Friday, November 14, 2008

History author warns Les Etats-Unix .. something wicked this way comes




Hat tip - ATLAS, from Pat Dollard's site on a post about the Obama MANDATORY National Service meme...
Look, there's a lot which we can say is paranoid, but there is nothing wrong with relentless vigilance either.
Nothing.

I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)-the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change.

Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media-did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years-a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency-it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.



33 comments:

midnight rider said...

I left the same comment at Atlas Shrugs where I first saw this. To Whit: Maybe answers were provided where we fear to look -- Anatoliy Golitsyn. Start with the (probably inaccurate) wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn and start bouncing around from there. What he said back then is frightening in the way we now see things playing out, since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Try this article from early this year as well http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2008/0201.html

I used to think this was conspiracy theory stuff but now, looking over the last 25 years, you gotta wonder if where there's smoke there's fire. . .

By the pricking of my thumbs. . .

Anonymous said...

My ignorance of history was heinously upended soon after 9/11. Though I have not the intensive background this writer has, I have been thinking along the same lines for some time.

Where he states: Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

I suggest it is longer than 10-15 years. In 1971 the United States stopped redeeming dollars for gold, thus ending the gold-exchange standard. Could it be that once the gold-exchange standard dissolved, additional boundaries/safeguards were less effective as well - inadvertantly permitting - as he put it:
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

Which highlights a point I haven't heard or read discussed. What role did unions play in this effort to deindustrialize our nation? Negotiating improved terms for their members ultimately resulted with industry migrating to third world nations. How could that be in the union members best interest?
Unions are pro-left, a position which to me appears to contradict their constituents best interests. This reminds me of a quote I recently read . . .
Quote: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party

Recent events are coming together like a big puzzle, with only the squared edges readily apparent at first. The author recognizes the smell, taste and image of what this puzzle becomes.

He states: I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

One can only be fearful of a known danger or be concerned to varying degrees about the unknown.

Observing the puzzle pieces coming together, I agree with the writer.

Where he states, "Read your history books." - I would caution to find texts without the moral equivalence of PC/MC editing - pre-1960.

Consider me a fellow practical thinker.

Thank you for posting this essay. It dovetails nicely with a film that was recommended on JW this am.
The World Without US (available online via Amazon Unbox) which discusses the risks of US withdrawal as global guardian.

Pastorius said...

He expresses my most paranoid thoughts perfectly.

One thing that sticks with me, and I can't figure out how to think of this as being anything other than legitimately paranoid, is what the hell does Obama plan to do with this

"Civilian Defense Force which is just as well-funded as the American military," which he says we need to "achieve national security objectives."

Rahm Emanuel tells us "it will be a common experience" and "that's all you need to think about."

And, they plan to start people in this Defense Force at the age of 13 in Junior High.

How can it be anything other than legitimate to be afraid of that, when our incoming President, and his Chief of Staff have articulated their intentions, and yet the media won't ask, and we have no idea of what is happening with such a massive proposal.

And, if he does succeed in getting such a thing put into action, should I let my kids participate?

And, what would be the consequence if I choose not to allow my children to participate?

midnight rider said...

Pastorius -- Kim DuToit summed it up nicely -- "you want my kids to work, you fucking pay them. You want me to work you fucking pay me." So much wrong with this. How would you feel letting your 13 or 14 year old daughter be barracked somewhere with no access to her for 3 months? What kind of abuse potential does that open up? What happens if something goes wrong, they get hurt? Will the government take resposibility? We don't draft adults for the military now they want to effectively "draft" kids? And indoctrinate them? We heard that before in the 1930's. From Germany. No, I won't compare B.O. to Hitler (yet). You and I know Hitler was a monster, seconded only by Stalin. B.O. hasn't risen (sunk) to that murderous level but some of his socialist programs eerily resemble National Socialst Germany's and bear very close scrutiny. Eternal vigilance is the price for freedom (T. Jefferson)(you already knew that). O scares me too. Like no one ever has.

Anonymous said...

Why Europe is secretly afraid of a socialist America" via American Thinker

Always On Watch said...

It's not paranoia if it's really happening.

midnight rider said...

The years of watching since 9/11 have only been a warm up. Vigilance Vigilance Vigilance. "You are warriors and warriors cannot get tired." -- Fallaci

Pastorius said...

Barack Obama seems like the wolf in sheep's clothing. He says he wants to make everything better, but everything he says he wants to do is according to the agenda of our enemy.

midnight rider said...

More like a shape shifter. Keeps changing his positions until no one knows where he stands. Which is a really bad message to send ot our friends and, worse, our enemies.

midnight rider said...

To follow on the original post I often wonder if this is how it felt in 1855-1860. They knew what was coming but couldn't vocalize it and couldn't stop it.

Pastorius said...

In the leadup to the Civil War? Perhaps.

