How many people know the name Rachel Corrie?

Since Sept. 11th I have been compelled by my concern for this country’s welfare, to examine the United States’ standing in the world community and try to figure out how disaster can be avoided in the future, mainly because I don’t think the American government is working very hard on the solution.

The concept of detainees prior to the U.S. utilization of it, were known as political prisoners and have always been used as a sign of oppression. Are these people more of a threat to our government than they were to Stalin’s, Castro’s, or Husseins? Are we to forget that Nelson Mandela was one of these detainees at one point? Gandhi too was a detainee, as well as Martin Luther King Jr. One big difference between these men and the recent American detainee is that Mandela for instance, was known to be the agitator. The American detainees are only suspicious looking. The people that were reported kidnapped from their homes in the middle of the night by Stalin’s KGB and loaded into boxcars and sent to Siberia, are today arrested by Bush’s FBI or INS and sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. How do these ideas differ? Abuse of human rights to protect a Communist government is the same abuse when it is applied to protect a Democratic government. Even if it is repackaged and sold by the American media as a step toward disrupting the evil forces that threaten our way of life. The war technologies that were once pioneered by Germany like the Zeppelin and poison gas, have given way to smart bombs and predator drones of the Americans.
Here is a funny concept "smart bombs". It is in the character of the average American today that it is far easier to spend billions on "smart bombs" instead of taking a few precious moments out of their highly constructive life to spend time learning the truth, thereby enabeling the average American to elect "smart leaders". Bombs are no smarter than those employed to use them!
Logical reasoning says that to overt future disasters of this nature the United States must listen to the people perpetrating these acts of aggression toward America. The people responsible for these acts that we call "terrorists" are only that from our point of view meaning, many people from these countries where this anti-American sentiment originates see these acts as great blows against the forces that they view as oppressive… that they view as supporting their enemies. Given America’s reaction and overall attitude, which many view as arrogant, this list seems to be multiplying quite rapidly.
I’m sure given the mode of military combat during the American Revolutionary War, when the Hessians awoke from their stupors on Christmas morning in Trenton to the assault by General Washington’s forces, there could have been little doubt you would have heard them mumbling something about this dastardly underhanded act as they dropped their weapons. To the American cause it was and is, one of only a few victories during that entire engagement to be proud of. To this day we revere Washington’s maneuver across the Delaware on that historic evening so much that it is memorialized on one of our coins. The fact is that Washington was a desperate man at that point as were most patriots in the colonies. He would have and should have done anything to strike at the enemy in a way to ensure a victory, to boost morale in this country. This same desperation I believe, is the driving force behind an ever growing and more diverse group that oppose the United States. General Washington knew the overwhelming odds facing the colonies in 1775, but he readily accepted the task put to him. For General Washington, although not an outstanding military tactician, was a wise man. He understood human nature is not to be defeated by mere force, and a desperate man, after all else has abandoned him, can count on this fact. For this we should thank god.

In 1865, when John Wilkes Booth leaped from the box at Ford’s Theater after mortally wounding President Lincoln, he cried "Sic Semper Tyrannis"(Ever Thus to Tyrants). Mr. Booth was absolutely justified in his opinion that President Lincoln and the U.S. Government were tyrants, according to the constitution, for violating the sovereignty of the south. Legally speaking, you would never be able to deny that fact. The U.S. Constitution plainly states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends(life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), it is a right of the people to alter and abolish it". This is why none of the rebels like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were ever brought to court for being traitors. Legally the Federal Government had no case! Of course teaching this fact would make the prosecution of people like Tim McVey much more difficult. However horrible and cowardly the act that Tim McVey was convicted of seemed, it was his right under the constitution to attempt "to abolish" a government that he viewed as oppressive.

