after, Americans will tell it in an unmistakeable way when they begin voting with their feet.
If we need to face hard times, we should do it, but in our own terms, as free men, not as slaves on terms dictated by the NWO conspirators. The ball is now in our court. Either we hit it back and refuse to become the conspirators' serfs, or lower our heads and accept the yoke. Ultimately, slavery is a state of mind.
---------------------
Servando Gonzalez is a Cuban-born American writer. He received his training as a historian at the University of Havana, and has written books, essays, articles, and multimedia on Cuban and Latin American history, intelligence and espionage, semiotics and political satire.
Servando is the author of Historia hertica de la revolucin fidelista; Fidel Castro para herejes y otros invertebrados, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: una novela de ideas subversivas. He is currently working on his second novel, Juegos mentales: una novella de guerra psicolgica, which deals with the Bogotazo riots and the true origins of the CIA.
His articles have been published in many magazines, newspapers, and Web sites in the U.S. and abroad. As a multimedia developer, Servando authored many computer programs, among them: Hypertext for Beginners, Popol Vuh: An Interactive Text/Graphics Adventure, The Riddle of the Swastika: A Study in Symbolism, and How to Create Your Own Personal Intelligence Agency. His documentary film, Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations, the first program of the TruhLies series, appeared in mid 2008. The next program, Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection will appear in early 2009.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Servando Gonzalez only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Servando Gonzalez is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-12 04:23:24
It's interesting that you note that America is culturally diverse but does not embrace individualism. In fact, individualism is all about being culturally diverse, because individualism is impossible to have in a world where people refuse to honor and embrace individual differences. Similarly, a world which refusees to embrace cultural diversity is incapable of honoring individualism.
Too often, cultural diversity is measured in terms of groups: races, religions, creeds, countries of origin, etc. It should instead be measured in terms of individuals, which is the true measure of cultural diversity.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-03-12 07:51:09
Hi Servando,
Interesting perspective. In 1984 as now one characteristic holds true that affects their view of the world. That is, people project their attitudes and perspectives onto others by default and tend to be ignorantly, but genuinely, surprised when faced with the realization that some-other-one isn't really like them at all. From Schuman's perspective, I'm sure the things he noted were all true while for others in the same time period, the contradictions you noted were also true. Simultaneously.
In my view such reasoning from snapshots is always flawed. Conclusions drawn from such snapshot reasoning are usually just simply wrong when the snapshot is removed from the strict perspective in which it was fabricated and placed onto the backdrop of the world at large. What is far more important is the trends at any given time and trends simply cannot be determined from snapshot-based reasoning and analysis. Snapshot reasoning is a tool of the enemies of liberty because they can reason any result from a starting point of their choice. Sadly, I see over and over where defenders of liberty have been duped into adopting the tactics and attitudes of the enemies of liberty. Assimilation and homogenization continue relentlessly and somehow manage to fool those who have been assimilated and homogenized into believing they are unique individuals supporting individualism.
The trend is toward political and economic homogenization across all of the pockets of "diversity" that are evident within the USA. The trend is toward ever-increasing bovine behavior and less individualism. Even amongst the supposedly most individualistic segment of our society, self-proclaimed libertarians, the tendency toward herding is overwhelming, constant and largely unnoticed. The belief that they are acting in defense of liberty and individualism is nothing more than a figment of the imagination of idealists like Walt.
I disagree entirely with Walt's assessment. I think individualism should be measured by how effectively individuals participate in activities that promote and solidify their values and principles in their local community. Tolerance, perhaps can be measured by Walt's suggestion but not diversity and not individualism.
In real-world of rampant liberalism, that permeates , surrounds and pickles the brains of even those who believe themselves to be conservative or libertarian, diversity is given lip-service as a measure of enlightenment and progress when it is actually attacked relentlessly by the homogenizing forces that influence every aspect of day-to-day life in the USA. The illusion that obvious cultural diversity represented by the facets of our society that you highlighted extends beyond the superficial into the more significant realms of politics and economics is necessary to pacify those who otherwise might resist the pervasive fog of assimilation, homogenization and other forms of institutionalized mind rot. The enemies of liberty use the illusory value of diversity to divide and conquer the proponents of diversity by encouraging them to exercise individual liberty by joining the herd of their choice.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-12 12:22:55
Jahfre: I agree that "individualism should be measured by how effectively individuals participate in activities that promote and solidify their values and principles in their local community." True cultural diversity does not dispute or conflict with that assessment.