I always think of this as being like the leadup to WWII.

The types of evil we face seem more like that war than like the Civil War.

Why do you think it's more like the Civil War? Maybe I'll learn something here.

midnight rider said...

It just feels like the split in this country is too wide, too hardcore, too deep. Nothing concrete or factual I can point at. The evil is the same as WW II I agree but Germany did not fight amongst itself then. They marched lockstep into the breach. Here we are already fighting each other. Americans facing off against Americans on idealogical differences. Something goes wrong in this administration or policy decisions and it may get very ugly on our own streets. Gay rights activists ripping a cross from an old woman's hands and stomping on it. My daughter lives & works in Philly while going to school. More than once she has had Septa drivers refuse to stop and wait when she was running for the bus. Yet immediately after the driver stopped for another passenger. She caught the bus just in time (had to jam her hand in the closing door to do so) then, as she made her way to her seat, heard the driver tell the other passenger "That white chick thought I was going to stop and wait for her". At the Italian market she sees the same type of people pull up in new Escalades and pay for their groceries with food stamps. I'm no bigot, Pasto, but the tension is palpable in that city. Arrested for wearing a McCain shirt? Wasn't the only incident. My kid was ostracized and belittled at the office for being a McCain supporter until a suervisor, the ONLY other McCain supporter, had to step in. By now that crap should have subsided but it hasn't, anywhere.
My other often thought goes back to a post from a few years ago and what year do you see this as -- 1939, 1942, 1946, 1968. Or the outlyer, and my choice, 1914. We are on the edge of an abyss no one can fathom.

midnight rider said...

In 1860 America you had abolitionists versus non-abolitionists. It was a moral cause (always the most devisive) that was ultimately settled by the Civil War. The good news was we came out far stronger because of it. The bad news, of course, was the carnage we had to endure to do so. I'm not as confident on the outcome this time. Obama is no uniter. In Germany they followed Hitler or stayed quiet. At least we're not staying quiet. I rather see Iran as Germany licking their chops and waiting for the moment the trouble amongst ourselves, when we're at our weakest, is right to strike. Recall that one of Al Qaida's stated plans was to work to divide us and, through dragging Iraq out and the BDS it spawned it seems to be working. And then strike while also working from within to finish us off. That's where I see it as 1914. Too many internal forces at work to divide us (Europe then) and all it will take is Princip's bullet and Islam will swallow us. What Princip's bullet is no one knows. I don't know if this makes any sense but then, nothing seems to these days. We'll come through this crucible far stronger. If we can survive that long.

Pastorius said...

Midnight Rider,
I see what you mean. We do have a terrible schism in the U.S.

We also had a pretty bad schism in the US in the leadup to WWII.

However, I don't think it was this bad, not from what my mother and father tell me.

There is a lot of racism in this country, and it is nowhere stronger and more frightening than in the black community.

I have never, in all my life, heard any white person say anything like what you relate in that bus incident.

That being said, I don't think we ought to hate black people, in general, for the behavior of some angry black people in Philadelphia. Not that you are doing so. I just don't want this blog to become all about reasons for whites to distrust Hispanics and blacks, etc.

midnight rider said...

Pastorius -- nor do I. I have many friends of all races, nationalities and creeds and we can usually just agree to disagree on issues. Lively spirited debates to be sure but still civil & friends. Just relating an incident. As part dire warning of what may be looming. I believe tolerance of conservatives towards liberals is higher than the reciprocal. You're correct the racism seems to go the other direction now. I don't see it here where I work but my kid lives it every day in Philly. And it's not really angry so much as arrogant. But that said it's not a race issue, either (no matter how they try to make it one). The BDS is strong from all quarters. And the gay pride movement (no no, no homophobe here, I have gay friends as well -- who are conservatives and NOT in favor of gay marriage -- so don't anyone try to start that) has become absolutely militant. Witness the demonstrations at Rick Warren's church for heaven's sake, or the aforementioned stomping on the old lady's cross, or the demonstration in New York 2 days ago. Because California said "oh no, marriage is still sacred. Civil unions may be okay but we have to draw the line somewhere." And the pro-choice groups. Far louder than the pro-lifers. Think Palin should have aborted Trig. Spit.
From what I understand the split in this country leading up to WW II was those in favor of the war vs. isolationists (same in WW I until 1917, and same as abolitionists vs. non). But I didn't hear of isolationists marching in the street, trying to close recruiting centers, spitting on returning vets and protesting at their funerals. Back then you called evil for what it was. And you fought it. My grandfather fought his way through Europe to defeat evil. And no one ever knew what he saw because he refused to ever talk about it. And that from a man with a strong Catholic faith who, before meeting my granmother, had considered the priesthood. Now evil is spun to something that can be negotiated, something for the "greater good". The abyss yawns before us and O cannot bridge it. He's no uniter and we are all in very deep trouble.

christian soldier said...