Allow me to teach you a fact about the United States here, that few are aware of and that has something to do with this paper. The framers of the constitution, knowing that the issue of slavery was the one issue that would without a doubt destroy the fragile alliance of the 13 states, allowed for the benefit of the Union, the issue of slavery to be overlooked knowing fully well that it would be dealt with in a bloody civil war later. They allowed it to be overlooked at this point, to first of all form the Union yes, but secondly to allow the Federal Government to gain enough strength to put the inevitable rebellion down. This is the reason for putting Washington DC in northern Virginia and not southern Virginia, so it wouldn’t end up in the heart of the enemy country some day! Other than ours, most all revolutions end the same way. Once the object of everyone’s anger is removed they inevitably break into warring factions. There are countless examples of this throughout time. Unless a man like Napoleon steps in and takes over. (This is a point I will return to later) This is the reason the American revolution was so incredible. Overlooking slavery was the only way the United States had a chance, the anti-slavery people gambled and won. The Constitution was written for posterity. That’s why the Constitution seems to be so contradictory prior to the civil war. Slavery was a dying issue, and they knew it.

Before going off on a tangent, by explaining General Washington’s and John Wilkes Booth’s desperate position, I was trying to explain that the term terrorist is relative. It’s like calling someone "Evil". Sure its easy to grasp the concept but is it a responsible comment, hardly. I believe only the most irresponsible leader would make a statement like this in regards to a person or country. I know for a fact it only acts to cloud an already cloudy issue further.
To quote John Adams "A man who has not better government of his tongue, no command of his temper, is unfit for everything but childerns play and the company of boys".These kinds of comments, if not spawned by President Bush’s own shear stupidity, then must only have been put to him by his speech writers for the purpose of desensitizing the American public while tending to dehumanize the opposition.
In my opinion, and I’ve thought about it for many weeks now, I believe that the definition of terrorist and patriot differ in that the terrorist chooses the path of destruction where the patriot has no other option. That’s the only legitimate thing that separates these ideas. "Patriot" is defined by the dictionary as "one who loves his or her country and zealously guards its welfare". Conspicuously absent from the dictionaries definition of "patriot" is that this is as relative a term as terrorist. If a terrorist isn’t at least zealous I’m not sure what he or she is, and I know they believe they are protecting there country, culture and religion.
The main difficulty that these individuals encounter when trying to communicate their desires to us, when attempting to penetrate the veil that the American media has shrouded the American public in for so long has I believe, proven to be to much. So perhaps because they give up trying, or because they decide to subvert the media conglomerates of this country and gain the attention of the public in other ways, they strike the US or Israel in a terrorist act. The very act of a suicidal terrorist blowing themselves up is the most powerful, and I would say in some ways, the most beautiful expression of frustration a person or society could produce. Please don’t confuse this act with that of the cowardly Tim Mcvey, there are no similarities.
With these simply conceived definitions of terrorist and patriot, it is reasonable to understand the majority of the worlds opposition to President Bush’s immediate, permanent, and unaltered demands of military intervention and refusal to cooperate with the United Nations resolution. As long as United Nations worked to his advantage he agreed to go along with them, but when they became impediments to his plan he rejected them. It appeared to most of the world, that after President Bush demanded the UN inspectors return to Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction that American Intelligence declared beyond a doubt were there, apparently no other outcome could or did satisfy him . The locations of these WMD we were told, were known by American Intelligence but because of compromising informants, the intelligence community was forbidden to divulge this information. This fact alone, the location of these WMD, would have to me so totally swung the war issue in President Bush’s favor and for legitimate reasons, that the opposition would have melted away. Don’t misunderstand me I’m not saying that these WMD would justify an American invasion of any country. America can not pick and choose which countries to invade and which countries to supply with WMD.
Even now after the major land offensive has ended, why has the media not been taken to the empty bunkers where these chemicals were known to be stored? Why not show up at these places with these high-tech devises that supposedly exist and detect these chemicals for the world to see. Everyday that goes by makes locating these WMD less likely and less believable. I don’t trust our government not to plant these somewhere and "find" them later. If I cared anymore about the US than I do I would almost encourage this to undo the damage that our President has done to our reputation in the world.
