Tyranny in the Forecast: The Outlook for the New Year

by Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research
January 3, 2012

This past year has not been a good one for the 99%, and the new year is likely to be even worse. This column deals with the outlook for liberty.  The next will deal with the economic outlook.

diThe outlook for liberty is dismal. Those writers who are critical of Washington’s illegal wars and overthrow of the US Constitution could find themselves in indefinite detainment, because criticism of Washington’s policies can be alleged to be aiding Washington’s enemies, which might include charities that provide aid to bombed  Palestinian children and flotillas that attempt to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-israel-usa-flotilla-idUSTRE75N4A620110624  

The Bush/Obama regimes have put the foundation in place for imprisoning critics of the government without due process of law. The First Amendment is being all but restricted to rah-rah Americans who chant USA! USA! USA!  Washington has set itself up as world prosecutor, forever berating other countries for human rights violations, while Washington alone bombs half a dozen countries into the stone age and threatens several more with the same treatment, all the while violating US statutory law and the Geneva Conventions by torturing detainees.  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/18/41514/general-who-probed-abu-ghraib.html   

Washington rounds up assorted foreign politicians, whose countries were afflicted with civil wars, and sends them off to be tried as war criminals, while its own war crimes continue to mount. However, if a person exposes Washington’s war crimes, that person is held without charges in conditions that approximate torture.

Bradley Manning is the case in point.  Manning, a US soldier, is alleged to be the person who released to WikiLeaks the “Collateral Murder” video, which, in the words of Marjorie Cohn, “depicts U.S. forces in an Apache helicopter killing 12 unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists. People trying to rescue the wounded were also fired upon and killed.” 

One of the Good Samaritans was a father with two small children. The video reveals the delight that US military personnel experienced in blowing them away from the distant skies. When it became clear that the Warriors Bringing The People Democracy had blown away two small children, instead of remorse we hear an executioner’s voice saying:  “that’s what he gets for bringing children into a war zone.”

The quote is from memory, but it is accurate enough.  When I first saw this video, I was astonished at the brazen war crime. It is completely obvious that the dozen or so murdered people were simply people walking along a street, threatening no one, unarmed, doing nothing out of the ordinary.  It was not a war zone. The horror is that the US soldiers were playing video games with live people.  You can tell from their commentary that they were having fun by killing these unsuspecting people walking along the street.  They enjoyed killing the father who stopped to help and shooting up his vehicle with the two small children inside.

This was not an accident of a drone, fed with bad information, blowing up a school full of children, or a hospital, or a farmer’s family.  This was American soldiers having fun with high tech toys killing anyone that they could pretend might be an enemy. 

When I saw this, I realized that America was lost. Evil had prevailed.

I was about to write that nothing has been done about the crime.  But something was done about it.  An American soldier who recognized the horrific war crime knew that the US military knew about it and had done nothing about it.  He also knew that as a US soldier he was required to report war crimes.  But to whom?  War crimes dismissed as “collateral damage” are the greatest part of Washington’s 21st century wars.  

A soldier with a moral conscience gave the video to WikiLeaks.  We don’t know who the soldier is.  Washington alleges that the soldier is Bradley Manning, but Washington lies every time it opens its mouth.  So we will never know. 

All we know is that retribution did not fall on the perpetrators of the war crime.  It fell upon the two accused of revealing it–Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. 

Manning was held almost two years without charges being presented to a court.
In December’s pre-trial hearings all Washington could come up with was concocted  accusations.  No evidence whatsoever.  The prosecutor, a Captain Fein, told the court, if that is what it is, that Manning had been “trained and trusted to use multiple intelligence systems, and he used that training to defy that trust. He abused our trust.”

In other words, Manning gave the world the truth of a war crime that was being covered up, and Washington and the Pentagon regard a truth teller doing his duty under the US military code as an “abuser of trust.”

In the 1970 My Lai Courts-Martial of Captain Ernest L. Medina, the Prosecution Brief states:

 “ A combat commander has a duty, both as an individual and as a commander, to insure that humane treatment is accorded to noncombatants and surrendering combatants. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War specifically prohibits violence to life and person, particularly murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture. Also prohibited are the taking of hostages, outrages against personal dignity and summary judgment and sentence. It demands that the wounded and sick be cared for. These same provisions are found in the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. While these requirements for humanitarian treatment are placed upon each individual involved with the protected persons, it is especially incumbent upon the commanding officer to insure that proper treatment is given.

Additionally, all military personnel, regardless of rank or position, have the responsibility of reporting any incident or act thought to be a war crime to his commanding officer as soon as practicable after gaining such knowledge. Commanders receiving such reports must also make such facts known to the Staff Judge Advocate. It is quite clear that war crimes are not condoned and that every individual has the responsibility to refrain from, prevent and report such unwarranted conduct. While this individual responsibility is likewise placed upon the commander, he has the additional duty to insure that war crimes committed by his troops are promptly and adequately punished.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_law3.htm  

At the National Press Club on February 17, 2006, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral.” General Pace said that the military is prohibited from committing crimes against humanity and that such orders and events must be made known.

However, when Manning followed the military code, his  compliance with law was turned into a crime. Captain Fein goes on to tell the “court” [a real court would throw out the bogus charges, but Amerika no longer has real courts] that “ultimately, he aided the enemies of the United States by indirectly giving them intelligence through WikiLeaks.” 

In other words, the “crime” is an unintended consequence of doing one’s duty–like the “collateral damage” of civilian casualties when drones, bombs, helicopter gunships, and trigger-happy troops kill women, children, aid workers, and village elders.  Why is Washington only punishing Manning for the collateral damage attributed to him?

Captain Fein could not have put it any clearer.  If you tell the truth and reveal Washington’s war crimes, you have aided the enemy.  Captain Fein’s simple sentence has at one stroke abolished all whistleblower protections written into US statutory law and the First Amendment, and confined anyone with a moral conscience and sense of decency to indefinite detention and torture. 