CA schools started "choosing" exceptional students-
they are to be 'tracked' through-out their school years-
questions on the 'list' they were given:
list all of your friends-
family-

C-CS

midnight rider said...

More succint & (hopefully) less chatty -- the 1860 illustration was not race related but used to show we are deeply divided amongst ourselves. The example was fresh because a similar thing happened to her again this morning. & it's not just minorities in those Escalades with food stamps but the arrogance is still there. 1860 the divide was there and erupted fully when the new guy took office, if you can see where I'm headed with this. There was no divide in Germany, no one like you & Epa and the rest trying to prevent National Suicide. Only poor Winston next door screaming about the danger coming. And here, now, though as in 1914 we can't fathom it's depth, we are screaming to watch out for the abyss but the large majority walk blithly and blindly and deaf straight into it's maw. So, maybe, it's like all 3. (Geez this would be so much easier if they allowed bourbon at work)

midnight rider said...

FDR knew war was coming and was (I believe) chomping at the bit to get in. Lincoln knew war was coming and, although he desparately wanted to, did not try avoid it. Wilson knew war was coming and held out as long as he could, which allowed Europe to rip itself apart in carnage hiterto unseen. Socialist ideas aside, on foreign policy where do you really believe O stands?

WC said...

Thought I'd repost this for you all.

What Year Are You? 1938? 1942? 1948? Or 1972?

It isn’t often that someone manages to organize the thinking about the struggle with Islamism in a way that makes political sense. The usual foreign policy debates have centered on phrases like liberal vs conservatives, neo-cons vs progressives, right vs left, socialist vs capitalist, even good vs evil – any one of which comes up short in describing one’s foreign policy position in this struggle.

But an article by Ross Douthat, an associate editor at the Atlantic Monthly, brings the problem into sharp relief.

Douthat proposes a way to organize this foreign policy debate in terms of what year you think you’re living in. You may be a 1938sit, a1942ist, a 1948ist or a 1972ist.

• "1942ists," believe that we stand in Iraq today where the U.S. stood shortly after Pearl Harbor: bogged down against a fascist enemy and duty-bound to carry on the fight to victory. To the 1942ist, Iraq is Europe and the Pacific rolled into one, Saddam and Zarqawi are the Hitlers and Tojos of our era, suicide-bombers are the equivalent of kamikazes -- and George Bush is Churchill, or maybe Truman.
George Bush fits into this camp.

• "1938ists" believe that Iran's march toward nuclear power is the equivalent of Hitler's 1930s brinkmanship. While most '38ists still support the decision to invade Iraq, they increasingly see that struggle as the prelude to a broader regional conflict, and worry that we're engaged in Munich-esque appeasement….. If you hear someone compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler, demand a pre-emptive strike on Iran, or suggest that the Hezbollah-Israel battle is a necessary overture to a larger confrontation, you're listening to a 1938ist.

Newt Gingrich holds this view.

• "1948ists," who share the '42ist and '38ist view of the war on terror as a major generational challenge, but insist that we should think about it in terms of Cold War-style containment and multilateralism, not Iraq-style pre-emption. What unites them all is a skepticism about military interventions, a fear of hubris, and an abiding faith in the ability of diplomacy, international institutions and "soft power" to win out in a long struggle with militant Islamism.

Liberal hawks like Peter Beinart and neo-cons like Francis Fukuyama support this view. Finally we have the 1972ists.

• "1972ists" believe that George Bush is Nixon, Iraq is Vietnam, and that any attack on Iran or Syria would be equivalent to bombing Cambodia….. '72ists suggest that the greater danger is repression at home and blowback from imperialist ventures abroad.
This is the worldview of Michael Moore, the makers of "Syriana," and the editors of the Nation.
What am I? The Gathering Storm says it all. I’m a 1938ist – BUT …I also agree with the last statement of Douthat.

• A few voices have spoken up of late for the most disquieting possibility of all…..As our crisis deepens, it's worth considering 1914ism, and with it the possibility that all of us, whatever year we think it is, are poised on the edge of an abyss that nobody saw coming.

So, what year are you?

lilo97423 said...

Excellent post. Good observation!
My thoughts are along the same line. - Lilo

midnight rider said...

W.C. Thank you! That's exactly the article I meant. Can't find mine at the moment & I wasn't sure who had the article but remembered it. Like I said -- mostly 1914, with a good dose of 1860.
My greatest fear, though I dislike and distrust the man intensely I wish him no harm, is that O becomes the next Ferdinand. Especially if at the hands of some extreme right wing whack job this country will shred itself utterly and then we will be ripe pickin's for Iran or Russia or Al Qaida or China or North Korea etc.

Pastorius said...

