Home Next

The Grim Reality of Washington's Gangs - 2/16/03
Tit for Tat - 11/7/02
Revolution Is Coming - 9/21/02
America rather needs changing its own regime - 7/31/02
They Are Betting On Brutal Force And Cunning Minds - 6/28/02
Business a la Americana - 9/20/01

It is in “our” (the American middle- and lower-class') tradition to be in awe of such characters of il-legit gangsters that were so colorfully depicted by Robert Redford and Paul Newman in such capers as “ The Sting”, “Butch  Cassidy and Sundance Kid” and others. Why do we like the fictitious characters of "il-legit" gangsters and dislike the real and “legit” gangsters a la Bush-Around, Sly-Dick, Wise-Carlo, Big-Time-Rum and Coyote-Wiz?

Remember the experience of the 90's, when the gang of Jerry Falwell peddled videotapes accusing the Clintons of multiple contract murders in Arkansas (of course, after they finished Vince Foster) and the lists of "murdered" witnesses circulated among the right-wing faithful. On rare occasions, exaggerations may be helpful, but more often they bend the truth to its opposite to such a degree that who can take now seriously those right-wing fizzled conspiracy theorists? Nevertheless, don't the contemporary slogans of the left-wing conspiracy theorists such as: "No more Blood for Oil" and "No more Anthrax for quasi-Patriot Acts" speak volumes to some of us?

At the time when the frantic and self-destructive Clinton-phobia paralyzed the Conservative movement to the point of de-legitimizing any intellectual credibility it might have had, resulting in a situation where intellectuals like Newt Gingrich lost their jobs and mediocre characters like Tom Delay assumed the Republican leadership in Congress. All this because the latter did not stick to Gingrich’s "middle of the spectrum" rhetorical nonsense but preferred to talk with boldness and conviction about “real” conservative values. But what is “real” to the ultra-conservatives? To gain power by any means, preferably by scaring to death the majority of the voting population?

Now, it's turn of the right-wing bashers to come out of their coffins and to accuse the Leftists of outraged, incoherent and self-destructive Bush-phobia. They would correctly pin-point a major symptom of the left-wing paranoia that reached its critical mass after Paul Wellstone's death when it could be seen with a naked eye as a transformation of rational dissent to the right-wing policies into a pathetic and infantile opposition of any conservative reasoning, because virtually minutes after Wellstone's death, the left-wing radicals a la Vidal began to whiz e-mails through cyber-space, in which they accused the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz gang in murdering this senator. One of those e-mails had the following content:
“alert: possible bush republican coup: sen. wellstone assassinated... u. s. senator paul wellstone killed in mysterious plane crash right before pivotal, 'too-close-to-call' election, just like mel carnahan in 2000...
"remember how just before congress was going to vote on signing away our constitutional rights to the usa patriot act, how mail laced with anthrax was sent to members of congress...
"remember how the nazis set the german parliament building (reich­stag) on fire...
"this is it, folks. We need to mobilize *IMMEDIATELY*... against a potential republican fascist assault... “

So, the left-wing conspiracy theorists believe that 9/11 was the Bush-Around gang's "Hitlerian" coup, which also sent anthrax to Congress while planning a Reichstag-fire fascist coup and had Wellstone "assassinated", maybe Carnahan, too, because the latter knew something about that coup. But then again, if the left-wing theorists are correct, we will see the second “leakage” of anthrax before the passage of the quasi-Patriot Act 2 through Congress. And several days ago, the headquarters of media giant CBS got a first vestige of the second wave of anthrax attack as a letter with white powder, which turned out to be a harmless substance, for now. But this fact may be interpreted as a pattern and practice that is going severely curtail our liberties through exclusion and suspension some of our constitutional rights.

Of course, we should be cautiously optimistic about such crackpots like Gore Vidal who seriously charges the Bush-Cheney gang in engineering the mass murder of 9/11, but we also shouldn't throw a baby out with the dirty water.

Yes, there still is some issue based dissent to the right-wing policies, but it's drowned out by the incoherent rage against the hereditary aristocracy and His Satanic Majesty George W. Beelzebub. Exaggerations led rarely, if ever, to the truth. Sad... and sour... because it’s self-destructive, as anything that is done in excess, either from the right- or from the left vantage-point of view. And probably that is why our bureaucracy becomes increasingly oppressive internally while apparently opposing a few police bureaucracies but in fact supporting the majority of such oppressive bureaucracies around the globe. Therefore, try to be neither a right- nor a left-extremist, but be a moderate while pursuing your American Dream.

The "abductee" behavior of the radical leftists before past elections was the major factor of poor performance of the Democratic candidates into the national congress. However, if nowadays the left-wing radicals are marching around the U.N. headquarters with such protesting signs as: "Drop Bush Not Bombs... No more Blood for Oil... No more Anthrax for quasi-Patriot Acts" etc., they really mean that they prefer the global policy of the global bureaucracy to the unilateral policy of the imperial U.S. bureaucracy. The protestors are not on the side of the oppressive North Korean or Iraqi bureaucracies, as the left-wing bashers suggested, rather they protest against oppressiveness of our bureaucracy toward other peoples’ bureaucracies, the ill reaction of which, in its turn, necessitates our bureaucrats to be oppressive internally. That is how it all turns around so that when our bureaucracy opposes a police state, which seemingly is taken under the protective left-wing, the leftists are actually caring not only about those oppressed people but also about themselves, because, for now, the brute Iraqi and North Korean bureaucrats are worthy of being protected by the American people against the American bureaucrats even though the Iraqi and North Korean bureaucrats repress their people, torturing and murdering their dissenters. Because... well, because the Bush-Around and Sly-Dick gang will be even more arrogant and oppressive toward us, the American commoners and laborers, if they managed to impose their will onto the Iraqis and North Koreans.

How’s that? Well... because such is the evolution of real gangs, not those on the silver screen we so much awe. Consider the ultra-conservatives as a gang. Being asked if Mr. Bush saw such movies as: The Godfather, The Sopranos or Gangs of New York, a White House (WH) spokesman answered: "That's a ridiculous question... We're dealing with many more important matters". And yet they had time to tell us that Mr. Bush read The Very Hungry Caterpillar... probably meditating on the moral question first raised by the creators of The Godfather, question that extends beyond Little Italy, New York City, and even the United States -- 'Is it possible to live an honorable life in the society-at-large while being a gangster who lives by the gang-rules?' Is there a point of convergence of gang-code and the code of society-at-large, or will one eventually be forced to go hardened gangster, "get medieval," go down and "unilateral" into the gangland in order to survive in the society-at-large?

In the gang-world, we may think of Bush-Around as of one over-privileged who trades on his family's influence. Following to the spirit of Skull and Bones conspiracy theories of the secret, cabal type, we may have some fun at the expense of the over-privileged stiffs of the Bush-Around and Sly-Dick Secret Society, which is an American equivalent of the British "Old Boy" network of Etonians, a historically and anthropologically important informal net­work of power and connections, the members of which are shamelessly exercise their influence out in the open - in the perfectly legal monopolies a la Standard Oil or Microsoft. And yet the conspiracy theorists insist on making those "secret societies" inside the society-at-large a coven that rules the world in secret through the cabalistic conspiracies and manipulates history in accord with the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion-Connecticut.

Anyhow, I didn't get any strong feelings about Bush-Around of Skull and Bones because his personality exhibits itself in a passive-aggressive way. But I despise his henchmen, for their manipulative South Carolina primary campaign, where they clearly exploited the racist sentimentality of the South regarding the Confederate flag, sucking up to Pat Robertson (who later suggested that the 9/11 mass murder was a God's judgment upon the sins of Americans) and smearing John McCain.

Waking up to the White House on Jan. 21, 2001, Bush-Around let his thuggish consigliere masquerade him as a harmless lad who drank a lot but now had to take care about his liver. However, every time when the Bush-Around gang executes a particularly mean-spirited maneuver, as in the South Carolina primary or with the tax cuts for the wealthy, you may wonder if the front man of the gang is really a harmless one. Nevertheless, bashing Bush-Around and his thuggish henchmen for stealing that election (whatever the conflicting newspaper recounts showed, there's no doubt that more people went to the polls in Florida trying to vote for President rather Democratic than Republican, and only the biased and hypocritical bureaucrats of Supreme Court gave him the Presidency) would hardly enlighten us and intensify our understanding of the real chain of events, in order that we could prevent its repetition.

After 9/11, the Bush-Around and Sly-Dick gang acted as a frightening passive-aggressive personality, hitting the hapless Taliban, instead of cutting down the roots of the Grass-roots (al-Qaida), which the gang of Reagan-Bush Sr. used to use in order to whack the Soviet-style gang. But then again, the conditions are changed, and a pragmatic gangster must change his behavior and to play a different tune.

The arrogance of the Soviet gang has been bitten down for the time being, and the Bush-Around gang decided not to obey the old rules of human rights' support because only a hopeless loser would do that. Bush-Around and Sly-Dick realized the time had come to "settle old unfinished business" with those gangs, like the Saddam gang, which are actively resist to the Bush-Around gang's monopoly on oil and its high monopolistic profits. Being serious about the security of its profits in the long-run, the Bush-Around gang can't allow the Saddam gang to make bombs and hand them off to the terrorist gangs (a la al-Qaida), who seek the paradise not in this world but in the next one. Because the Saddam gang is more organized than the Taliban gang, the former has to be handled with a little more curtsey than the latter; consequently, the Bush-Around gang must masquerade itself as being choleric uni­lateralist, so to speak. But bluffing its unilateral (selfish) approach, which has a downside of repelling friends, the Bush-Around gang does so compellingly that necessitates the gang of multi-lateralists, who believe in their equality, to unite in the passive-aggressive alliance that resists to the imperial Bush-Around gang, masquerading their inability to protect one of its weak member (the Saddam gang) from being whacked off by the most powerful member (the Bush-Around gang).

As Mr. Woodward noticed in his series "Bush at War" of what the leaders of the Bush-Around gang think:
"Bush believed a preemption strategy might be the only alternative... at the beginning of the 21st century... with the possibility of another massive, surprise terrorist attack similar to Sept. 11, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ... Should the two converge in the hands of terrorists... tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people could be killed. In addition... protecting and sealing the U.S. homeland was basically impossible. Even with heightened security and the national terrorist alerts, the country was only marginally safer...  What would happen if there were a nuclear attack, killing tens or hundreds of thousands? A free country could become a police state. What would the citizens or history think of a president who had not acted in absolutely the most aggressive way? When did a defense require an active offense?"