The illegal detention and treatment of Manning had a purpose, according to a number of informed people. Naomi Spencer, for example, writes that Manning’s long detention and delayed prosecution is designed to coerce Manning into implicating WikiLeaks in order that the US can extradite Julian Assange and either prosecute him as a terrorist or lock him away indefinitely in a military prison without any recourse to the courts, due process or the law.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30075.htm 

Assange’s case is mysterious.  Assange sought refuge in Sweden, where he was seduced by two women.  Both admit that they had sexual intercourse with him voluntarily, but afterwards they have come forth with claims that as they were sleeping with him in the bed, he again had sexual intercourse with them, and that they had not approved this second helping and that he was asked to use a condom but did not. 

The Swedish prosecutorial office, after investigating the charges, dismissed them. But, strangely, another Swedish prosecutor, a woman suspected of connections to Washington, resurrected the charges and is seeking to extradite Assange to Sweden from the UK for questioning.  

The legal question is whether a prosecutor can seek extradition for investigative purposes. The UK Supreme Court thinks that this is a valid question, and has agreed to hear the case. Normally, extradition requests come from courts and are issued for persons formally charged with a crime. Sweden has not charged Assange with a crime.

The real question is whether the Swedish prosecutor is acting on behalf of Washington.  Many who follow the case believe that Washington is behind the prosecutor’s re-opening of the case, and if Sweden gets hold of Assange Sweden will send him to Washington to be put in indefinite detention and tortured until he says what Washington wants him to say–that he is an Al Qaeda operative.  

This is the way that Washington intends to absolve itself of its war crimes revealed, allegedly, by Manning and Assange.

Meanwhile, Washington in a brazen display of hypocrisy accuses other countries of human rights abuses, while Congress has passed and President Obama has signed an indefinite detention and torture bill that US Representative Ron Paul says will accelerate America’s “slip into tyranny” and “descent into totalitarianism.” 

In signing the Bill of Tyranny, President Obama indicated that he thought that the tyranny established by the bill did not go far enough. He announced that he was signing the bill with signing statements that reserved his right, regardless of any law, to send American citizens, deprived of due process and constitutional protection, abroad to be tortured.

This is the US government that claims to be a government of “freedom and democracy” and to be bringing “freedom and democracy” to others with bombs and invasions.

The past year gave us other ominous tyrannical developments.  President Obama announced that he had a list of Americans whom he intended to assassinate without due process of law, and Homeland Security, itself an Orwellian name, announced that it had shifted its attention from terrorists to “domestic extremists.”  The latter are undefined and consist of whomever Homeland Security so designates.  

None of this was done behind closed doors.  The murder of the US Constitution was a public crime witnessed by all.  But like Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed to death in New York in 1964 in front of onlookers who failed to come to her aid, the media, Congress, bar associations, law schools, and the American public failed to come to the defense of the Constitution.  

In my lifetime the collapse in respect for, and authority of, the Constitution has been an horrific event.  Compare the ho-hum response to the Obama regime’s police state announcements with the public anger at President Richard Nixon over his enemies list.
Try to imagine President Ronald Reagan announcing that he had a list of Americans marked for assassination without impeachment proceedings beginning forthwith. 

Local and state police forces have been militarized not only in their equipment and armament but also in their attitude toward the public. Despite the absence of domestic terror attacks, Homeland Security conducts warrantless searches of cars and trucks on highways and of passengers using public transportation.  A uniformed federal service is being trained to systematically violate the constitutional rights of citizens, and citizens are being trained to accept these violations as normal. The young have no memory of being able to board public transportation or use public roadways without intrusive searches or to gather in protest without being brutalized by the police. Liberty is being moved into the realm of myth and legend.  

In such a system as is being constructed in public in front of our eyes, there is no freedom, no democracy, and no liberty.  What stands before us is naked tyranny.

While America degenerates into a total police state, politicians constantly invoke “our values.”  What are these values?  Indefinite imprisonment without conviction in a court. Torture. Warrantless searches and home invasions. An epidemic of police brutality. Curtailment of free speech and peaceful assembly rights. Unprovoked aggression called “preemptive war.” Interference in the elections and internal affairs of other countries. Economic sanctions imposed on foreign populations whose leaders are not in Washington’s pocket.  

If the American police state were merely an unintended consequence of a real war against terror, it could be dismantled when the war was over.  However, the evidence is that the police state is an intended consequence. The PATRIOT Act is a voluminous and clever attack on the Constitution. It is not possible that it could have been written in the short time between 9/11 and its introduction in Congress. It was waiting on the shelf.

The dismantling of constitutionally protected civil liberties is purposeful, as is the accumulation of arbitrary and unaccountable powers in the executive branch of government. As there have been no terrorist events within the US in over a decade except for those known to have been organized by the FBI, there is no terrorist threat that justifies the establishment of a political regime of unaccountable power.  It is being done on purpose under false pretenses, which means that there is an undeclared agenda.  The threat that Americans face resides in Washington, D.C.

Of the presidential candidates, only Ron Paul addresses the Constitution’s demise.Yet, the electorate is concerned with matters unimportant by comparison. Propagandized 24/7 by the Ministry of Truth, Americans are not sufficiently aware of their plight to elect Ron Paul president.  

It might be too late for even a President Ron Paul to turn things around. A president has no power unless his government supports him.  What prospect would President Ron Paul have of getting his appointees confirmed by the Senate?  The military/security complex is not going to vacate power. Powerful monied interests would block his appointments. If he persisted in being a problem for the Establishment, he would be victimized by a scandal and fail to be reelected if not forced to resign.

Remember what the Washington Establishment did to President Carter.  His budget director and chief of staff were framed, thus depriving Carter of the powers of his office. Even Ronald Reagan had to give away more than half of his government, including the White House chief-of-staff and vice presidency, to the Establishment.  President Reagan told me that he wanted to end stagflation in order that he could end the cold war, but that he could not sign a tax bill if I could not get one out of his administration that he could send to Congress.  

I do not know, but I suspect that turning things around internally through the political system is not in the cards.  Our chance to resurrect liberty might come from Washington’s hubris.  Imperial ambitions and drive for power can produce unmanageable upheavals and a loss of allies. Overreach abroad with a demoralized, unemployed and downtrodden population at home are not the ingredients of success. 