We are supposed to believe that alienating the entire world was a better option than jeopardizing even one informant. That telling the UN security counsel in secret or even a leak of there location, because it would jeopardize an informant was impossible. We are apparently supposed to believe this is just an example of American honor when dealing with foreign policy issues. Perhaps this is the reason, but someone with even a basil knowledge of American history and human nature couldn’t possibly accept this without at least a few unresolved questions. The story the American people were fed got even stranger when we were told of the diabolically illusive "mobile labs", that although not substantiated by American Intelligence, are apparently invisible! Its not for the average American to contemplate that after over 10 years of devastating UN sanctions that Iraqi scientists could produce a cloaking technology. I don’t mean to lessen the severity of the matter by joking but it helps me, as I’m sure it helps others, personally deal with it. I heard on Public Radio a little while ago that France was calling to have the sanctions on Iraq removed. Hussein has been out of power over a week and the sanctions are still in place! While the U.S searches desperately for the WMD, leaving the humanitarian aid up to others to worry about, another country steps in and has to say "Hey have we forgotten something…the people are dying!" America has proven to the world, once again, where our interests lie. Concerns for justification, not humanitarian concerns.

In science, there are laws that are recognized to effect a grain of sand and a universe all the same. Similarly, there are laws that effect individuals and countries all the same. The people in Palestine for instance, under these situations that drive their young men and women to horrible acts, deserve our pity not our hatred. They should be helped, not destroyed. As parents, aren’t we told that when our children lash out they are trying to get our attention? When a child enters a school and murders their classmates are they not desperately asking for help? If we could find a way of predicting which children are "likely" to strike out should we employ preemptive strike and euthanise them? The specialists say that these children always exhibit signs prior to this and if we as adults, would only take notice of these signs, this kind of disaster could be avoided. I agree totally as most observant people would, and I go farther saying it’s exactly the same in the international community. If that is, the impediments that block this knowledge from our minds were removed. Another law that I believe effects individuals and countries all the same is the #1 rule in all of Bullydom, and that is…If you look for trouble you will find more than you want. If all that America receives from these transgressions is a fat black eye we should be able to go home and lick our wounds and learn from this! I’m afraid this runs against the grain of most Texan attitudes though, and this might prove to difficult for the President. There is certainly no chance of this happening prior to the next elections.
At this point I would like to remind you of the fact that most all revolutions end in civil war between factions. That unless a man like Napoleon or Sadam Hussien steps up and unifies the groups by force, they will continue to fight. This is a well known fact to anyone who has studied this phenomenon. To think that the United States is going to go in and impart the wisdom of our forefathers, a wisdom we obviously no longer possess ourselves, onto a large diverse population, the majority of who don’t want to know it in the first place, defies all logic. The only way this "nation building" could possibly…could possibly have a chance is to install a leader and supply that leader with the military equipment to hold the country together. In other words install a Napoleon or Sadam Hussein! Its just what we have to do in Afghanistan…and haven’t accomplished yet. That’s why we have yet to hear about the wonderful job we’ve done helping those poor people. From most accounts Afghanistan is a disaster area.

The goal of a terrorist or any revolutionary (for that’s what a terrorist is) is to disrupt the norm…to throw the tea into the harbor so to speak, and say "We will not stand for this"! All revolutionaries come to a point where they finally accept the fact that it will have to get a lot worse before it gets better, by definition it takes reaching this point to force most people to revolt. With this in mind one can not argue that the people behind Sept. 11th must be quite satisfied with events so far. By their flawless attempt to draw us out and into world-wide conflict over their demands, they have won. Demands that I say with certainty an overwhelming majority of Americans are still clueless about. If someone you loved were savagely murdered, wouldn’t a natural response to that be to ask why? Don’t you think responsible, unbiased journalists would point to the obvious reasons, reasons that the terrorist themselves went to there deaths shouting? NO! these answers were neither demanded nor produced by our country in the mad response to exact revenge that our President was at the forefront leading. Ask George Bush this question, "Why did it happen" he would say what he is told to say by the voice in his ear. He would say something like it would be a waste of time to even consider talking to these madmen bent on our destruction. It is such a twisted idea that we are to believe that the freedom of their speech would endanger us all.