The chilling reality here: the possibility of a second not-so-surprise attack and its profound consequences to the commoners and laborers of the world if the Bush-Around gang would just sit and allow the paradise seeking gangs to do it. But because the ultra-conservatives believe that the Islamic extremists are the neo-communists, they interpret the possibility of the second attack as an indispensable necessity to change other gangs' behavior. They do believe that the democracies didn't wage the aggressive wars; therefore, they try to surround Israel with democracies... but aggressively. Obviously, the ultra-conservatives are biased to its own gang. But then again, the commoners and laborers understand that they wouldn't be able to follow our bureaucrats who would claim that America is a democracy after conquering Iraq. Therefore, the American people are necessitated to compel the Bush-Around gang to knock its own arrogance down, to transcend its own ignorance, and to co-opt with the multi-lateralists in the search of more equitable profits for all ethnic gangs.

The commoners and laborers of the world prefer the multilateral system of bureaucracy, because it is better to be exploited peacefully by the uniformly organized gangs than to be exploited brutally by the unilateral and pre-emptive gangs.

Once again, to those who is still puzzled by the behavior of the left-wing radicals, who supposedly to be on the side of oppressed people (commoners and laborers) and yet prefer the multilateral system of bureaucrats, some of who torture and murder their people. The multilateral system of bureaucrats is still in its toddler stage and allows some of its theocratic members to execute "blasphemers" with impunity (as Iran did) or allows others to commit genocides with impunity (as Sudan and Israel did). If the Sudanese gangsters are in charge of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, then, the multilateral system of bureaucracy that is in place now is hardly more moral than the gangsters of The Godfather were. Nevertheless, when the territory and what is going with it divided among the gangsters, then, the brute violence subsided and the peaceful redistribution of wealth among the gangsters takes its place. Some radicals would argue that the people (the commoners and laborers) would still be oppressed and exploited, but I think that the forms of their oppression and exploitation would be milder and more humane than they would be in the war time.

I disagree with the Bush-Around gang on just about every domestic issue you can name, and did so from the moment they sucked up to Pat Robertson and the rest of ultra-conservatives, who think that God had withdrawn divine protection from the United States in retribution for the freedoms bestowed by the American commoners upon homosexuals and feminists, thus, permitting "the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." I think the struggle to maintain the separation of church-gangs and state-gangs is one of the defining virtues of the American commoners and laborers. Every historically ignorant and constitutionally repellent measure that was originated from the Bible (from the Pledge of Allegiance to the Ten Commandments) needs to be vigorously opposed from being exercised in the courtrooms and other public places. I think that neither the left- nor the right-wing extremists have credibility on these issues because they are biased to their own gangs. Amazingly, the members of both of these gangs, the ultra-conservatives and the left-wing radicals, think that the Islamic gang that attacked the Bush-Around gang want to execute the American "blasphemers," to beat the American women into burqas, to stone the American gays, and to propagandize God in American institutions. In fact, they simply want that our bureaucrats to do that job on behalf of the worldly union of bureaucrats -- do not intervene into their internal affairs and be more reasonable in the redistribution of the oil profits. That's it... may it be more simplistic and rational?

But hell no... the Bush-Around gangsters think it's better to spend trillions for security (of whom and of what?) instead of giving back to the Islamic bureaucrats a tenth of the money swindled from them. And although people hate reading about budgets, I cannot skip this depressing and tedious counting because it's necessary to comprehend the drift of the Bush-Around gang. But for the sake of attention, we may debate the budgetary problems in the entertaining format of a gangster thriller... say, The Robbery of the Century.

It's a pity, but the script of our caper movie would have neither car chases nor high-tech gadgets nor sex; moreover, the necessary violence would be virtual, taking place only in our imagination. Not seeing explosions that blow open the bank vaults may be boring, but it is useful to understand how trillions of dollars may disappear from the U.S. Treasury while the robbers ride off into the sunset unpunished.

The traditional Hollywood concept of The Sting begins with assembling the team of gangsters who inspired to get rich. The sub-plot of loyalty testing to a leader of the gang may be neglected because the majority of the would-be tested are from the Reagan-Bush Sr. gang. For example, look at John Poindexter -- a former Iran-­contra operative, the retired admiral and Navy physicist, whom the Bush-Around gang wants to oversee one of their most sensitive departments.

Mr. Poindexter had lied to Congress and shredded official documents to conceal the Reagan-Bush Sr. gang's conspiracy to trade arms for hostages and then use the dirty money for covert operations. He escaped prison because of a judicial technicality, but now, he is under cover of the ethical code of the Bush loyalists, meaning that lying is permissible when it protects a fellow-gangster from accountability for activities like dealing with terrorists. Consequently, Ari Fleischer, a WH spokesman, explained Mr. Poindexter's candidacy into the Bush-Around gang as follow -- "Admiral Poindexter is somebody who this administration thinks is an outstanding American, an outstanding citizen, who has done a very good job in what he has done for our country, serving the military."

For now, the rehabilitated admiral has been directing the Information Awareness Office (IAO), located within the Pentagon's ultra high-tech Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has a motto -- "Knowledge is power". Symptomatically, the seal of the IAO is that occult pyramid with the all-seeing eye, gazing upon a globe. It might be seen on the office's Web site at www.darpa.mil/iao a week ago but was taken off as not to tease the leftists.

Mr. Poindexter aspires to create "Total Information Awareness" (TIA), a gigantic matrix that will track foes of his gang by gathering and analyzing every bit of data in cyberspace -- all IRS returns, medical records, telephone bills, movie tickets, e-mails, etc.

In August 2002, at a meeting in California, Mr. Poindexter described the primary task of his office as -- creating "ultra-large-scale, semantically rich, easily implementable database technologies" that would allow other spy-agencies to access "the world-wide, distributed, legacy data bases as if they were one centralized database." Another task is "to develop privacy protection technologies"... speaking in English -- to protect members of his gang from being detected by the members of other gangs despite of an omniscient centralized data repository.

Mr. Poindexter and his henchmen are developing a prototype system that will breach all boundaries between commercial and governmental information systems, wiping out the distinction between public and private. Thus, they think, they will uncover any terrorist plotting, but it is more likely that all Bush-Around gangsters, whose urge to snoop and intimidate is an inherited trait, will rather abuse the by-product of Mr. Poindexter's "innovations" for increasing their personal riches and power.

Recently, the Washington Post reported that Bush signed a secret directive in July ordering to develop plans for cyber-attacks against his gang's enemies. But a spokesman for digital security vendor mi2g said cyber-warfare would hurt densely networked countries like the U.S. worse than countries like Iraq. "When cyber-attack blended with physical attack is used to disrupt or damage critical national infrastructure, there are counter-attacks which quickly follow suit." He also said that cyber-warfare activities launched by NATO against Serbia's telephone and power utilities in 1999 created a backlash. Consequently, "over 100 businesses in NATO member countries were counter-attacked by hackers sympathetic to Serbia, who were traced back to Russia and Eastern Europe".

The snooping impulse of the American ultra-conservatives may be traced back to the Huston Plan uncovered in the Watergate investigation, a massive domestic espionage program justified by antiwar and racial unrest. During the Iran-contra investigation, an enhanced version of this plan emerged again. Luckily for the American commoners and laborers, the Miami Herald exposed the plan of the Reagan-Bush Sr. gang to "suspend the Constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad."

The recruitment of Mr. Poindexter, a former Iran-contra operative, underlines the Bush-Around gang disrespect for the Constitution. It is also indicative that the Bush-Around gang transforms gradually into an authoritarian regime.

Now, we must return to our scenario of the Robbery of the Century. Gathering accomplices is a challenging and incredibly expensive stage that must be finalized in the successful seizing of the White House. To that end, the learned elder gangsters (corporate executive bureaucrats) collect several hundred million dollars and spend that money lavishly for the Presidential campaign. They do not worry about the huge spending bills for ads, for that money are crams comparatively with the eventual trophy of trillions.

Their front man is Bush-Around, a likeable and down-home guy, whose closest consigliere are the real brains behind the throne -- Sly-Dick (Cheney), Wise-Carlo (Rove), and Coyote-Wiz (Wolfowitz). Bush-Around supposed to charm the rich with implausible but mesmerizing patter by telling them he can cut taxes by a couple of trillion dollars, increase the defense budget by 20 percent, improve education "considerably", add "significantly" a prescription-drug benefit to Medicare, and yet continue to pay down the national debt and balancing the budget.

The plan was almost thwarted when, despite a spending advantage of almost $60 million and a lot of happy publicity, the Bush-Around gang narrowly lost the November 2000 election. James Baker, an old consigliere of Mr. Bush Sr. came in and turned the situation around. He employed a squad of intimidators to neutralize the vote-counters in Miami. Then, a judge, appointed by Mr. Bush Sr., cast the vote that gave the Bush-Around gang the desirable victory and they cheerfully entered into the White House.

Spending several more millions for ads, they managed to force their way through Congress with the tax cut for the richest corporate executives (who are less than 1 percent of population) at an estimated total cost of nearly $2 trillion, including increased interest on the national debt. Consequently, the national surplus disappeared, but Bush-Around would insist that the surplus will be restored by 2005 at the latest. Hearing that the budget numbers don't add up, the commoners would definitely get suspicious, but a distractive terrorist attack would provide the Bush-Around gang with plausible excuses.

In his 2002 State of the Union speech, Bush-Around would again reassure the commoners that though the numbers may look bad for the moment, "our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-lived," because the "real" problem would be the "axis of evil".

Thus, the Bush-Around gang would setup the next stage of robbery of the century. In early 2003, they would unveil a new $2.23 trillion budget with still more enormous tax cuts for the richest. The projected budget would accelerate and expand tax cuts, increase spending on the military and slow growth in social programs, while racking up record deficits that at this point don't even factor in the cost of a possible war with Iraq. Minimizing the importance of a $307 billion deficit, the gang would offer something for everyone -- the liberals would be promised subsidies for designing hydrogen cars and $15 billion AIDS assistance to Africa; the conservatives would be promised a defense buildup, school vouchers and a war on Iraq (with the costs of $200 billion, but in the long-run, economizing $500 billion by making conditions for dropping the price of a barrel of crude oil from $35 to $10).