How much longer will the Russian government permit NGOs funded by the US Endowment for Democracy to interfere in its elections and to organize political protests? How much longer will China confuse its strategic interests with the American consumer market?  How much longer will Japan, Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, and the Middle East oil states remain US puppets?  How much longer can the dollar retain the reserve currency role when the Federal Reserve is monetizing vast quantities of debt? 

How much longer can a “superpower” survive when it is incapable of producing political leadership?

America’s salvation will come when Washington suffers defeat of its hegemonic ambitions.

Many readers, especially those who watch Fox “News” and CNN and read the New York Times,  might see hyperbole in my outlook for 2012.  Surely, many believe, the draconian measures put in place will only be applied to terrorists.  But how would we know?  Indefinite detention and torture require no evidence to be presented. The American public has no way of knowing whether tortured detainees are terrorists or political opponents. The decision to detain and torture is an unaccountable decision. It relies on nothing but the subjective arbitrary decision of someone in the executive branch. Why are Americans prepared to take the word of a government that told them intentionally the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to America?  

Like cancer, tyranny metastasizes. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Soviet Union’s most famous writer, was a twice-decorated World War II Red Army commander. He made mild critical comments about Stalin’s conduct of the war in a private letter to a friend, and for this he was sentenced, not by a court, but in absentia by the NKVD, the secret police, to eight years in the Gulag Archipelago for “anti-Soviet propaganda.”  Not even Stalin had indefinite detention. The closest the Soviets came to this medieval practice resurrected by the Bush and Obama regimes was internal exile in distant parts of the Soviet Union.

During much of the Soviet era, even art, literature and music were scrutinized for signs of “anit-Soviet propaganda.”  America’s Dixie Chicks suffered a similar, but more frightening, fate. Bush did not need the NKVD.  The American public did the job for the secret police. Wikipedia reports:
“During a London concert ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said ‘we don’t want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas.’ The statement offended many Americans, who thought it rude and unpatriotic, and the ensuing controversy cost the band half of their concert audience attendance in the United States. The incident negatively affected their career and led to accusations of the three women being “un-American“, as well as hate mail, death threats, and the public destruction of their albums in protest.”
In Nazi Germany, the mildest criticism could bring a midnight knock at the door.

People with power use it.  And power attracts the worst kind of persons. As Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prove, democracies are not immune to the evil use of power. Indeed, identical inhumane treatment of prisoners goes on inside the US prison system for ordinary criminals.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm

A December 30, 2011, search on Yahoo for police brutality produced 20 million results.

Over-fed goon cop thugs taser little children and people in wheel chairs.  They body slam elderly grandmothers. The police are a horror. They represent a greater threat to citizens than do criminals.

Preventative war, indefinite imprisonment, rendition, torture of people alleged to be “suspects” (an undefined category), and assassination are all draconian punishments that require no evidence. Preventative war is an Orwellian concept.

How do you prevent a war by initiating a war?

How do we know that a country that did not attack us was going to attack us in the future?

Preventative war is like Jeremy Bentham’s concept of preventing crime by locking up those thought by the upper crust to be predisposed to criminal activity before they commit a crime. Punishment without crime is now the American Way.


The concepts that the Bush/Obama regimes have institutionalized are totally foreign to the Anglo-American concepts of law and liberty.  In one decade the US has been transformed from a free society into a police state.  The American population, to the extent it is aware of what has occurred, has simply accepted the revolution from the top.  

Ron Paul is the only American seeking the presidency who opposes the tyranny that has been institutionalized, and he is not leading in the polls. 
This tells us all we need to know about the value Americans place on liberty.

Americans seem to welcome the era of tyranny into which they are now entering.

Sustainable Development: Genocide turned into a Necessity

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 30, 2011

Often times, we hear sustainable development and sustainability were originated in the early 70’s and strengthened through the 80’s and 90’s. During any given research effort, most publications allege that the concern to maintain natural resources as tools for current and future generations was born in 1972, when a United Nations Conference in Sweden brought forward three principles: the interdependence of human beings and the natural environment, the links between economic development, social development, and environmental protection and the need for a global vision and common principles. Credit for developing those principles is given to the World Commission on Environment and Development of 1987.

The United Nations is the main enactor of Eugenics, a policy initiated by the founders of the Nazi movement.

Common wisdom portrays the collectivist view that sustainability and sustainable development with policies and initiatives to protect the environment from humanity’s abuses and with this to promote the benefit of the masses. Nowadays, the protection of the environment has become the most luminous spear carried by anyone and everyone, independent of race, social status, age or religion. In fact, environmentalism has become in itself the religion of choice for many. The environmentalist support for sustainability is almost inherently rooted in our lives; more than we even think. It has been applied to economics, construction, community planning, agriculture, security, natality and so on.

Countless meetings were arranged in the past 50 years in order to convince the masses that no future was complete without a sustainable approach to human existence. First, the Club of Rome came up with documents like “Limits of Growth” and “A New Path for World Development” which have as their bastion the movement to globalize the planet and social engineer everything from social values to employment, trade, demographics, politics, economics and so on; all in an effort to deindustrialize the planet and turn it into what predecessor organizations -League of Nations- wanted. Along with think-tanks like the Club of Rome, other equally prominent organizations operate in order to bring a new social, economic and developmental order into place. The United Nations, a child of the globalists who founded the League of Nations with the intention of ‘ending conflict’, has its own list of pro-deindustrialization branches and documents. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme for Development (UNEP), preaches the principles of failed green policies and green economies. The United Nations Conference on Environmental Development of 1992, better known as the Earth Summit, promotes plans like Agenda 21, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity which intend and are slowly achieving Kurt Waldheim’s ecofacist dream to depopulate the planet.

Where did modern environmentalism originate?

Although there is plenty of documentation regarding how false environmentalism is linked to the so called “green wing” of the Nazi Party, no one gets into that history in depth. Main line historians and environmentalists usually decide to ignore it and the public that is bamboozled into believing the dogmas of modern genocidal ecology does not know about it. Pertinent questions to ask regarding the Nazi origins of the green movement is, What is its inspiration? What were the goals it wanted to achieve? How did the murdering ideology of the National Socialist Party gave in to what is in appearance an unheard love for nature?