America being one of the most fortunate countries in the world in regards to resources, I would like to think, could explore many options before taking the easy way out by resorting to war. This would require self control which is obviously wanting in our people as well as our President. In the people it is forgivable, in the leadership it is inexcusable. Our President was actually encouraging our country to instantly react just as some, no doubt, predicted and hoped. It would have without a doubt frustrated and confounded the terrorists much more if we would have done nothing! An impossibility I know but think, it would have proved that we will not react to terrorist demands. Instead we overreact to terrorist demands! Instead we go as hard and as fast as we can to meet them on their own turf… absurd! Not one single alternative was legitimately proposed in good faith, of this I am convinced. I can understand the general populace’s call for blood in retaliation for being attacked but I would like to think that our leadership, a leadership at the helm of a power that could destroy the world would show a little more restraint from the passions of the heart. For isn’t that the one true mark of leadership?
In the leadership of this country I know, as many in the country know, there are influences and forces at work. Through favors and financial contributions they jostle to attract the ears of the politicians. This is an irrefutable fact that we are conditioned to accept as reality. Why when you offer money to a police officer it’s bribery, but to a politician, it’s a tax deductible contribution? Some of these influences would gladly applaud a strike into the Middle East. Perhaps these influences are in the minority, of this I am almost sure. I am equally sure though, that these influences are the strongest in the country. The strength of these influences lie in their financial resources they are allowed to draw upon and also in their ability to mobilize their constituency into a display of unity at the polls.
The current path that the US is pursuing will undoubtedly result in many more causalities than the alternative path of actually dealing with the issues that create these anti-American attitudes…granted the percentage of casualties that are American will be less the longer this goes on, but this is not a matter of us against them as the President and the media would have you believe. It’s a matter of humanity. I’ve heard some people, including the President and everyone below him, say that under no circumstances can we communicate and deal with terrorists. I ask you again to consider that a terrorist is nothing more than a desperate man? Take away his reason for desperation, in short a lack of communication to begin with. More specifically in this case, America’s unwillingness or inability to address his concerns. You will be left with just a man asking for help. I say this is a catch 22 designed specifically this way! A man asking for help is much more difficult to wage war on and destroy than a evil terrorist. I believe there are influential people in this country who much prefer this man stay an evil terrorist. As I have said this is a matter of humanity. A child having his or her face burnt off doesn’t care if the person doing it is an Muslim, Jew or Christian. One of the arguments for the war(s) is "Don’t you want the world safe for your children". Well when I look into my sons eyes I know in an instant that I would sacrifice my life to secure his happiness, but his happiness will be unattainable as long as the world has not attained its happiness and for that I would sacrifice us both. Since its inception, all media has been produced as propaganda. So, much of what I’m about to say is no different. Its NOT my hope to convince the readers that the ideas put forth here are all correct, I am still questioning them myself. It is my hope however, that the readers will walk away with a few unanswered questions of their own that they must discuss with friends to help find the answers to.
I believe it is the job of every human being that makes the decision to become a voter, to actively take part and educate themselves on important issues such as national security, so they will help themselves make informed decisions when the time comes. We do not expect our adolescents to get behind the controls of our cars without some form of education, because the chance that it could result in a fatality, correct. Yet we as "political adolescents" readily climb behind the controls of a decision making process that could result in everyone’s fatality. The best advice I ever heard from a teacher on this subject, was "If you don’t know anything about it, stay out of it".
To help you better receive the shock and awe of what I’m about to explore I think it would be appropriate to tell you a little about myself and what motivates me to write this. My motivation for writing about this matter is simply to try and illustrate the importance of having the interests of American national security considered paramount to any foreign policy issues. By doing this I’m sure we can build a more stable future, a much more solid peace for our children.
I have decided that the best way to describe myself, and the briefest way would be by telling you who the five men I admire most are…Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Anwar Sadat, and Yitzak Rabin. A couple of Christians, a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Jew. I think this shows that although as an American, whose ancestors fought to help establish the United States of America, and then fought to help hold that union together, I am biased as such but I declare to god, the one true god of Abraham that all true Christians, Jews and Muslims worship alike, that I possess no allegiance to any race or religion. I admire these five men for their dedication to righteousness and their understanding that it requires sacrifice sometimes to live up to that dedication. This sense of sacrifice is a fact that separates these men from mere men, and if I am forced to claim allegiance it will be to this fact, and this fact alone. A man with no reason to die has no reason to live! With that out of the way I’ll return to the main idea I was originally intending to present.