The number of variables, including how long the war with the Saddam gang will last and how long the U.S. militarists would occupy Iraq if they managed to capture it, is immense. The potential cost of waging a war with Iraq will be definitely more than $100 billion, taking into consideration that only a bridge-head in Turkey would cost the American taxpayers more than $26 billion. In past September, Lawrence Lindsey, the economic consigliere of the Bush-Around gang, predicted in an interview to the Wall Street Journal that the war could cost between $100 and $200 billion. Those feasible predictions angered the rest of the Bush-Around gang, necessitating it to replace Lindsey and to come out with another set of numbers. However, William D. Nordhaus a prominent economists of Yale put the figure at anywhere between $100 billion to $1.6 trillion; moreover, the experts of the Center for Strategic and International Studies predict that any war would knock down stock prices by 25 percent, thus undoing the anticipated benefit of the tax cuts for the richest.

"We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents and other generations," Bush-Around would promise. Meanwhile, his henchmen would design a series of additional tax cuts and breaks for the richest that will continue to drain off hundreds of billions of dollars annually while the firefighters, injured during and after 9/11, would be necessitated to go to Washington, begging to give them a tenth part of what was already promised.

Surely, the Bush-Around gangsters would keep their promises to the military bureaucrats, who otherwise might harm the bold liars. Therefore, the Pentagon budget would be increased to $380 billion, comparatively with $280 billion that the militarists had during the Clinton-Gore gang era. However, the Clinton gang left the Bush-Around gang with a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. When the latest budgetary proposals would be implemented, the entire surplus would disappear and the U.S. Treasury would be forced to borrow $1.7 trillion, which, in its turn, would mean that the Bush-Around gang would swindle $7.3 trillion from the American people in just two years.

The shrewdest of the Bush-Around gang would foresee great difficulties escaping unpunished with such a large sum of money; so, they will try to get off.

Thus, Mr. Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who was appointed to this post by the Reagan-Bush Sr. gang in 1987, would come out and say that the tax cut should be paid off. His latest tune would be certainly differed from his previous one about Bush's first tax cut, a $1.35 trillion, 10-year reduction that Congress passed in 2001. Back then, Mr. Greenspan came out in favor of a big tax cut that year and gave a major push to the Bush-Around gang. He probably reasoned that the 10-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion would give Congress plenty of room to cut taxes and still accomplish his pet-project -- to reduce the national debt. However, the surplus turned out to be a robbery by the tax cut, by the fight against "terrorism", and by recession.

Mr. Greenspan would say that future tax cuts should be paid for, either by spending cuts or tax increases. He would doubt in the Bush-Around gang's biggest selling points - that the economy needs another round of government stimulus. He would contend that once the uncertainty over war in Iraq passes, economic growth should accelerate without the need for additional tax cuts. He also would challenged the rest of the Bush-Around gangsters who believe that "deficits don't matter", arguing that economic growth alone can take care of the revenue lost from the tax cuts.

What the Bush-Around gang would not mention is that over the next 10 years their latest proposals would reduce federal revenues by $1.46 trillion, emptying the Treasury and leaving millions of the American commoners and laborers (who depend on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) with no feasible means of support. Two-thirds of that spending spree won't be perceptible until after 2008, but by that time, the Bush-Around gang would have skipped town, riding in the stolen golf carts into the blissful Hawaiian sunset.

THE END

2/16/03

P.S. The other budgetary information for your meditation:
--A 3 percent increase in NASA's budget to $14.5 billion, which includes an increase for the shuttle program from $3.2 billion to $3.9 billion a year.
--A $10 billion increase to $12.5 billion for non-military foreign aid, including $1.3 billion for a new Millennium Challenge Account - a help to those developing gangs that would meet the American standards for eliminating corruption, improving human rights and opening their markets for the American goods.
--An increase of 6 percent for education, 7 percent for homeland security and 11 percent for veterans’ affairs.

Mitch Daniels, the director of the WH's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), explained that the spending increase of federal agencies should be capped at 4 percent next year because the average American family could expect to see its annual income growing with the same pace. But the OMB's spending increase next year will be 8.5 percent, going up from $71 million this year to $77 million in 2004. How typical for the Bush-Around gang is this kind of hypocrisy!


PP.S. So, what can the moderates do about it? For the start, the moderates should organize themselves into the Moderate Party that would coordinate the efforts of its members in delivering to the American commoners and laborers the information of what's happened to their jobs and incomes over the last two decades. It's a national disaster that threatens to break the American society apart. The issues of "bread and butter" should be at the top of our list. At the least, we should demand repeal of the portion of the Bush tax cut for the richest 1 percent. We also should promote a proposition of using the savings to finance a four-year moratorium on payroll taxes on the first $15,000 to $25,000 of income, because nearly 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. We should make it clear that we want a massive tax cut for the majority of population, not for 1 percent of it.

Secondly, we should take seriously the old Republican blabber about the revenue-sharing of the federal- and state bureaucracies, because the states are the places where the real people live. However, most state bureaucracies are now broke, having severely slashed school- and other social service budgets. We should demand that the federal bureaucrats do a $200 billion revenue-share with the state bureaucrats, at least for the next two years.

We also should demand a consolidation of all federal and state employee health-care plans into a national plan, because it would allow the federal and state employee to negotiate real deals with health-care providers and pharmaceutical companies. Then, in two or three years, we should try to open such a national health-care plan for any citizen, who would want to opt into it. Premiums would become so low that the national health-care plan would become the equivalent of a single-payer plan. However, the national plan wouldn't draw so much opposition as a single-payer plan, because the former would be voluntary.

We should promote the expansion of the Earned-Income Tax Credit in order that it may become an all-purpose financial system for providing every need of low-income people. We also should demand from our federal and state bureaucrats to get rid of all the complicated categorical programs with all their different eligibility criteria and bureaucratic bumbling.

We ought to help the commoners to understand that in order to punish our mal-functioning bureaucrats an increasing number of commoners of other nationalities would willingly sacrifice themselves, even if it means to kill some of us in the process. Consequently, we should reform our bureaucracy rather than to be killed for their sins. Moreover, our reforms should provide the poor and dispossessed of this world with something positive and tangible of this world to believe in. Foreign debt-forgiveness, non-military aid for economic and cultural development, immunization and low-cost drugs for the developing countries should be understood as part of a strategic effort for global peace.

We will get nowhere while trying to submit our memoranda to the Republican or Democratic presidential candidates who will definitely and appropriately toss them into a trash-can. Therefore, it must be a movement for moderation and it must be sold at the grass roots, which have to be able to absorb it and to develop (amend and build upon) this kind of ideas. We need to flesh out details and explain why these things are important, but we should remember that if we will not have the Moderate Party, we will not have a national message, and consequently, we will not have a national Moderate campaign; moreover, we will not implement any of the above-mentioned programs.

2/18/03

PPP.S. Once upon a time, the WH bureaucrats "asked" their henchmen of CIA to "find out" a "smoking gun" on Saddam Hussein, and the spy-bureaucrats concocted such a "link" between Nigerian- and Iraqi bureaucrats.

However, today, the head of the U.N. nuclear agency, Mohamed ElBaradei dismissed allegations of the WH bureaucrats that Iraqi regime tried to revive its nuclear arms program and said that the WH bureaucrats have fake documents, with which they tried to back their claims that the Iraqi bureaucrats had tried to buy uranium from the Nigerian bureaucrats to make nukes.

In his last update report to the U.N. Security Council on weapons inspections in Iraq, Mr. ElBaradei said:
"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded ... that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic... We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded... After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

The WH bureaucrats have alleged that Iraqi bureaucrats had tried to revive a nuclear weapons program after the U.N. inspectors left Iraq in December 1998. The accusation in importing the uranium was indispensable to the WH bureaucrats' propaganda, since the Israeli bureaucrats destroyed the only Iraqi nuclear power-plant in 1980; therefore, the Iraqi bureaucrats would not have needed the uranium for anything other than a nuclear weapons program.

You may ask - why the CIA bureaucrats chose the Nigerian bureaucrats as the would-be supplier of uranium. Probably because they decided that Niger is on the verge of a civil war and the Nigerian bureaucrats would have no time to denounce such allegations. Moreover, by that time, when the truth would come out, the Iraqi regime would be "changed" and nobody would care about that truth.

Mr. ElBaradei said the U.N. inspectors have carried out 218 inspections at 141 sites. They made extensive investigations of high-strength aluminum tubes, which the Iraqi bureaucrats attempted to purchase in Europe. A team of international centrifuge manufacturing experts concluded that those tubes were not suitable for a uranium enrichment centrifuge program, as the WH bureaucrats had alleged. Mr. ElBaradei said that the Iraqi bureaucrats had told the truth about wanting them to build rockets: "Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets". Nevertheless, the secretary of State, Colin Powell insisted that the U.N. should "keep the issue open".

Moreover, Mr. ElBaradei said the U.N. experts had concluded that none of Iraq's declared high-strength magnets could be used directly to enrich uranium, thus knocking down another allegation of the WH bureaucrats.

We may also conclude that Hollywood is the Mecca of the CIA bureaucrats, where they garner most of their "top-notch intelligence". And probably, those low-ranking scapegoats, who will be deleted from the CIA roster in the aftermath of this failure, will be gladly accepted in Hollywood, for somebody has to continue the sequel of Wag the Dog.

3/7/03

One day after Republicans gain complete control over the Senate, Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri decided not to seek another term as House Democratic leader. The move of the beleaguered leader reinforces the turmoil within the Democratic Party after the Republicans’ historic gains in the midterm elections.

Gephardt, the 13-term congressman called close colleagues and informed them that he would not seek leading position among the Democratic congressmen, because several House Democrats publicly called for him to step aside, because he was too eager to go along with the Republicans into a war with Iraq, because it would luster his image as a potential presidential candidate in 2004. However, luster cannot be garnered among comrades by letting down some of them. Therefore, Mr. Gephardt, as well as Mr. Daschle, should stop playing with the idea of being the president.

Mr. Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, excused himself by explaining the defeat of his comrades saying that the “war on terrorism” and the threat of war with Iraq apparently trumped Democrats' emphasis on the current economic slump. “People were concerned about national security, and that precluded us from having the opportunity to break through on the issues that we cared most about -- the economy, education and health care”. However, if Mr. Daschle or other Democratic leaders could show the people a clear connection between the economy, education and health care on the one side and national security on the other side, then nobody could preclude the Democratic leaders from breaking through to the people on those issues. But the Democratic leaders preferred to go along with the Republican leaders because they both belong to the upper class; and the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Bush doctrine of the pre-emptive strikes has been so far more useful for the protection of the interests of the entire upper class than the ideas of Gephardt, Daschle and Co.