Germany was not only the place where the genocidal policy of sustainability was born, but it was also the land where it became reality. The Nazi germans and its followers adopted many of the green policies we see in modern societies and brought them to prominence. Science and the study of creatures and their environments were first talked about in Germany during the years that preceded the Nazi rise to power. The genocidal nature of environmentalism originated from a demented love for nature. (1)

Nazi thinkers and some predecessors were sure humans had to be equaled to plants, animals and insects in order to have balance in the world. These train of thought has been seen in modern environmentalist minds such as Bolivian president Evo Morales and the promoter of the Gaia theory, James Lovelock, who believe that massive amounts of people must die in order to gain natural balance. Recently, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish used one of his books to call for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism like blowing up dams and destroying cities to return the planet to its form before the Industrial Revolution occurred. Along with Farnish, other highly respected so-called scientists like NASA’s Dr. James Hansen endorsed this line of thought.

Ernst Moritz Arndt

One of the fathers of what we call today environmentalism is Ernst Moritz Arndt. Together with Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Arndt had infinite hatred for the Enlightenment. Both were well-known for their extreme nationalistic views which they used to advance the ideals of the welfare state. These two men, but mainly Arndt was identified as the first ecological thinker. Arndt wrote on an 1815 article that “When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important — shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” (2) What separated Arndt’s environmentalist ideas from those of others was that he closely blended his thoughts on respecting nature with xenophobic discourses and entangled them with the very existence of the Germans and Germany. While he defended the environment in most of his writings, he also called for racial purity and damned other races such as the Jews and the French. It was that love for nature and hatred towards the Jews what would later guide the persecution and murder of those who were not Arians.

Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, a graduate from Arndt’s school of thought made sure his teacher’s work did not wastefully dissipate. In an article dated 1853, Riehl showed his strong opposition to industrialism and said: “We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully, so that Germany remains German.” (3) He opposed any type of urbanization while using anti-Semitism to approve of peasantry and its way of life. Both Riehl’s and Arndt’s ideas were later adopted by the völkisch movement, which was a mixture of nationalistic populism and mad love for nature. The leaders of the völkischs advocated a move back to the simplicity of living off the land while blaming urban living and rationalism for the environmental destruction. (4) At the core of the hatred was an old but meaningful element that had driven antisemitic groups like the völkischs for a long time: The Jewish people. Why? The Jews were the middle class of the time, and the apparent sick love for nature and the environment included an equally sickening hatred for anyone and anything that endangered that thought or way of life. (5)

After establishing their long sought relation between antisemitism and love towards nature, the völkischs extended their prejudice through the 19th and 20th centuries. The anti-industrialization, anti-jewish type of speech rooted itself along with racial purity and Arian superiority just in time for the rise of the Nazi Party’s trip to power.

Nazi ecology and the link to racism

In 1867, Ernst Haeckel, a German zoologist first used the term “ecology” and linked it to the study of creatures and their environments. Haeckel was heavily influenced by social Darwinism to a point that he became the father of a kind of social Darwinism known as “monism”. He founded the German Monist League, an organization guided by völkisch principles. Haeckel as well as Riehl and Arndt believed in racial superiority and were strongly opposed to social mixing. In addition, he also approved of racial eugenics. His thoughts were the base for what later would be known as the anti-semitic National Socialism in Germany. Indeed, Haeckel became a prominent speaker on racism, nationalism and the german model of imperialism. (6) Towards the end of his life, Haeckel became a member of the Thule Society, an organization that later served as the political base for the creation of the Nazi Party. (7) Haeckel, as the creator of ecology, Riehl and Arndt as his predecessors and other thinkers such as Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bölsche and BrunoWille, get all the credit for tightly threading environmentalism to national socialism, racism, anti-Semitism and the political environmental that we all know took over Germany pre and post World War I.

One of the most revealing facts about ancient and current ecological authoritarianism is the belief by sponsors of this view that humans must be encapsulated in “biological categories” and “biological zones” over which an iron fist technocratic authority must rule. Haeckel said that civilizations and nature should be governed by the same laws. The origin of this way of thinking is a reactionary anti-humanist thought. The Monists, believed humans although not themselves- were insignificant when compared to the greatness of the environment. Similar ideas are seen in modern initiatives sponsored by the Club of Rome, The Carnegie Foundation, The United Nations, NASA, as well as some colleges and universities that are funded by globalists who endorse eugenics for the sake of cleansing the planet. Take for example the text of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversitywhich has been named as the politics and religion of modern environmentalism. Among other goals, the Convention intends to “reorganize” Western civilization by excluding all human activity from 50 percent of the American continent. It wants to divide the land into “bioregions” with “buffer zones” and “corridors”. Under this plan, humans will live in tightly guarded and heavily monitored areas, from which they can never leave. This green globalist agenda is promoted by the United Nations since 1992, when it was officially presented during the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The same policies will be implemented in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Ernst Haeckel

Writings from the Carnegie Foundation also commit treasure to the implementation of policies like Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. The foundation has expressed pride on ancient practices that resembled mass murder by the powers that be in an effort to cleanse the lands from undesirable people. The Carnegie Institution touted the work of Emperor Ghengis Khan and “validated his work as a “green emperor” due to the fact his actions included the murder of 40 million people. According to its writings, this helped lower carbon emissions and keep the planet cool.

Monists used their anti-humanist sentiment together with the völkisch ideas to discriminate against progress, urbanism and those who thought differently. On his Lebensgesetze (Laws of Life),biologist Raoul Francé, wrote that natural order determines social order. He said racial mixing was unnatural. He is up until today an acclaimed founder of contemporary eco-fascism for “pioneering the ecological movement.” (8) Francé also promoted an alleged connection between environmental purity and ‘racial’ purity. Francé and his disciples claimed that a change from peasant life to modernism would mean the degradation of the race and that the cities were diabolical and inorganic. (9)

By the early years of the twentieth century an ‘ecological’ argumentation, saturated with right-wing political content, had become somehow respected within the culture of Germany. During the turbulent period surrounding World War I, the mixture of ethnocentric fanaticism, regressive rejection of modernity and genuine environmental concern proved to be a very deadly mixture.