As a student of history one comes across countless scenarios that bare striking similarities to other events in time. History can certainly be used as a road map through difficult times, showing possible outcomes for certain actions. I believe there is absolutely nothing occurring today that hasn’t occurred in one form or another in history. The feelings of desperation that motivate a people today is the same desperation that motivated people thousands of years ago. Peoples reactions to these feelings have not changed at all over the course of time, and for this reason, our actions and reactions have developed a pattern that we can examine by looking at history.
For instance consider the world in the early 20th century to the world in the early 21st century. Technology has changed more drastically over the last century than all the centuries prior, but mankind has remained the same. That’s why a comparison can be made between 1760 and 1960 if we choose. Compare the actions of Gavarilo Princip to Osama Bin Laden. Princip was an Austrian who was associated with a Serbian group called "The Black Hand". He assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian Thrown, while visiting Sarajevo in 1914. Austria’s reaction was to declare war on Serbia in an apparent attempt to destroy "The Black Hand" that was based in Serbia. Well this apparently justified act led the world into WWI and cost millions of lives. Not only that but without WWI there never would have been a WWII, So because of this justified act perhaps a billion people have died and the repercussions are being felt to this day.
Now you can easily compare this to the United States’ response to send troops to Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda. This has led to us threatening every nation in the world that we perceive as threatening us, even though they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The threats from all these nations existed during the last several administrations and will continue to exist for many more. The current administration has exhibited a lack of reasoning to differentiate between the threats as real and perceived. Why does the Bush administration have to tackle all these problems right this instant, unless of course there are other motivating factors.
Come with me on an accelerated trip through history and see how one impetuous act leads to many down the road. Lets start with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand perpetrated by Gavarilo Princip in 1914. This led to WWI which caused England to seize power over Palestine from Turkey, among other places in the Middle East. WWI also ultimately led to the very unjust Treaty of Versailles in 1918. This fostered a deep seated hatred for all things French, and an insult to German honor that most Germans felt. This led to the rise of Adolph Hitler, champion of the German people in the 1930’s. This led to WWII in 1940’s and this of course led to the holocaust. The holocaust in turn led to a feeling of guilt and sympathy over Hitler’s "final solution’ to the "Jewish Question". This feeling of sympathy enabled many Jews to migrate to Palestine and force the question of a Jewish state upon England (through many terrorist acts might I add). This led to the rise of pro-Israeli feelings that many Jews around the world experience. This pro-Israel feeling has given rise to lobby groups around the world. The lobby groups persuading these countries have enable a very young country like Israel to build up an incredible arsenal of military power. That has enabled them to go on a perceived offensive with their Arab neighbors without much fear of retaliation. This perceived offensive has spawned a militia type organization that has led to Sept. 11th. We in return attack Afghanistan and then Iraq, like Austria did to Serbia, to root out this terrorist organization.
It’s interesting to look back on history and see what motivated certain individuals to produce high-tech weapons. If you look to the history of gunpowder you find a man named Alfred Nobel. Who after refining gunpowder, inventing TNT and nitroglycerin declared that his hopes were that his discoveries would make war obsolete. Then we come across the history of the machine-gun, although the inventor has slipped my mind, his sentiment that his creation would make wars obsolete hasn’t. Robert Oppenhiemer shared this sentiment when he help create the atomic bomb. I would imagine that the first person to make a metal knife blade thought the same thing. Humanity is what creates this sentiment in people, take away the humanity and you just get people who invent "smart-bombs" and "predator drones" to kill lots of the enemy.
The point to this is that while these men prayed their inventions would be used to end war, in contrast they only made war easier and made killing a lot less personal. No longer did you have to become part of the killing by sighting in on an individual and pulling the trigger, you simply had to push a button.