So far, only two Democrats contend to step into Gephardt’s shoes: Martin Frost of Texas, chairman of the Democratic caucus, and Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi of California.

Today, Mr. Frost announce his intention to be the minority leader in the House, saying that Mr. Gephardt called him yesterday and said he would not seek another term as House Democratic leader.

Answering the questions of correspondents, Mr. Frost said that he would stress economic issues, particularly tax-brakes for the richest Americans, though will not criticize the Republicans’ plan of the “war on terrorism”, because it would fall on the death ears of Americans, who want America be strong, and would render economic issues impassable.

However, this same under-estimation of the intellectual abilities of the moderate Democrats and Republicans (who are the “seal” of the likely voters) to discern what ideas are better represent their interests – those that underline the concept of America being strong militarily or those that underline the concept of America being strong morally. This same underestimation of the middle class interests led Mr. Gephardt to fall in disgrace.

Curtis Gans, director of the independent Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, said that voter turnout might have been a percentage point or two higher than it was in 1998, when just 35 percent of the voting age population cast ballots — the lowest midterm turnout since 1942. The last president whose party gained seats in both houses of Congress in midterm elections was Franklin Roosevelt.

Therefore, counting on the base-voters, the political leaders must adjust their calculations giving much attention to the relatively increasing role of the swinging moderate Republicans and Democrats, who are the conscious representative of the middle class interests and who understand that neither Republican nor Democratic leaders are going to fight for their long-term interests. Therefore, in the just past midterm election, the moderate Republicans and Democrats voted for the Independent and Liberal candidates. Nevertheless, because the moderate Republicans are outnumbered by the moderate Democrats, the Democratic leaders lost relatively more their supporters than the Republican leaders did.

Consequently, adopting wishy-washy and hypocritical strategy, Democratic leaders lost seats in the House and the Senate. Republicans won 227 seats in the House, up from the 223 they had going into the elections. A party needs at least 218 seats for control of the 435-member House. Republicans also won 51 seats in the Senate, thus marking only the second time since 1934 when a president's party did not lose House seats in a midterm ballot.

Control of the Senate will give Republicans a chance to dictate the legislative agenda in Washington until 2004. Controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee in particular, they can push through Bush's nominations to the federal judicial bureaucrats, many of which Republicans claimed Democrats were stalling.

Republicans will now control all three branches of government and shape the political agenda to come, including how to stimulate the economy and manage Social Security. Already, Bush advisers have been at work on a possible set of new tax cuts whose centerpiece would be the permanent extension of 10-year reduction in income and inheritance taxes. Republicans and corporate leaders are eager to bulldoze objections by Democrats and labor unions to parts of the Republican plan for a new Department of Homeland Security.

The upper class propagandists of both ruling parties attributed the marvelous results of midterm election to Mr. Bush's intensive campaigning on behalf of GOP candidates, particularly in close Senate races in the South and Midwest. However, not one of them explained coherently why Democrats squandered so many opportunities.

I think, despite Republicans' victory over Democrats, the entire upper class is loosing its grip over the middle class, and the latter is going to organize itself into the third viable party, which will really represent the long-term middle class interests, because the moderate Democrats may already realize that a new Democratic leadership is a simple continuation of the previous one and will never actualize their dream of betterment. With Mr. Frost or Mrs. Pelosi they will get only tit for tat and nothing more. Therefore, the American commoners ought to welcome the new Democratic leadership and the Iraqi war as the means to freedom from the spiritual shackles of the old aristocracy, which will break its own neck in that war.

You cannot cure the fool otherwise as to letting him to kill himself. If you don't want to be killed along with him -- organize yourself into the middle-class party.

11/7/02

The revolution from above is coming, and the masses should be ready to turn it into the revolution from below.

On September 20, the ruling triumvirate of Cheney-Rumsfield-Wolfowitz issued the 33-page document, in which the trio declared a new geo-political strategy of the U.S. bureaucracy that will shift its military strategy away from the deterrence that characterized the Cold War and toward pre-emptive action against terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction.

The motto of Mr. Cheney is -- 'to know what to do and do it'; but is the trio really knows what to do?

"Deterrence" means that a set of state bureaucrats shows its power and the probability of retaliation to another set of state bureaucrats.

However, the "pre-emptive action" means to deter the strong state bureaucracies and to crash the weak state and religious (primarily, Muslim) bureaucracies.

The trio wrote that, "The United States [bureaucracy] can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past... We cannot let our enemies strike first... As a matter of common sense and self-defense, American [bureaucracy] will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed... While the United States [bureaucracy] will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists," to prevent them from doing harm to us.

But who would be qualified on the role of "terrorists". According to the trio, it is clearly depends on who is the qualifiers... that is, the U.S. bureaucrats themselves -- and even not the elected ones, because Cheney and Rumsfield were not elected by the Americans; and even not the supposedly ruling legislative bureaucrats, because the executive bureaucrats are required by Constitution to submit the document to Congress, but the trio's doctrine amounted to the official declaration of the death of Cold War strategy (that pushed the strong state bureaucracies to stockpile nuclear weapons as a way of ensuring peace among themselves) and of the birth of Permanent War strategy that will reshuffle the orientation of the weak state and religious bureaucracies.

In the second paragraph of their 33-page document, the trio tries to answer critics of their selfish motivations.

"We do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage... We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom." Well, if the promotion of selfish interests of the American corporate bureaucrats all over the world by changing the democratically elected regimes for the corrupt ones that support the American sweatshops, in which the Asians, Africans and Latin-Americans are sweating for 80 cents per day is not the bold disrespect for human life and dignity, then, call me Anti-Christ, Anti-Semite, or anti-someone that you may find as the "good guy" in your lexicon.

"Enemies of the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America [n bureaucrats]... Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank." Therefore, the American bureaucrats will "support moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation." They will also support for an independent and democratic Palestinian state "if Palestinians embrace democracy and the rule of law, confront corruption and firmly reject terror." But that is precisely the problem, which the trio resolves topsy-turvy.

What should be first -- the egg or the hen, the democratic conditions or the democratic bureaucracy? I think, the egg is primary, because the other species (from which the hen evolved) also used the egg as the means of propagation of their existence. And so the democratic conditions breed the democratic bureaucracy, though the latter may (or may not) reinforce the former. If it is not, then it dies; thus, creating more fertile conditions for a new regime. Consequently, the continuing aggressive war of the Israeli bureaucrats, backed by the American bureaucrats, against the Palestinians necessitates the latter to organize themselves as having the monarchical and dictatorial authority in order to be alive as a nation and carry out a meaningful resistance to the external aggression.

For the same reason the toothless Articles of Confederation were changed for the present Constitution; consequently, drawing the spiritual and material resources from the conditions created with the adoption of a new and more dictatorial constitution, Washington and his comrades managed to win the revolutionary and liberating war against the Brits. So, why should Palestinians foreplay with the democratic institutions when they need the totalitarian regime?

The revolutionary document of the trio also reinforces the drive of our executive bureaucrats to topple the present Iraqi regime at a time when Congress considers the request of the White House bureaucrats to use military force against the Iraqi bureaucrats while seeking support from Russian, French and other wary bureaucrats as part of a push for U.N. backing. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon opened the eyes of the American bureaucrats on a new enemy and forced them to change their military strategy, because, unlike the Soviet bureaucrats, the newly minted kamikazes cannot be scared and deterred by demonstrating military power through Hollywood -- they need the real thing. And what be more real than death? And the death is always personal; and the new strategy means that the imperial American bureaucrats will act over the heads of the alien bureaucrats, thus disrespecting the sovereignty of the latter over the lives and property of their citizens. Consequently, besides the butt-licking Brits, hardly any national bureaucracy will back up the superiority complex of the American bureaucrats.

But then again, if the religious fanatics cannot be deterred by the American propaganda, the Iraqi state bureaucrats can. In what respect they are better than were the Soviet bureaucrats? Nevertheless, the trio declared the regime of Saddam Hussein as a hostile one to their interests, because it refuses to sell their oil cheaply; moreover, it helps the families of those Palestinian kamikazes.

The trio's document shows no evidence that Iraq's nuclear program is close to producing a nuclear bomb; no any proof that Iraqi bureaucrats are closely connected to terrorists who have attacked or might attack the American bureaucrats; no new explanation of why, in the face of the overwhelming ability of the American bureaucrats to annihilate the Iraqi bureaucrats, the latter would use a nuclear weapon against the former if they had one. The danger to the American bureaucrats posed by the Iraqi nuclear program -- has never been substantiated. Mr. Bush charged Saddam with trying to buy aluminum tubes, evidently unable to show that Saddam had managed to buy the tubes, much less do anything with them. Mr. Bush charged Saddam with trying to build a nuke within a year if he acquired enough material for it, apparently unable to show that Saddam had the material or a reliable way to get it. Besides, the history does not like the subjunctive mood. Seeing that nobody buys the "if-could-would" argument, Mr. Bush charged Saddam with having met many times with his nuclear scientists, demonstrating "his continued appetite for these weapons," as though the same appetite could not be attributed to any other head of State, who do not want to kiss the butts of American bureaucrats.

The ruling triumvirate has never explained where else their doctrine of pre-empting the acquisition of nuclear weapons (much less chemical or biological weapons) would apply. The pretext on which the trio initially justified war with Iraq (a link between the Iraqi regime and the September 11 plot) has collapsed. The White House bureaucrats have followed that up with countless other insincere arguments. "Al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq," Mr. Bush charged recently Saddam Hussein, ignoring the fact that according to his own aides, al-Qaida freedom fighters have scattered in many other Muslim countries in similar numbers. Then, Mr. Bush tried to impress the American women by saying that in Iraq, children are tortured "in the presence of their parents", as though the torture of children in the absence of their parents were less atrocious. Besides, the American women have already accustomed to see on their TV screens as some of them torture their own children in the parking-lots (either by beating them up or by leaving in the red-hot cars for hours), drowning them in the bathtubs and lakes, and so forth.