The Nazi Environmentalism in Action

Some people see it as a contradiction that modern eugenicists although still pushing for Nazi-style environmentalism also belong to the technocratic corporate elites. This is not a surprise because the elites that supported the Third Reich were also industrialists who, as it usually happens, controlled many segments of the population and the thinking classes. This practice has always born fruits because it guarantees complete control, no matter what the outcome is. Men like Fritz Todt, a heavy weight of the National Socialist movement in Germany as well as Albert Speer, his successor after 1942, were involved in the construction of infrastructure such as the Autobahn, one of the largest projects in the history of engineering in Germany. Todt wanted to build the Autobahn in a way that benefited his class the most, but that at the same time promoted and maintained certain sensitivity towards nature. (10)

“Todt demanded of the completed work of technology a harmony with nature and with the landscape, thereby fulfilling modern ecological principles of engineering as well as the ‘organological’ principles of his own era along with their roots in völkisch ideology.” (11) Just as it happened with Arndt, Riehl and Darré, Todt and his partners had an endless and inseparable bond to völkisch nationalism. Todt said once: “The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence.” (12) One of Todt’s aides, Alwin Seifert, was the Reich’s advocate for the Landscape. In discharging his official duties Seifert stressed the importance of wilderness and energetically opposed monoculture, wetlands drainage and chemical agriculture. He criticized Darré as too moderate, and “called for an agricultural revolution towards ‘a more peasant-like, natural, simple’ method of farming, ‘independent of capital’.” (13)

The prominent place that nature had within the Nazi Party helped enact the massive industrial and military advancement that enabled Hitler to bully the rest of Europe for a while. The most radical initiatives were created and carried out as they always received the seal of approval by the highest officers of the Nazi state. Another influential member of the Reich was Chancellor Rudolph Hess, who was the green wing’s strong point within the party. Hess’s power in the governmental institutions of the National Socialist regime as he was Hitler’s personal assistant. Many even consider him the Führer’s most trusted man.Hess became a member of the Nazi party in 1920 and rapidly made his way up to the top. He was the second man in the waiting list to take power if Hitler and/or Göring were unable to take on the duty. Any and all new laws that were approved by the government were had to go through Hess’ hands first, before being enacted.

In the photo: Adolf Hitler, Göring and behind him, Rudolph Hess.

In the early thirties, a complete series of laws and ordinances were passed under Hess’ sponsorship. One of those ordinances which closely hits home today is the the foundation of the nature preserves. But perhaps the most successful accomplishment of Nazi environmentalism in Germany was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This nature protecting law established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and “natural monuments” and restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. Similar policies have been written now under United Nations Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. Just as it happens with these two documents, the Nazi required local officials to ask for permission to higher authorities before making any alterations in the countryside.Along with the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, the most important contribution that the Nazis made to modern eugenics and false environmentalism was to integrate mainstream environmentalism into the Nazi enterprise.

Sustainable Development Today

Page 350 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report says that livestock such as cows, sheep, goats and horses are not sustainable. People and organizations that support sustainable development claim that animals humans should stop eating meat, because animals pollute the environment. The complete program of sustainability is based on an effort to change human behavior to states that ordinarily humans would not approve or enjoy. This changes in human behavior are mostly brought upon by instigating fear. Fear of global warming, climate change, natural disasters, wars, famine, droughts and so on.

What kinds of things does sustainable development actually want to do? Sustainability and changes in human behavior are not only related to environment, agriculture and pollution. It is a complete package of reforms that will ultimately change societal behavior at a global scale. It is common to find educational programs that sponsor and teach children how to prepare in order to live in a sustainable world. But when the tactics do not work successfully, the globalists in charge of the sustainable agenda, the foundations and organizations financially supported by globalist corporations resort to fear tactics.

Along with the educational systems, the sustainable agenda also acts directly in the economies, health care systems, farming, social and cultural affairs as well as public safety. In the last 50 years we have seen a run to create alliances between corporations and the government, which has resulted in the corporate controlled governmental systems or corporate fascism we all live under. On private property, new ordinances and laws continue to end the right to buy and maintain any kind of land without the auspices of the authorities. That is why property taxes are charged to property owners even though money was paid when the purchase of such land occurred. Under the guidelines of Agenda 21 and the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, the largest masses of lands, namely national parks, natural reserves and conservation areas have been signed to the United Nations.

The obesity pandemic that ravages the planet up until today, brought upon by massive propaganda campaigns paid for by the food industry was the tool to bring along laws and directives that basically allow the government to tell people what they can eat or drink. In the United States, school principals and boards now do not allow parents to pack their children’s lunches and snacks. In the meantime, new regulations introduced through Codex Alimentarius ban the sale and use of natural supplements and the plantation of food crops in small and medium sized farms, while allowing big agricultural corporations to pollute the environment with genetically modified plants and animals. These kind of policies have caused the suicide of hundreds if not thousands of Indian farmers who have gotten in debt to purchase Monsanto’s genetically engineered pesticide ready corn and cotton seed. Since farmers signed their lives away to Monsanto, crop yields have been significantly lower, and the soils have been completely depleted of all nutrients.

In the social and cultural aspects, political correctness has been massively adopted and dissent is seen as a form of racism and terrorism. Immigration policies have gone from mildly protecting private property and the rights of the individual to sponsoring open borders, fake free-trade agreements that destroy industry and production in the west costing the jobs of millions of people across the continents. Religious criticism of homosexuality and other practices or ways of living is labeled as homophobic, while deep religious beliefs are seen as extremist. Mobility in urban areas has also been touched by the fake environmentalist policies first thought out by the Nazis. Oil speculation and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel makes the cost of transportation to rise exponentially. The same has happened with food prices. Car pooling as well as bus and train commuting is encouraged in order to reduce CO2 pollution, while the elites that beg for the end of industrialization live in lavish palaces and fly around the planet in their fuel-guzzling private jets and yachts.

When it comes to societal safety, the governments, also under policies of sustainable development continue to work on laws to step over the constitutions of the sovereign states they claim to represent and defend. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and the rights to privacy are continuously violated with the establishment of a techno-military industrial complex that monitors everyone’s moves, financial records, behaviours, health, habits, politics, religious beliefs and so on, all in the name of security.