However, I strongly disagree with your assessment that cultural diversity means focusing on tolerance. To the contrary, for me cultural diversity means that different individuals bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table, and those differences (including the cultural ones) are the source of different ideas for creation within a free society. Your desire to focus on tolerance as the main issue shows your blind spot, the same blind spot that liberals have. They also see cultural diversity as being about tolerance, but they're wrong. Cultural diversity is about having different strengths to contribute to creation.
This is not, as you suggest, a tendency toward herding. Rather, it is a tendency toward diversifying away from herd instinct. How ironic that in your desire to condemn what you refer to as "bovine behavior" you unwittingly fall into the same trap that the mainstream falls into.
True cultural diversity moves away from the "fog of assimilation" as you put it. Learn to see past your self-imposed blinders.
Christian worldview has proved to be more tolerant of other worldviews
You must have been joking when you wrote that. I'd agree the basic Christian sentiment towards others is too be tolerant if you are a fan of Jesus's teachings but like other religions it has often been corrupted by the people who use it duplicitously for self gain and gain of a church or sect or politically past and present (although less in the present).
CFR is honestly a pretty open organization in terms of access. The fact that you know their members is a sign of that. Their basically a lobbying/think tank. There are many of those who have differing viewpoints, strategy and effective influence.
America has long been a "melting pot" of cultures. Americans have locality in common and a shared sense of loyalty and basic principles or ideals (in most cases).
Before putting pen to paper, first verify that your hand is connected to your brain.
You sarcastically quote me, "Christian worldview has proved to be more tolerant of other worldviews," but immediatly add that you "agree the basic Christian sentiment towards others is too be tolerant if you are a fan of Jesus's teachings but like other religions it has often been corrupted by the people who use it duplicitously for self gain and gain of a church or sect or politically past and present (although less in the present)."
Apparently you didn't realize you were mixing different things to project your thoughs on the words I wrote. Any dictionary willt tell you that a "worldview" is not a "religion".
Now, you are the one who must have been joking when you wrote that "CFR is honestly a pretty open organization in terms of access. The fact that you know their members is a sign of that. Their basically a lobbying/think tank. There are many of those who have differing viewpoints, strategy and effective influence."
Well, everybody knows where the CIA is located and who most of his employees are. Also, any American can apply to join the CIA. But that does not mean that it is a lobbying/think thank. Actually, like the CIA, the CFR has secret members which do not appear in its membership list. And, like the CIA, the CFR meetings are secret, and we don't know what their true activieties are.
You claim that there there are many CFR members who have differing viewpoints. That is simply not true. You can prove I am wrong by telling me the name of a single CFR member who is against globalization, the New World Order, of the North American Union. Show me a singe article where a CFR member have written against the United Nations, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Internal Revenue Service or the Office of Homeland Security.
In my article I wrote that "While 35 percent of Americans have accepted the official explanation offered by the government, the other 65 percent is firmly convinced that either the U.S. Government allowed the 9/11 events to happen, or the attacks were an inside job planned and carried out by people at the highest levels of the U.S. Government." I challenge you to show me the name of a CFR member that agrees with that 65 percent of Americans.
But don't waste your time. You can find pseudo-dissent among CFR members (pro Bush vs pro Obama - pseudo conservatives vs pseudo liberals - Democrats vs Republicans), but never real dissent.
If the CFR is so open, why Nelson Rockefeller thanked the media for keeping it in the shadows? The CFR is an organization of traitors. There is nothing honest in that organization.
The U.S. government has been corrupted by CFR members who have infiltrated it and use it duplicitously for self gain. Behind every single act of treason to this country you will find, hiding in the shadows, one of more CFR members.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
, professor David Schuman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, wrote that, despite superficial differences, Americans of both main political parties were ideologically very similar. According to Schuman,