The recent speech of Mr. Bush to a session of the United Nations General Assembly remarkably had the same defect and, in effect, only prompted the German bureaucrats to denounce the new strategy of the American bureaucrats, comparing it with Hitler's strategy of distraction of commoners from the internal problems by wagging the dog with the external wars. Probably that is why the ruling triumvirate is so adamant against the international war-crime tribunal. Moreover, the Nietzschean Darwinism was also Hitler's silver line in the international affairs, and we know how he finished his political carrier.

The Pentagon analysts assess the cost of the Iraqi war about $200 billion, which the American commoners and laborers should create by their blood and sweat. Even if those numbers would be correct, would not we be better off spending them for math teachers and smaller classes for our children? If our bureaucrats cannot order our own house, how they can teach other peoples to reorder their houses?

Dick Morris was correct when he recommended the present White House bureaucrats to boost Mr. Bush's fading popularity to apply the concept of wagging the dog toward the Iraqi bureaucrats. However, Mr. Morris cunningly silenced the question -- for how long that popularity will soar? However, I think the trend will soon be reversed when the first hundred zinc boxes will arrive onto the American soil from Iraq. Nevertheless, the conscious commoners should welcome the Iraqi war, because it would help them to wake up the fatty and sleepy majority of the Americans to smell the reality of death and destruction. Meanwhile, the conscious commoners should organize themselves into the meaningful third party that will reshape the revolution from above into the revolution from below.

The left wing of the upper-class propagandists will stress emotions while the right wing will accentuate reasoning. Nevertheless, both, the leftists and the rightists will try to convince you that the real debate over Iraq, terrorism, and present state of foreign affairs is the internal matter between Democrats and Republicans as polarities between the party of good will and the party of mean-will. The latter believe that all of us are born in sin and will be the sinners from the diapers to the white shroud, and the former believe that all men are "good" by nature. But both these parties are the wings of the upper class, and the psychological terms of their debate serve no other purpose as to distract commoner and laborers from their real interests in improving their week-day life.

The "mild-manner cops", the Democratic propagandists will say you that they believe that the behavior of foreign peoples and governments toward the United States is driven by whether they like us. If we are nice to them, they will be nice to us or if we are mean to them, they will be mean to us. Other nations will be friendly to us if we treat them as equal partners. Consequently, we should calm them down instead of stirring their anxiety and fear.

The "rude cops", the Republican propagandists will say to you that the behavior of foreign peoples and governments toward the United States is driven not by their emotions, but their reasoning -- not by whether they like us, but by whether they respect us. There is not equality between the states, but there are the strong and the weak states. Our potential allies will respond more to demanding than to pleading. If our leadership will be bold and firm enough in its convictions, they will follow us like the flock of sheep after a couple of goats. Punish an upstart, and they will fall in line. Regarding the terrorists -- they do not think the way the normal people do; they are the naturally born killers, which must be eradicated from the face of the earth as the wild beasts, by all possible means. We must send a message to friend and foe alike that we're tough guys; and if some "friends" don't like our imperial arrogance -- a few slaps will do the trick, and they'll come around reasoning that it is in their long-term interests to do as we say.

Then, the right wing of the aristocratic smoke-screeners will accuse the left wing of their comrades by class in passivity and relativism by saying to you that if you would go along with the believers in goodwill, you risk being manipulated and abused by foreign governments that do not -- for instance, you want Russians help to pass a U.N. Security Council resolution returning weapons inspectors to Iraq. However, having a huge commercial stake in Iraq and wanting your support in fighting Chechen rebels by means that will probably entail extensive civilian casualties, Russians may say they will go along, but only if you stop talking about their violations of human rights and if you remove the clause authorizing the immediate use of force in the event that Iraq blocks the inspectors. Your price of goodwill turns out to be excessively high; and if paid in full, would weaken your basic principles and long-term policy, for your passivity and relativism would bring fear and misery for third parties.

The leftists will treat the conservatives as hypocrites, because the latter ascribe Americans as good-natured and foreigners - as ill natured. Americans will do "good, because of the nature of our soul, the nature of our being... If you want to fight evil, do some good… Love your neighbor; mentor a child; put your arm around an elderly citizen who is shut-in, and say, 'I love you.' … Societies change one heart, one conscience, one soul at a time." However, foreigners, particularly terrorists and their sympathizers are a different species. "They hate and we love... We differ from our enemy because we love." And with "l-o-ve”, we will stop their heart beating. As our Constitution proclaims, we all "equal" under God... but some of us should be the masters and some -- the slaves.

Thus, both wings of the smoke-screeners will entangle you in their eternal scholastic web of empty rhetoric, because they will never dare to analyze a problem from the commoners' point of view; they rather will lump all of us as the good-natured Americans and all of Russians as interested in Iraqi oil and in crashing Chechen rebels. So, beware of those upper-class smoke-screeners, and do not let them to put blinders over your eyes while leading you into the abyss of ignorance. Fight for your class-interest, and you will be blessed and happy.

The revolution is coming.

9/21/02

The myth of the day is the system is "good" but some "weeds" should be weeded. Then, who should be weeding? The "weeds" themselves? They would hardly whack themselves unless the middle class would compel them to do so. The founders of the union sincerely tried to answer the question - who will guard the guardians? But their system of checks and balances does not work properly for the middle class, because the two ruling parties belong to the upper class and rather hamper the interests of the American commoners and laborers.

Much water has gone under the rock for two centuries since the union was founded - institutionalized slavery was abolished, many more states joined and were joined to the union. To adjust those developments, the American commoners need to form the third viable party to preserve their prosperity and way of life, because the Republicans and Democrats (in greater and lesser degree) are the puppets of Big Business, among whom the notion of "class partisan" became so purified and informative as if it were an Enron-WorldCom accounting book.

Such Democrats as senators Lieberman and Schumer and a representative Dingell, became too entangled with corporate interests of the Connecticut insurance business, Wall Street, and Michigan auto industry. However, the vast majority of the Republicans get their funding from Big Business because their policy is utterly complies with the long term interests of corporate bureaucrats. To do their job thoroughly, that is, to impede the meaningful reforms in the interest of the middle class, for which they were hired by the corporate bureaucrats, the Democrats and Republicans alike have two ways - the direct and indirect ones. Indirect impairment of reforms is going through such inclusions as than one when two Andersenian hatchlings in revenue "enhancing", the CEO of Merck & Co. and a corporate lawyer, who closely ties with the bureaucrats of largest accounting corporations and who openly pursues their looser regulations, unbelieving in strict separation of their consulting and auditing activities. The appointees of Mr. Bush were selected to chair the transition panel on our health care and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Right from the start, the newly minted head of SEC declared himself as superior in rank comparatively with the directors of CIA and EPA and demanded a 21 percent raise, from $138,200 a year to $166,700. He just likes to roll the dice.

Direct impairment of reforms is going through such senators as the Texas Republican Mr. Gramm and the Mississippi Republican Mr. Lott, and of course, the president himself, who all hired by the corporate bureaucrats of Enron and WorldCom. It is hardly a new trick for the latter to pay the former indirectly, through donations to the presidential libraries and institutes of "Leadership". If Mr. Bush or any senator now pretends as being a nemesis of the corporate crooks, who are plundering the middle class, such a camouflage is necessary, for they all might be soon voted out of their bureaus and chairs.

Over the two centuries, the American capitalist economy has shaped its doubled faced political over structure, which is relatively inflexible for many self made entrepreneurs and is relatively flexible for the few plutocrats (inherent insiders of the economic and political bureaucracy who represent, as they say, crony capitalism and as I prefer to say - parasitic capitalism). Teddy Roosevelt called them the "malefactors of great wealth", but their life of opulence and power provides the "land of milk and honey" for atheistic new-comers, who otherwise wouldn't play by the rules while hoping one day to break their cocoons and to transform into the "social butterflies". However, the rules have been shaping by the old timers, who procure some loopholes for themselves; and when those loopholes become excessively used by the growing number of wealthy malefactors, then, at the critical point, the system begins to crumble, because it no longer provides incentive for the middle class inventors and investors, who are the real movers and shakers of the economic system and to whom the "capitalistic free enterprise" has decayed to the point of "communistic slavery". The rules, shaped by the parasitic insiders who created them for the outsiders but not for themselves, were expected to prevent excessive indebtedness and fraudulent accounting. But the super greedy insiders used to use excessively the credulity of the commoners, whose trust "in God" and government is now expired.

Now, when jobs and wages of the small investors, who get used to see their mutual-fund statements in red and to count for how much they were duped and swindled by the white collar plutocrats, are again at risk and declining, they need something to believe in. To reverse the trend of unhealthy public skepticism, the society badly needs the legal and particularly moral authority, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have credibility among the American commoners.

Unfortunately, in the last presidential campaign, the commoners chose the lesser of two evils (Mr. Bush and his team of capable social parasites) to be such an authority. Mr. Bush is a lifelong, inherent insider-plutocrat, as his pa and grandpa were. He cannot be trusted with lives and savings of the American commoners, because he is one of those malefactors of great wealth and because the latter are his family, friends and comrades. Mr. Bush is immune to the imperfections of the system, but that is only because those 'imperfections' are imperfections only in the eyes of the commoners and laborers.

Having much of his own wealth off such dubious machinations with a series of tax-sheltered limited partnerships as Dallas based Harken Energy, Mr. Bush got taste in inside trading and in seeing a straw in the other people's eye. One of the greatest speculators of all times, Mr. Soros made Mr. Bush a director and "consultant" of Harken Energy, who was responsible for facilitating ties with the Gulf sheiks. Mr. Bush's family ties procured Harken Energy bureaucrats with an exclusive contract to explore Bahrain's offshore fields. That deal has drove up the price of Harken's stock, and Mr. Bush, knowing how ill that company was actually managed and having inside information about imminent Iraqi invasion into Kuwait (which proved to be disastrous for Harken's shares), hurried to unload his 212,140 shares onto unsuspected buyers. Meanwhile, the subordinates of his pa from the SEC pronounced that "buyer should be aware" and Mr. Bush's Harken trade, despite his negligence to file necessary notification, was legal and fair and square. And now, Mr. Bush dares to implore other corporate bureaucrats to play by the "written" rules. After Mr. Bush's moralistic declamation that revealed his staunch hypocritism, stinky even for the shrewd corporate bureaucrats, Wall Street plummeted down for nearly 200 points; and the very next day, it plummeted down for 300 more points after Mr. Cheney's Halliburton affair came to surface.