Midnight Rider,
YOu said: From what I understand the split in this country leading up to WW II was those in favor of the war vs. isolationists (same in WW I until 1917, and same as abolitionists vs. non). But I didn't hear of isolationists marching in the street, trying to close recruiting centers, spitting on returning vets and protesting at their funerals. Back then you called evil for what it was. And you fought it.


I say: Yes, I think you are correct about this. There wasn't nearly the level of hatred between the various factions of America. Generally, everyone seemed to love their country, even when things weren't going so well.

When I talk to people now, I am surprised at the level of animosity people have for their country.

I'm thinking of writing an essay for this website called "gods and Services" which will talk about how the works of our hands, the fruits of our labors are created for each other, and how we ought to be thankful for the fact that there are people who are inventing and creating the technologies which are making our lives better, and helping us to live longer, and helping us to learn more, and to have fuller, more abundant lives.

Instead, it seems we just curse everything, and think the fruits of our labor are useless.

I simply do not feel that way. I like life, I like my life, I love the lives of those who share life with me.

I think if people would really think about it, they would realize they feel the same way. There just isn't a reason for us to all go about cursing our lives.

Maybe if we lived in a part of the world where we were not free, where we could not actually make our dreams come true, then it would make some sense to curse life, but even then, it really wouldn't, because at least we have each other.

Anyway, I'm rambling.

cjk said...

When you don't publish opposing viewpoints that are related in good taste you lose credibility

Pastorius said...

CJK,
What, specifically, is your problem with what we do here? What would you like to see?

midnight rider said...

Pastorius -- I'm with you. I love life. Have had a run of rough luck this year but I don't curse life I love it nevertheless. I don't understand where the unbridled hatred comes from. Watch any talking heads show and watch how one side (usually, usually I say) and the liberal side does their best to shout the other down. I don't understand that. But ramble on, friend. Good for clearing the cobwebs out of the brain and you never know what gem will come along out as well.

Pastorius said...

WC,
I'm with you; it's 1938.

A very long 1938.

Epaminondas said...

I am more afraid it's 476AD.

Obama = Odoacer

Remember, Bill Clinton spoke more thn a fwe times about managing decline.

These people don't have the american ruach

To them the Founding Fathers and their ideals are an abstraction, a bumper sticker, a phrase for vote getting.

Something is missing in the lot.
Men like Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson are spinning in their graves

Pastorius said...

Epa,
I have a question for you, since you know more history than I.

Has any country ever elected a minority to lead itself?

I can only think of Disreali (who was a Jewish PM of Britain) as a precedent.

Are there any others?

Epaminondas said...

Disraeli practiced Christianity.
I'd argue that he was not a minority. I'd argue that at the very least he chose Christ because of political reality. But I think it was more.

Therefore if Disraeli is to be considered jewish, it would mean mean Obama might be.....naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Though Disraeli was famously asked what religion he REALLY was. He replied, "Sensible men all have but one religion"
What religion is that, the questioner responded.
"Sensible men never say", Disraeli rejoined.

Well, first of all there just haven't been many long term democracies.

The confederacy came close, ironically ..with Judah Benjamin (VP).
Not Mexico, Canada, France, not Britain, not a South american or Central american nation, not India, not Oz or New Zealand (you'd think a Maori would make it one of these days tho)...maybe you have something.

Pastorius said...

i agree with you about Disraeli.

I was just trying to think ahead of anyone who would dispute what I'm saying.

I can't think of any minority, ever in the history of the world, who has been elected to lead a whole nation.

So, Obama is the first, and America elected him.

So much for us being a racist nation, huh?

Anonymous said...

Thailand had a couple of PMs of mixed Chinese-Thai descent. The PM of India is a Sikh (this is in a country that ruthlessly squashed the Sikh separatist movement). Sonia Gandhi, an Italian, would have been the PM of India had she not declined.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of that dysfunctional country, the Philippines, there is also the part-Chinese Corazon Aquino, who rode on the back of the People Power movement to depose the ultra-corrupt Marcos and become president of that country. Ah... the good old days, People Power and Imelda Marcos' gazillion pairs of designer shoes.

As for the Sino-Thai mixed blood, they may be fairly common but are still numerically a minority in Thailand.

India is not an open-minded country. It wasn't so long ago that Hindu nationalists attacked such hated symbols of degenerate Western influence as KFC and Micky D's. What India is is a feudalistic society with the Gandhi-Nehru clan playing the role of substitute royalty. Many Indians will reflexively vote for those from the clan or the clan's party, the Indian National Congress, simply because of the Gandhi-Nehru personality cult (like the cult of the Kennedys that dominates the Democrats). Thus, Sonia got voted in because she is a Gandhi, and the Sikh became the sitting PM of India because Sonia backed him.

Pastorius said...

Well put, and I think you're right. And, I think that is the case with the Phillipines as well, isn't it?