What is the ultimate goal of the current sustainable development policies? Population reduction. Sustainable Development is indeed a plan to be applied for the length of human existence. It is a plan created by someone else to apply it to you, your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The belief behind the supposed need to massively reduce the planet’s population is Thomas Malthus’ mistaken idea that population growth outpaces food availability. He thought overpopulation occurred due to reductions in mortality rates and that the world would be out of food by 1890. He then recommended to kill the poor, the old and the sick, and leave the rest to die of hunger. Malthus’ ideas were picked up more recently by Paul Earlich in 1968. Earlich said that irresponsible reproductive behavior would leave the planet with no food in the 1970’s. This imaginary crisis has proven false every time the globalists schedule another date for it to happen. Calculations of the Population Research Institute reveal that today the world’s population can live comfortably with enough food in an area the size of the American state of Texas.

The truth is that at the current natal rate, many countries in Europe and Asia are experiencing the problems related to an aging population which is not being properly replaced by new citizens. In North, Central and South America, governments struggle to support their traditional welfare systems due to the fact that more people are retiring and less people are contributing to the coffers of the central governments, social security and health care programs. Ironically, population growth will become stable naturally -that is it will stop growing and begin to decrease- once the sum of all humans gets to about 9 billion. Learn more about the science of population growth here.

Well, so what if there is enough land mass to leave? Is there enough food for everyone? If you are a believer of only ‘official’ information an statistics, it so happens that the very own United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as well as the World Food Programme agree that there is currently enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, not everyone has access to food. Why? Several reasons. Price speculation, using food such as corn and sugar cane to produce inefficient fuels and of course artificially created food scarcity. Modern cultivation techniques would even allow to plant crops in the most arid areas of Africa. Many believe that the giant continent may be able to feed the whole world if such techniques are applied with due diligence. So, why are more people going hungry everyday? Simply put, poverty, conflict and poor agricultural infrastructure in countries where those hungry people live. War is one of the main causes of crop destruction. And who are the sponsors of war and conflict? The military industrial complex controlled by the same globalists who want us to be green and friendly to the environment. Reducing the number of people on the planet would not solve an overpopulation problem, if it existed. That is just another fear tactic used by the globalists who up until today perpetuate the Nazi dream. For a detailed explanation on how the United Nations hides its eugenics programme under supposed initiatives to promote reproductive health, end poverty and decrease the appearance of disease, watch the four-part report (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

Sources for this article include:

(1) Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971

(2) Der Begriff des Volksgeistes in Ernst Moritz Arndts Geschichtsanschauung, Langensalza, 1914.

(3) Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Feld und Wald, Stuttgart, 1857, p. 52.

(4) George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, New York.

(5) Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, New York, 1975, pp. 61-62.

(6) Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York, 1971, p. xvii.

(7) Gasman’s thesis about the politics of Monism is hardly uncontroversial; the book’s central argument, however, is sound.

(8) See the foreword to the 1982 reprint of his 1923 book Die Entdeckung der Heimat, published by the far-right MUT Verlag.

(9) Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, p. 101.

(10) Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 197.

(11) Karl-Heinz Ludwig, Technik und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich, Düsseldorf, 1974, p. 337.

(12) Quoted in Rolf Peter Sieferle, Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1984, p. 220.

(13) Dominick, “The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists”, p. 529.

An Empire of Lies: The CIA and the Western Media

By Jonathan Cook
Global Research
February 28, 2011

Last week the Guardian, Britain’s main liberal newspaper, ran an exclusive report on the belated confessions of an Iraqi exile, Rafeed al-Janabi, codenamed “Curveball” by the CIA. Eight years ago, Janabi played a key behind-the-scenes role — if an inadvertent one — in making possible the US invasion of Iraq. His testimony bolstered claims by the Bush administration that Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, had developed an advanced programme producing weapons of mass destruction.

Curveball’s account included the details of mobile biological weapons trucks presented by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, to the United Nations in early 2003. Powell’s apparently compelling case on WMD was used to justify the US attack on Iraq a few weeks later.

Eight years on, Curveball revealed to the Guardian that he had fabricated the story of Saddam’s WMD back in 2000, shortly after his arrival in Germany seeking asylum. He told the paper he had lied to German intelligence in the hope his testimony might help topple Saddam, though it seems more likely he simply wanted to ensure his asylum case was taken more seriously.

For the careful reader — and I stress the word careful — several disturbing facts emerged from the report.

One was that the German authorities had quickly proven his account of Iraq’s WMD to be false. Both German and British intelligence had travelled to Dubai to meet Bassil Latif, his former boss at Iraq’s Military Industries Commission. Dr Latif had proven that Curveball’s claims could not be true. The German authorities quickly lost interest in Janabi and he was not interviewed again until late 2002, when it became more pressing for the US to make a convincing case for an attack on Iraq.

Another interesting disclosure was that, despite the vital need to get straight all the facts about Curveball’s testimony — given the stakes involved in launching a pre-emptive strike against another sovereign state — the Americans never bothered to interview Curveball themselves.

A third revelation was that the CIA’s head of operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, passed on warnings from German intelligence that they considered Curveball’s testimony to be highly dubious. The head of the CIA, George Tenet, simply ignored the advice.

With Curveball’s admission in mind, as well as these other facts from the story, we can draw some obvious conclusions — conclusions confirmed by subsequent developments.

Lacking both grounds in international law and the backing of major allies, the Bush administration desperately needed Janabi’s story about WMD, however discredited it was, to justify its military plans for Iraq. The White House did not interview Curveball because they knew his account of Saddam’s WMD programme was made up. His story would unravel under scrutiny; better to leave Washington with the option of “plausible deniability”.

Nonetheless, Janabi’s falsified account was vitally useful: for much of the American public, it added a veneer of credibility to the implausible case that Saddam was a danger to the world; it helped fortify wavering allies facing their own doubting publics; and it brought on board Colin Powell, a former general seen as the main voice of reason in the administration.

In other words, Bush’s White House used Curveball to breathe life into its mythological story about Saddam’s threat to world peace.