From that potent experience with Harken Energy, Mr. Bush got firm convictions on where he stands and what for he ought to live. His pa restored the unpopular (but lucrative for the American corporate bureaucrats) Kuwaiti regime and was pronounced a "national hero" by the social parasites. However, the Americans-at-large, for more than a decade, were obliged to maintain a considerable number of their military bureaucrats in Kuwait to support the monarchical Kuwaiti regime against the will of the Kuwaiti commoners and laborers. And the junior got that right - he always would be cheered and hugged by the parasitic aristocrats when he would dispense public money rather for the military bureaucrats than for the butter, decent housing and education of the commoners and laborers. However, he did not get it still, that it is easier to change a regime that to maintain it, because it must be rooted in the native soil.

To maintain unpopular regimes all around globe costs money and hard labor to the American commoners and laborers; nevertheless, it is profitable for the American corporate bureaucrats. The regime changing policy became evidently costly, even from the point of view of the political bureaucrats. Thus, running into a sharp budgetary deficit, the WH bureaucrats were necessitated recently to curb a little bit their own insatiable appetite for military spending. To support unpopular regime in Venezuela costs money; to support the unpopular regime in Afghanistan costs even more money. Probably that is why Mr. Bush should reserve a decent house near the Camp David for Hamid Karzai, for soon Mr. Karzai will be begging for American citizenship. Yesterday, Mr. Karzai managed to avoid an assassin, but two weeks ago, his assistant, Mr.Quadir got whacked along with his bodyguards in the streets of Kabul, probably for not paying for a shipment of heroin. The post-Taliban revival of narco-business economy is back on track, thanks to $2 billion received out of $30 billion needed to change the agricultural way of life for the industrial one.

The shortage of American material help to the newly minted Afghan bureaucrats is based on the ill conceived notion of the American aristocrats, who recently discovered that Islam is not as profitable for them as Judaism or Christianity. Of course, Islam would be a "good" faith if the Muslims would allow the Jewish and Christian aristocrats to explain 'em the "correct" meaning of Islam. For instance, they pray too much and do not allow the girls to appear half naked in public; they also do not allow their priests to grapple and sodomize the boys. Nevertheless, they did not allow to put a bug or two in their ears. Consequently, the Muslims should not be trusted at all (with money and otherwise), should be demoted to the level of pests, which should be mercilessly "exterminated" from the face of the earth. For that matter, and all internal dissidents should be "eradicated" in the Name of Freedom... of the American aristocrats. Perhaps, it explains why Mr. Bush and his gang are so adamant against cooperation with other national bureaucracies in the International Criminal Court.

Following in the footsteps of McCarthy and Pinochet, the present administration is gradually encroaching on our rights in the Name of their Freedom to do whatever they want to do with us (the American commoners and laborers) and the rest of human weaklings. But before they will throwing their Operation "Freedom Shield" into high gear, they are trying our patience with such infringements as we are experiencing together with Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber", whom they declared a non American and threw into a Navy brig, intending to keep him there without benefit of visiting counsel or relatives to the end of the War on Terrorism, which will end about the same time as their War on Drugs and all other their dirty wars on the American commoners and laborers.

The bureaucrats, like Bush and Giuliani, defend their bent on snatching commoners off the streets and putting 'em in prison without the formality of a public trial by peers. The conservative bureaucrats excuse themselves by citing Robert Jackson (a judge of Vinson's Supreme Court) who was an ideological father of the notoriously famous senator Joseph McCarthy and who like to say that "if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the Constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact". Consequently, if the commoners would accept the pragmatic aristocratic logic that a little impinging on their rights here and there is necessary for the preservation of the State, they necessarily should accept the notion of preservation of the rule of the present bureaucrats to the last commoner, never matter how bad that rule might be for the commoners and laborers. Mr. Padilla had no bomb, "dirty", or otherwise; however, the bureaucrats suspect him in plotting against them because he was hanging out in "dubious" Middle Eastern places with "dubious" Arabs, who might be "linked" to Al Qaeda. But that is the nature of any bureaucrat to suspect any commoner in wanting to unseat him. And if the commoners would allow the materialization of those irrational suspicions without checking upon their constitutionality and substantiality, then, they risk to relive another era of Witch Hunting. Of course, if that's what the majority of us wants, then, so be it. But then again, do not be an aristocratic hypocrite by calling such a terrorist-pragmatic rule -- a democracy.

7/31/02

Just when you thought the ugly scandals among the corporate bureaucrats couldn't get any worse, come revelations that the WorldCom bureaucrats disguised $3.8 billion and the Xerox bureaucrats swindled the small investors by nearly $2 billion, following on the heels of countless accounting frauds among the team of corporate bureaucrats like energy distributor Enron, drugstore chain Rite Aid, telecommunications provider Global Crossing, cable TV operator Adelphia Communications, to name but a few.

Three days ago, the WorldCom bureaucrats acknowledged they inflated profits for five quarters, and instead of making $1.4 billion last year, actually lost money. Their accountants, with the helping hand of the notorious Arthur Andersen and Co., had listed expenses of $3.055 billion from 2001 and $797 million from the first quarter of 2002 as capital investments, thus making the corporation's quarter-to-quarter financial picture rosy rather than gloomy and allowing its former chief executive, Bernie Ebbers, to get from the corporation over $470 million in loans and then resign in April amid gossips.

This accounting trick is known to any bookkeeping student and it is illegal. But the Wall Street traders has already been knowing about the real state of the corporate affairs, because WorldCom's stock has fallen from $62 to under $1 and the company's value has gone from more than $115 billion to less than $1 billion for the past year. Obviously, the marketers had already raised serious questions about the long-term viability of the WorldCom team of corporate bureaucrats, who employs 80,000 people worldwide; and today, 17,000 of them are expecting to lose their jobs. Analysts agree the latest revelations will certainly lead to bankruptcy, and probably the criminal charges will follow. And that, seems to me, is what is wrong with the present residents of the White House (WH), who supposedly are our watchdogs of the corporate bureaucrats' activities but who cannot or want not to connect the dots, because, for the past decade, of thousands white-collar crime cases, only in 187 cases people were indicted and only 87 of those corporate bureaucrats actually did some minor jail-time. Meanwhile, millions of commoners and laborers have been imprison for 15-20 years for possession of small amounts of narcotics. Such disparity in prosecuting these two kinds of crime clearly indicates to whom the present political bureaucrats serve and whose orders they take seriously -- the people or the corporate bureaucrats.

Even before the news about the accounting practice of the WorldCom bureaucrats came out, there were stunning announcements about the accounting practices of such corporations as the Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco and others. The political bureaucrats of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who supposedly are the WH watchdogs of the corporate bureaucrats' activities, announced the day before yesterday they will "actively investigating the events relating to the veracity of WorldCom's financial statements and disclosures." Mr. Bush confirmed that "the SEC and DOJ are on it and will fully investigate and hold people accountable." However, it's hard to believe that the bureaucrats-aristocrats, who actually do only what they ordered to do by the corporate bureaucrats, would do anything meaningful about misdeeds of their "elders" by class, except playing on the word "people", by which they imply exclusively the own class. And that is the heart of the beast, because the aristocrats say that our rights derive from God, but by "God" they mean own class organization, institutions of which directed toward exploitation of the commoners and laborers.

However, when the commoners say that our rights derive from the people, by the people, and for the people, they mean it whole-heartedly. Moreover, the words "... under God" were written into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by the McCatrthyist legislative bureaucrats, who saw it as the means to combat atheism and communism. I have to admit that a public announcement of one bureaucrat's beliefs might stimulate his loyalty to another bureaucrat, but it would hardly stimulate their class loyalty to the American commoners and laborers. Wait a minute... it's probably all the way around. It is the bureaucrats who want that the commoners and laborers were loyal to them; that's why they needed to substitute "people" for "God". Du-h! Then, who should serve to whom, not by words but by deeds?

Although the aristocrats, through their highly paid henchmen-propagandists -- like Rush Limbaugh, "doctor" of democracy among the aristocracy (who is getting 22 silver pieces each year for successful fooling the American commoners with the idea of complete deregulation of economic system, guessing that greediness and cruelty of individuals would somehow lead to their social harmony and civility), are boldly assert that their notion of God has a common sense, but their "common" sense is a murky and double-faced one that fits only the aristocrats. And that is why the political bureaucrats can say with a poker face they will fight the international and domestic terrorism to the end and, at the same time, pouring oil in the flames of terrorism by saying they are adept of the "free" market but dispensing $190 billion farm subsides, steeping steel tariffs, and relaxing control over emission of carbon dioxide and other air-pollutants of the coal industry, thus "maintaining" support from the coal, steel, and agri-business corporate bureaucrats, whose stolen from the commoners and laborers money partially goes into the pockets of the political bureaucrats.

Moreover, on June 24, Mr. Bush unveil the WH hard-liners' initiative, which envision helping the Israeli and Palestinian commoners, thus securing the American commoners. The goal is fine. Nobody would argue against that that both these people would choose their political bureaucrats, who would treat own commoners with respect, dignity, and in accord with the republican laws. The American aristocrats say that they would like that Israeli and Palestinian commoners would benefit from the American economic and political system. But preaching peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the American political bureaucrats actually promote the war, helping to maintain the totalitarian rule of the Israeli and Palestinian aristocrats. Indeed, what are the means of the American aristocrats' "honorable" goal?

A few months ago, the Bush-Cheney team of bureaucrats acknowledge the "legitimate aspirations" of the Palestinians for having own viable and independent political bureaucracy (or "State"). Now they insist that the Palestinians must first "embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror." Translating from the Aristocratic gibberish, it means that in order to stop the terrorism of the Palestinian commoners, the entire Palestinians must already have in place their own republican-structured bureaucracy that could terrorize the Palestinian commoners and laborers and keep them within the republican norms of behavior.

In fact, such preliminary conditions cannot be easily applied even to such really existing but monarchic structured bureaucracies as those ones of Saudis or Kuwaitis. Moreover, such conditions cannot be applied at all to the non-existing bureaucracies, such as the Palestinian Authority -- the meager infrastructure of which was demolish by the Israeli military bureaucrats in the past month.

The WH hard-liners knew that their ultimatum to the Palestinians is a repugnant intervention in the internal affairs of the Palestinians and will be rejected by the vast majority of them at the ballot booths, and they again will choose Mr. Arafat as their political leader. But that was precisely the goal of the WH bureaucrats.

If the WH policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means anything, it is that the Israeli hard-liners can proceed their assault on democracy in the region, destroy the embryonic Palestinian republican state, leaving radical nationalism of Palestinian commoners in the hands of autocratic and aristocratic Islamists (Hamaz, Hezbollah and others), who are a worthy yin-yang of the Israeli aristocrats, because both are equally believe in primacy of military force and futility of civil negotiations.

Consequently, the Israeli hard-liners can openly abandon the rhetoric of peace-searching and avoid the indispensable but difficult dismantling the Israeli settlements on the West Bank of Jordan River and relinquishing this territory to the would-be Palestinian republican bureaucrats.

If the American political bureaucrats were really interested in the creation of the Palestinian republican state, they would long ago insists on the international peace-keeping mission in the region, but they are just humble servants to the American corporate bureaucrats, whose interest in the region is primarily an oily one. And that means that to bribe the autocratic regimes with one bureaucrat at the top is much cheaper than to bribe the republican regimes with hundreds of bureaucrats at the top. But then again, if it cannot fly at home, why it cannot fly abroad?

The cheap gasoline only seemingly ease the hardship of the American commoners and laborers, whose meager savings are anyway pumped out into the pockets of the aristocrats, who used to use such financial gimmicks a la Enron-WorldCom. With Corporate America sinking deeper by the day into a morass of corruption, many economists fear that small investors' trust in the system may be gone for good. The henchmen-economists have already questioned how long a row of revelations that the nation's largest teams of corporate bureaucrats cooked their books should be till it exhausts the confidence of small, middle-class investors, whose pensions were just pumped so boldly into the aristocratic pockets.

The New York City bureaucrats recently won a settlement with the brokerage firm Merrill Lynch, bureaucrats of which knowingly pushed poor quality stocks to the small investors. If the Merrill Lynch brokers would praise a stock to your face and laugh at you behind your back when you bought it, who can you trust? A Gallup poll at last June showed that only 28 percent of Americans expressed confidence in "big business", but now that figure dropped to 20 percent. It just delays for twenty some years the point in time, at which the new generation of commoners can get back their confidence in the economic and political system (as it was after the Great Depression) and return to the stock markets.

HOW THEY DO THAT

The political bureaucrats, who investigated the criminal behavior of Enron-WorldCom bureaucrats, say that the commercial bankers help the latter by providing them with billions of dollars in loans and other financial services, thus illegally benefiting themselves from deals at the expense of the commoners and laborers. Investigating an Enron-related partnership called Chewco, the political bureaucrats uncovered that the financing for the partnership included loans from Barclays' bankers structured in ways that hid them from Enron's auditors. The discovery of the hidden loans ultimately played a central role in the financial crisis last fall that led to Enron's collapse.

According to current and former Enron executives who have been questioned by the New York City investigators, these include a series of deals between the Enron bureaucrats and J. P. Morgan Chase bankers that have been described in private lawsuits as disguised loans to the energy company, which (combined with the notorious Arthur Andersen and Co. accounting practice) allow the Enron bureaucrats to inflate their profits, thus, fooling the small investors, who has lesser access to the true information.

The bankers had complex financial relationships with the Enron bureaucrats, and the full details of those only began to emerge amid the shredded documents. Like most companies, the Enronians borrowed money to finance their operations. But the bankers also provided cash for Enron's off-the-books "partnerships" and for the outsider-investors (who had no representatives in the bureaucracies of those companies). Some bankers and fund-managers were themselves investors in the "partnerships". Thus major New York bankers engaged in circular trades with the Enronians and allowed the latter to obtain billions of dollars in loans without disclosing those loans to their small-potato shareholders.

Thus, according to the accounting rules of Chewco partnership, which was formed by the Enronians in 1997, at least 3 percent of Chewco's capital had to come from independent investors, who have no ties with the Enron bureaucrats, thus allowing to keep the partnership's financial results off the Enron's books. Consequently, at least part of the outside equity for Chewco purportedly came from Barclays' bankers through a one-man company called Big River, who at the same time was a sole member of another company called Little River.

Last November, when Andersen learned that the money from Barclays' bankers was actually a loan secured by $6.6 million in cash collateral, he insisted that the Chewco partnership failed the 3 percent test and its finances had to be consolidated with those of the Enron bureaucrats. That decision of the Andersen bureaucrats prompted a revision of Enron's financial results for the past year.

Prosecutors have discovered evidence that some Morgan and Citigroup bankers enriched themselves in dealings with the bureaucrats of Enron-like companies and their off-shore appendixes, based in the Channel and others islands, like Chewco, Mahonia Ltd, Delta or Stoneville Aegean Ltd.

In the Mahonia deals, according to records of the transactions and energy industry experts, the Enronians appear to have used natural gas trades with a series of off-shore companies linked to the Morgan bankers, who help to move hundreds of millions of dollars in loans off the Enronians' books. The gas-trading transactions have led to charges in bankruptcy court that the Enron and Morgan bureaucrats intentionally misrepresented the nature of the deals to obtain surety bonds from the bureaucrats of insurance companies, such as the St. Paul Companies and Liberty Mutual, because the bureaucrats of Enron's off-shore companies who traded gas have being required to deliver the commodity on a future date and being owed the same amount of gas for delivery on the same date at the same price.

The transactions between the Citigroup bankers and the Enronian bureaucrats of Delta, based in the Cayman Islands, functioned in a similar way. According to a lawsuit filed by the Enron shareholders, the Citigroup bankers used the Enronian bureaucrats of Delta to carry out $2.4 billion of financial "swaps" with the mother-company that "perfectly replicated loans and were, in fact, loans," but were not disclosed on the Enron bureaucrats' books. The investigators said that it was done to improve the Enron's cash flow through a transaction that appeared on the books as a trading liability rather than as debt. That helped the Enron bureaucrats in their dealings with the bureaucrats of rating agencies.

However, today, the federal bureaucrats of DOJ made their first individual criminal charges in the Enron case, alleging that three British bankers of National Westminster Bank Plc unlawfully enriched themselves using one of the Enron's dubious partnerships. The bureaucrats of DOJ accused three bankers with wire fraud in a scheme and siphoning $7.3 million in income from the bank through a secret investment in an Enron's limited partnership known as Southampton L.P. using a series of financial transactions. The trio worked in a division of NatWest, a conglomerate of bankers who received preferential treatment from the Enron bureaucrats when deals were contemplated.

Some analysts think that from now on bankers will be more cautious about lending money to the venture bureaucrats, especially in the beleaguered telecommunications industry, for fear of another blowup. But I do not think it is the way how the large fortunes are made.

Some analysts hope that revelations of the WorldCom and Xerox bureaucrats won't deter from the market the millions of long-term small investors who own stocks through their 401(k) retirement savings or mutual funds. They bet that the wave of revelations is subsiding, bringing a bottom to the market's steady declines, from which it will soon start rebounding. This wishful thinking is based on the fact that large mutual-fund investors have actually remained committed to the stock market for most of this year, despite mounting financial scandals. They put about $67 billion of new cash into stock mutual funds during the first four months of the year, according to the latest figures from the mutual-fund industry's Investment Institute, while they invested in these funds about $20 billion during the same period last year.

I suspect that so much of the money going into mutual funds is retirement-oriented, and the mutual-fund managers are preparing that money for a spectacular sacrifice to themselves, leaving the small investors with empty pockets... as usual. And that is how the large fortunes of this God-loving country were actually made.


6/28/02

An American come to a Caribbean island for a vacation and see an aborigine is lying naked at a banana-tree. Enraged by the “poverty” of the islander, the American begins lecturing the latter how to make a “decent” living.

--You have such a beautiful weather and rich soil, and it is shameful that you have not even a piece of underwear. You can climb up the tree, take down some of its bananas, bring them to a local market and sell them. Then, you can invest some of that money and buy a cart with a horse, come to this forest, pick up more bananas, bring them to the mart, sell them, buy a new car, drive it to the forest, pick more bananas, sell them. Then, you can employ workers who will do the dirty job for you while you can lie naked under a banana tree, doing nothing.

--And what I am doing right now? - replied the islander.

To some of us, this anecdote might illustrate what “we” are going to protect by bombing 25 million innocent Afghan civilians. Indeed, by asking the Taliban, which from Afghan means “the students,” to answer a rhetoric question of Bush’s team – whether the life of 25 million innocents is worth the life of one, probably not so innocent, – shows that the inquisitors do not believe (as they claim) that life begins at conception. And even if they believe in the latter, they still do not believe that the one innocent life as important as the lives of the 25 millions. That is probably why they could not evacuate the White House and Congress in 20 minutes but were trying to shoot down the fourth plane without any negotiations with the hijackers about the life and liberty of those innocent passengers. They rather preferred to protect the inanimate buildings than the living, breathing, and innocent civilians. But then again, who and how will define “innocence”? The American upper class is already condemn Milosevich and bin Laden for what Bush’s team is trying to do right now – for protecting the interests of the majority of their own population.

The students supposedly have to learn the principles of the object of their study, but what is the Taliban learning from Bush’s team of bureaucrats? The latter believes in the only principle – the rule of majority or the mighty is right, not that there is something wrong with that. But exercising this pragmatic principle bears two problems with itself – external and internal.

Internally, the pragmatic leaders must be constantly in flux to keep up with the Joneses, like the Clinton’s team did before. Although such leaders were, are, and will be accused in hypocrisy by the minority, they were and will be the real representatives of the real majority and the actual protectors of the long lasting interests of the real majority, which is the unity of the upper and middle classes. And that is how they might conduct the actual genocide against the Cherokees, Afghans, and  and other "uncivilized brutes" without being morally repudiated. Moreover, externally, the pragmatic leaders must remember, and apply correspondingly, the different modus operandi of bureaucracies of the industrial and agricultural societies.

However, the conservative elements of Bush’s team (Baker, Cheney and Rumsfeld) can hardly be characterized as flexible. “Neither they forget nor learn anything,” – as a wise guy of Napoleon’s team once said about the restored Bourbons. But that is how the conservatives get their name – they supposedly must be inflexible while protecting and preserving what is already achieved. However, the inflexible conservatives had rarely, if ever, managed to persuade the rest of the upper class and the commoners in the necessity of an offensive and expansive war because the majority of commoners strive for excellence and expansion of their influence, "daring with deliberation" in a particular, narrow industry. And that is why the commoners must have a supervision of the broadly thinking upper class. And that is why the American commoners had agreed with the Democratic leaders of the upper class to go into the Vietnam war, but soon they realized – they would get nothing but the losses of people and resources, which otherwise would be useful at homeland. Besides, defeating the Taliban, whom would the American upper class put in charge of the Afghan people? The former king or a Soviet tyrannical puppet? But in accord with the American constitution, the upper class must help other peoples to create republics (not monarchies) as the form of government with long lasting benefits to the American people.