So how did the Guardian, a bastion of liberal journalism, present its exclusive on the most controversial episode in recent American foreign policy?

Here is its headline: “How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam”.

Did the headline-writer misunderstand the story as written by the paper’s reporters? No, the headline neatly encapsulated its message. In the text, we are told Powell’s presentation to the UN “revealed that the Bush administration’s hawkish decisionmakers had swallowed” Curveball’s account. At another point, we are told Janabi “pulled off one of the greatest confidence tricks in the history of modern intelligence”. And that: “His critics — who are many and powerful — say the cost of his deception is too difficult to estimate.”

In other words, the Guardian assumed, despite all the evidence uncovered in its own research, that Curveball misled the Bush administration into making a disastrous miscalculation. On this view, the White House was the real victim of Curveball’s lies, not the Iraqi people — more than a million of whom are dead as a result of the invasion, according to the best available figures, and four million of whom have been forced into exile.

There is nothing exceptional about this example. I chose it because it relates to an event of continuing and momentous significance.

Unfortunately, there is something depressingly familiar about this kind of reporting, even in the West’s main liberal publications. Contrary to its avowed aim, mainstream journalism invariably diminishes the impact of new events when they threaten powerful elites.

We will examine why in a minute. But first let us consider what, or who, constitutes “empire” today? Certainly, in its most symbolic form, it can be identified as the US government and its army, comprising the world’s sole superpower.

Traditionally, empires have been defined narrowly, in terms of a strong nation-state that successfully expands its sphere of influence and power to other territories. Empire’s aim is to make those territories dependent, and then either exploit their resources in the case of poorly developed countries, or, with more developed countries, turn them into new markets for its surplus goods. It is in this latter sense that the American empire has often been able to claim that it is a force for global good, helping to spread freedom and the benefits of consumer culture.

Empire achieves its aims in different ways: through force, such as conquest, when dealing with populations resistant to the theft of their resources; and more subtly through political and economic interference, persuasion and mind-control when it wants to create new markets. However it works, the aim is to create a sense in the dependent territories that their interests and fates are bound to those of empire.

In our globalised world, the question of who is at the centre of empire is much less clear than it once was. The US government is today less the heart of empire than its enabler. What were until recently the arms of empire, especially the financial and military industries, have become a transnational imperial elite whose interests are not bound by borders and whose powers largely evade legislative and moral controls.

Israel’s leadership, we should note, as well its elite supporters around the world — including the Zionist lobbies, the arms manufacturers and Western militaries, and to a degree even the crumbling Arab tyrannies of the Middle East — are an integral element in that transnational elite.

The imperial elites’ success depends to a large extent on a shared belief among the western public both that “we” need them to secure our livelihoods and security and that at the same time we are really their masters. Some of the necessary illusions perpetuated by the transnational elites include:

That we elect governments whose job is to restrain the corporations;

— That we, in particular, and the global workforce in general are the chief beneficiaries of the corporations’ wealth creation;

— That the corporations and the ideology that underpins them, global capitalism, are the only hope for freedom;

— That consumption is not only an expression of our freedom but also a major source of our happiness;

— That economic growth can be maintained indefinitely and at no long-term cost to the health of the planet;

— And that there are groups, called terrorists, who want to destroy this benevolent system of wealth creation and personal improvement.

These assumptions, however fanciful they may appear when subjected to scrutiny, are the ideological bedrock on which the narratives of our societies in the West are constructed and from which ultimately our sense of identity derives. This ideological system appears to us — and I am using “we” and “us” to refer to western publics only — to describe the natural order.

The job of sanctifying these assumptions — and ensuring they are not scrutinised — falls to our mainstream media. Western corporations own the media, and their advertising makes the industry profitable. In this sense, the media cannot fulfil the function of watchdog of power, because in fact it is power. It is the power of the globalised elite to control and limit the ideological and imaginative horizons of the media’s readers and viewers. It does so to ensure that imperial interests, which are synonymous with those of the corporations, are not threatened.

The Curveball story neatly illustrates the media’s role.

His confession has come too late — eight years too late, to be precise — to have any impact on the events that matter. As happens so often with important stories that challenge elite interests, the facts vitally needed to allow western publics to reach informed conclusions were not available when they were needed. In this case, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are gone, as are their neoconservative advisers. Curveball’s story is now chiefly of interest to historians.

That last point is quite literally true. The Guardian’s revelations were of almost no concern to the US media, the supposed watchdog at the heart of the US empire. A search of the Lexis Nexis media database shows that Curveball’s admissions featured only in the New York Times, in a brief report on page 7, as well as in a news round-up in the Washington Times. The dozens of other major US newspapers, including the Washington Post, made no mention of it at all.

Instead, the main audience for the story outside the UK was the readers of India’s Hindu newspaper and the Khaleej Times.

But even the Guardian, often regarded as fearless in taking on powerful interests, packaged its report in such a way as to deprive Curveball’s confession of its true value. The facts were bled of their real significance. The presentation ensured that only the most aware readers would have understood that the US had not been duped by Curveball, but rather that the White House had exploited a “fantasist” — or desperate exile from a brutal regime, depending on how one looks at it — for its own illegal and immoral ends.

Why did the Guardian miss the main point in its own exclusive? The reason is that all our mainstream media, however liberal, take as their starting point the idea both that the West’s political culture is inherently benevolent and that it is morally superior to all existing, or conceivable, alternative systems.

In reporting and commentary, this is demonstrated most clearly in the idea that “our” leaders always act in good faith, whereas “their” leaders — those opposed to empire or its interests — are driven by base or evil motives.

It is in this way that official enemies, such as Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, can be singled out as personifying the crazed or evil dictator — while other equally rogue regimes such as Saudi Arabia’s are described as “moderate” — opening the way for their countries to become targets of our own imperial strategies.

States selected for the “embrace” of empire are left with a stark choice: accept our terms of surrender and become an ally; or defy empire and face our wrath.

When the corporate elites trample on other peoples and states to advance their own selfish interests, such as in the invasion of Iraq to control its resources, our dominant media cannot allow its reporting to frame the events honestly. The continuing assumption in liberal commentary about the US attack on Iraq, for example, is that, once no WMD were found, the Bush administration remained to pursue a misguided effort to root out the terrorists, restore law and order, and spread democracy.