Make no mistake, the open war in Afghanistan will be an offensive one, not a defensive one, as the conservatives try to inculcate into us, aiming to recruit more canon fodder among us. Our aristocrats will drive millions of the Afghan commoners out of their warm homes, air-drop them a couple of hundred cold tents, and cry in all megaphones about "Western civilization" and "American humanitarians". And what the American commoners will get out of such a war? May be a couple of cheap rugs, the cost of which will be vastly outweighed by soaring gasoline prices, increasing spending on security, and further bureaucratization of our society; and as a result of that, the further decrease of American moral authority in Asia and Africa. And that is the heart of the present beast.

Rathers and Brookhisers are telling you that the majorities of the Muslims hate “you” either for no reason at all or out of jealousy (“because we are mighty and good”). But that is another hypocrisy of the American aristocrats for which they, not the American commoners and laborers, are hated in Asia and Africa. Look at the targets the so-called terrorists chose. Two of four captured planes were directed into the symbolic heart of the American corporations, whose bureaucrats have been waging the permanent clandestine war against the commoners and laborers of the oil producing countries for the past half of a century by corrupting and restoring hundreds of monarchical and tyrannical regimes in order to buy low the crude oil and to sell high the final products of it. A classic example of the "pragmatic" practice of our aristocratic bureaucrats in the Middle-East is their present embrace and support of the Pakistani regime of general Musharraf, who only two years ago overthrew a democratically elected prime-minister. Back then, the Western aristocrats-"democrats" denounced general Musharraf, but now, when they need a bridge-head against the Taliban and bin Laden, the Pakistani military bureaucrats are their "best friends" who deserve to be freed from all debts and get plenty of hi-tech police weaponry in their arsenal to hold down the Pakistani commoners and laborers.

The American commoners and laborers should know that if the fundamentalist revolution starts in Pakistan, it would be triggered by the "crafty" American aristocrats. Probably that is why the hijackers were from the Saudi middle-class families, and probably that is why they directed other two planes into the symbolic heart of the American political system, which facilitated and promoted that corruption and lawlessness in the Islamic countries, hypocritically masking its low intentions by the high words of liberty and equality. But as usual, proclaiming abstract liberty, the American bureaucrats meant the real freedom for themselves to do whatever they wanted to do with those Asians and Africans, to whom that American liberty turned out as the political slavery and economic poverty. And that’s where the Orwell’s 1984 dictionary would be useful to translate into the common language the euphemisms of the American aristocracy, which now coded their military operation in Asia as the “Indefinite Justice,” which probably will be rather undefined to the commoners the injustice of the upper class.

Indeed, what the American commoners will gain by killing thousands of Afghan commoners and laborers and even bin Laden himself? Will their moral authority be increased among the rest of the Asian and African commoners? I am not insulting your intelligence, but the answer is obvious. Fear hatches hate, fairness breeds respect and friendship. That is why the American commoners and laborers will come out of this war with empty pockets and with plenty of disappointments. Those commoners who do not learn from the past mistakes are condemned to repeat them and to allow their bureaucrats to be the "unilateralists" and self-appointed gendarmes of the world, who will, and rather soon, the gendarmes at home.

However, the real culprits of the present crisis, the American corporate bosses, will not look at the mirrors while seeking the external and internal “terrorists”; moreover, they will try to hide those mirrors in the places where you can be present, in order that your blessing ignorance once more would help them to stuff their purses. They would not pay the fair price for the Asian oil, they would not pay the fair price to the recent emigrants who service their airports, but they want the American commoners bail them out, they want corporate welfare. And they will probably get the $55 billion out of our pockets because of our ignorance and unwillingness to look at the mirror when we are going to embark on another witch-hunt. It’s a rush of adrenaline that prevents us from being homo-sapiens and that necessitates us to follow the very same animal route of the Islamic extremists, which we condemn with our lips but not in our hearts.

If we consider the necessities of the 100,000 unemployed airline workers and the new security measures that will soon mushroom all over the U.S., then the $55 billion relieve package may very well exceed $100 billions. Wouldn’t we be wiser and happier in this year if our corporate bureaucrats were not so stingy and would pay for the past year’s oil $100 billion more? If we consider the unilateral policy of our conservative dinosaurs and the $100 billion package for the missile shield that wouldn’t prevent a delivery of a small nuclear-bacterial-chemical (NBC) device via the USPS to the doorsteps of the White House (WH), wouldn’t we be wiser and happier if we would choose our political bureaucrats from ourselves and not among those corporate bureaucrats who has shown little interest in the coop-programs with the political bureaucrats of the former Soviet republics that aim to secure nuclear material from spreading around the globe and getting into the hands of kamikazes? Yesterday, the latter sacrificed themselves to the Japanese upper class in the name of Emperor; now, they sacrificed themselves to the upper classes of the Islamic countries in the name of Allah; and tomorrow, they will sacrifice themselves to the American upper class in the name of Jahveh, Christ, and "anti-terrorism".

Our bureaucrats would not define "terrorism" because it would mean to give to us rather a simple description of what they usually did -- with the Cherokees, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Chileans, Vietnamese, you name them. Besides, it would limit their freedom to label their scapegoat -- today as a white and tomorrow as a black one. They prefer to extol the brute force in the international affairs, as do the Muslim extremists. However, bin Laden glorifies force as a means of "purifying" only the Islamic countries from "corruption", while Bush-Blair extol such force to "purify" the entire world from "evil".

Therefore, let's concentrate on the next voting round and define the modus operandi of our would-be political bureaucrats. The foreign policy of our future bureaucrats should not be based on the unilateral doctrine of invincibility, rather international law and human rights must be upheld. We need treaties and allies, and their cooperation is relevant to our domestic security because a jetliner could just be easily hijacked in Mexico-city or Toronto and delivered in 20 minutes onto American soil. Rather than aggravating our differences with the traditional allies in the industrial countries, our political bureaucrats should consider ways to improve those friendships. It is better to pay once today for clean air and cool planet than thrice tomorrow; and it is better that the American corporate fat-cats pay for it than the American commoners and laborers.

Improved relations with our traditional allies would create an international system of checks and balances that would prevent our fat-cats from AT&Ts to put Pinochets in charge in the agricultural societies. This process of de-corruption would further bolster the process of industrialization of the agricultural societies and turning our foes into our friends in those countries. For a tiny fraction of the price of the useless missile shield and other military programs, which rather serve to establish hegemony and pecking order in the world, we would build a castle on a rock of friendship that would be open to many friends and impenetrable to handful foes.

However, for now, let's pray for the innocent victims of the war that the American corporate bureaucrats have been waging against the commoners and laborers of the agricultural societies for nearly a half of a century. Let's help emotionally and materially to the families of those innocent victims, particularly, hundreds of the New York firefighters. But then again, they perished rather because the bureaucrats of the Motorola corporation sold defective radios to the city's political bureaucrats, who got their kick-backs; therefore, the firefighters did not hear the order to retreat. The economic and political bureaucrats did their black deeds; but, from now on, the public-in-large (as usual) is responsible for the families of the perished firefighters. And do not forget that the innocent victims are much more among the Palestinian commoners and laborers than among the American commoners and laborers; and do not forget that without saving the Palestinian homes, our homes will not be safe either.

The rightists, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, are telling you that God had withdrawn divine protection from the United States in retribution for the freedoms bestowed by the American commoners upon homosexuals and feminists, thus, permitting "the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." Usually these preachers lecture their parishioners about delaying gratification, but now they are for instantaneous and indiscriminate response, up to and including the use of tactical nuclear weapons. They are telling us that everything has changed after September 11; however, since the disputed presidential election, they have been using consistently their patriotic rhetoric for their short term gain, demanding from the leftists conformity in the name of national unity. By definition, conformism is the low, deceitful, dishonest, and hypocritical policy of representatives of a class toward the representatives of other social classes. Nevertheless, the rightists feel that the American commoners and laborers obliged to line up behind their aristocratic agenda and to blame blindly their Muslim scapegoats, refraining from questioning any of their actions.

The leftists are telling you that for the past year the present WH bureaucrats assigned so many FBI and CIA agents to investigate misdeeds of the Clinton's bureaucrats that the investigators failed to spend enough time and money for counter-terrorism. Moreover, such leftists as Noam Chomsky and Chris Hitchens, are telling us that the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon must be understood as the reaction of the world's dispossessed and plundered by the imperial Jewish America and its Zionist client state, and that the savagery of bin Laden and other Islamic extremists is rooted in the poverty and misery that arise from globalization. However, these leftists' solution is the destruction of the imperial American bureaucracy.

Nevertheless, these rightists and leftists are both correct to some degree. Too low internal moral and too high external... may and often converge into each other. Even the WH bureaucrats got so frightened that have been panic-mongering among the large public, knowing that the message has meant only for them. I understand that it is more cheerful to die in a crowd than alone, but the real leadership must be cautiously optimistic, and it requires to put aside own fears and cravings for vengeance while pursuing justice amidst the large public. Moreover, the real statesmanship requires to pay for own mistakes from own pocket, not from the public's pocket. Therefore, let's not grant the Islamic extremists the final victory by rushing with vengeance that brings short-lived gratification, which, like syphilis, will do more harm in the long run.

We saw the majority of Palestinians on the West Bank were dancing, rejoicing the news of distraction of the WTC, the very reason they have been homeless for 50 years. Let's not to be too righteous zealots who are going to make those Palestinians moaning and begging to spare their lives. Instead, let's impose on ourselves limitation of profits, giving opportunity to those Palestinians to rebuild their homeland. Let's help the majority of Palestinians become middle class people, thus, laying the firm foundation for long-lasting peace between them and Israelis. Then, they will themselves deliver to us bin Laden or whoever is responsible for the killings of the innocent civilians at the WTC. They will do so because their ideology will become the same as ours and contrary to the aristocratic ideology of the Islamic extremists and fundamentalists.

9/20/01

Home editorial demise dead or alive free_speech abortion electoral_coll gun_control monopoly money social_security spy_who_douse_me star_wars tax_reform war_on_drugs others mymaxims photos content biography offer appendix deutsch francais espanol russian

Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on 04/13/03