For the western media, our leaders make mistakes, they are naïve or even stupid, but they are never bad or evil. Our media do not call for Bush or Blair to be tried at the Hague as war criminals.

This, of course, does not mean that the western media is Pravda, the propaganda mouthpiece of the old Soviet empire. There are differences. Dissent is possible, though it must remain within the relatively narrow confines of “reasonable” debate, a spectrum of possible thought that accepts unreservedly the presumption that we are better, more moral, than them.

Similarly, journalists are rarely told — at least, not directly — what to write. The media have developed careful selection processes and hierarchies among their editorial staff — termed “filters” by media critics Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky — to ensure that dissenting or truly independent journalists do not reach positions of real influence.

There is, in other words, no simple party line. There are competing elites and corporations, and their voices are reflected in the narrow range of what we term commentary and opinion. Rather than being dictated to by party officials, as happened under the Soviet system, our journalists scramble for access, to be admitted into the ante-chambers of power. These privileges make careers but they come at a huge cost to the reporters’ independence.

Nonetheless, the range of what is permissible is slowly expanding — over the opposition of the elites and our mainstream TV and press. The reason is to be found in the new media, which is gradually eroding the monopoly long enjoyed by the corporate media to control the spread of information and popular ideas. Wikileaks is so far the most obvious, and impressive, outcome of that trend.

The consequences are already tangible across the Middle East, which has suffered disproportionately under the oppressive rule of empire. The upheavals as Arab publics struggle to shake off their tyrants are also stripping bare some of the illusions the western media have peddled to us. Empire, we have been told, wants democracy and freedom around the globe. And yet it is caught mute and impassive as the henchmen of empire unleash US-made weapons against their peoples who are demanding western-style freedoms.

An important question is: how will our media respond to this exposure, not just of our politicians’ hypocrisy but also of their own? They are already trying to co-opt the new media, including Wikileaks, but without real success. They are also starting to allow a wider range of debate, though still heavily constrained, than had been possible before.

The West’s version of glasnost is particularly obvious in the coverage of the problem closest to our hearts here in Palestine. What Israel terms a delegitimisation campaign is really the opening up — slightly — of the media landscape, to allow a little light where until recently darkness reigned.

This is an opportunity and one that we must nurture. We must demand of the corporate media more honesty; we must shame them by being better-informed than the hacks who recycle official press releases and clamour for access; and we must desert them, as is already happening, for better sources of information.

We have a window. And we must force it open before the elites of empire try to slam it shut.

This is the text of a talk entitled “Media as a Tool of Empire” delivered to Sabeel, the Ecumenical Liberation Theology Centre, at its eighth international conference in Bethlehem on Friday February 25.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

How to crush dissent? You make it a crime

Infowars.comDissent

A major Anti-Defamation League report goes further than ever before in an effort to purge the Internet of all dissent, listing completely non-violent criticism of Obamacare posted on Internet forums as a reason to conduct a “major law enforcement operation” against opponents of big government and health care reform.

The ADL’s April 2010 report is entitled, “Violent Voices: Anti-Government Extremism Takes on New Intensity,” and consists largely of lists of comments culled from alternative news websites and forums, as well as Fox News.

“During the first few months of 2010, anti-government extremism has taken on a new level of intensity in the United States. The arrests of the Hutaree militia in Michigan illustrate this passion, which exists both within and outside the militia movement. Unfortunately, the Hutaree arrests may come to be seen not as the culmination, but rather as a first step in what may need to become a major national law enforcement operation,” states the introduction (emphasis mine).

Such words are chilling bearing in mind that the infamous MIAC report, which listed gun owners, Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and people who fly U.S. flags alongside neo-nazis and terrorists, was partly based on information provided to the Missouri Information Analysis Center by both the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

According to the ADL, a “major law enforcement operation” may be needed because Americans are upset that “health care reform effort is in fact key to evil efforts to implement a tyrannical government by any means necessary.”

While some of the comments listed by the ADL do hint at or call for violence, the organization underhandedly mixes them in with people who are merely expressing their displeasure at the passage of health care, amnesty, or new taxes. The vast majority of comments listed in the report relating to health care have no hint of racism or violence whatsoever.

One of the “extremist” comments worthy of a “law enforcement operation” listed by the ADL reads as follows.

“The bill that passed has NOTHING to do with healthcare,” wrote “TXplt” on the Gun and Game Forums on March 22. Rather, “…it is used solely as a vehicle to push an agenda—to destroy what is working in our insurance industries, to increase our government intrusion into citizens’ lives…and to eventually act as a vehicle for our power hungry miscreants to attempt to dictate every aspect of our lives.”

Another example is then listed.

A poster called “stainless,” writing to the Assault Web forums on the same day, thought the situation even more dire. “I don’t think you quite understand the scope of this bill,” he wrote. “From now on the gov. has absolute control of our lives…They can now declare a health ‘Emergency’ and shut down any portion of our society they want at any time. I suspect we will begin to see the practical affects [sic] of this control fairly quickly.”

Indeed, most of the comments listed in regard to health care contain no violent threats whatsoever. Consider the following example, which was posted by one of our own Prison Planet Forum moderators.

“Have you read the bill? It is a full police state bill. Your body is now owned by the state. Your children are owned by the state. Your blood, sperm, ovaries, all reproductive methods are owned by the state. Your organs are owned by the state. This is a Nazi Eugenics bill with full bailout financing to the federal reserve front companies (big insurance).” Post by “Sane” to the Prison Planet Forums, March 22, 2010.

This is shocking – the ADL lists relatively mild comments which criticize Obama, immigration, or the health care bill, statements that contain no threats and not even a hint of violence, and lumps them in with death threats against the President as well as lawmakers, immediately after stating that a “major law enforcement operation” needs to be undertaken to shut these people up.

A “major law enforcement operation” needs to be set up to take on people who don’t like Obamacare and express their dissatisfaction on the Internet? More than half the entire country opposes health care reform. The Feds are going to be kept very busy raiding every two-bit Joe Blogger who comments on a news story if the ADL has its way.   More…