During WWI and WWII whole populations of people, man, woman and child had to be mobilized to fight a war. The soldier on the front line contributed to victory no more than his wife who stayed in the States and worked his job at the steel mill producing the weapons he would use to fight it. Wars of the past were great motivaters. They motivated the people into knowing they were making a difference, that they were helping save the world. This fact caused the very act of war, as long as you were winning, to boost the economies. This led to the current fallacy believed by some that a war in the Middle East would help our current economy. Again this is caused by ignorance of the situations of today and yesterday. Back in the day if you wondered how the war was going you went to the gas station to see if you could get gas. Today we sit on our couches and watch 24 hour news coverage of it. I ask you were is the motivation?
Today’s wars are in no way similar to the great wars of the 20th century. Unless you take into account the massive loss of life incurred by them that could almost certainly be avoided. I say these violent purges of mankind’s stupidity, in the form of World Wars, will certainly continue until the chain is broken. For anyone to say the United States attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in retaliation over Sept. 11th is not only guilty of oversimplifying but is also obviously ignorant of the history that has been unfolding over the last century.< To truly affect a solution to this persistent problem that has plagued the world for a century we must look at the events. Not the events that are in our immediate memory but back into history where these problems start, when you find that point then…and only then will we be on the right track to finding a solution. Until this approach is applied to our problems we will only be postponing the next terrorist attack. Until we break the chain that has led up to Sept. 11th we will only be working toward the next World War, it is inevitable.
If we as a country truly want to improve our future then we need to at least take into consideration our past, because just like world history, American history is just a cycle of events that evoke the same reaction time and time again. This problem was bound to arise. To quell the feelings of uncertainty that are encountered time and again by every generation we have history to look to. Our founding fathers laid the foundation for a great nation and it has been the responsibility of successive generations to add to that foundation, but just like a home, a nations foundation can be attacked by forces and eroded right out from under the first and second stories. Unless precautions are taken to insure this doesn’t happen, it is to be expected. What precaution has the United States taken? I don’t mean a military stockpile to stay in the lead of the arms race.
Well our Founding Fathers left a wealth of documents to aid in our upkeep of the foundation. The document that believe best encapsulates most of the concerns to our young republic is to be found in President Washington’s farewell address. I have repeatedly read this document and tried to apply it to our situation to show that we needn’t be so afraid of what tomorrow will bring, that is if we chose to heed the warnings put forth in President Washington’s farewell.
Following are parts of that farewell speech that I have chosen to record for this paper, but I insist it is your duty to find a copy in its entirety and study it. As you will see it’s what President Washington expected.
On Sept 15th 1796, George Washington after having completed two terms as President of the United States stepped before congress to tell the American people that he would not except the nomination to a third term. After stating this he continued…"Here perhaps I ought to stop, but a solicitude for your welfare which can not end with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your contemplation and recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection"…And he goes on to highlight some points of concern. These points he put forth in hopes they might serve as guidelines to our future government. He warned that those entrusted in the administration of government to be confined to their constitutional spheres "avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon the powers of another". He said that "the spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism". He agreed that if the distribution of power in the government appears to the people to be in a particular wrong, then let it be changed by amendment. But let there be no change my usurpation". He explained "for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." President Washington also advised us to "observe good faith and justice to all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all…it will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people guided by an exalted justice and benevolence".
One major point of concern to President Washington was factional divisiveness, what we call BI-partisan politics. He warned that division along geographical lines was a danger. We experienced the effect of this during the civil war. He also said, "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of parry generally. This spirit, unfortunately is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all forms of government…but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy." He warned that this partisanship "serves always to distract the public council…it agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms…kindles the animosity against one part against another". The result of this President Washington spelled out as, "It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through these channels of parry passion. Thus the policy and will of another country are subjected to the policy and will of another". One point that has since become known as his great rule follows…"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free people should always be awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the very instrument to be avoided instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and an excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger on only one side, and serve to veil and actually second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots" Washington says, "who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while the tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests".
I think it is obvious to most that in every case the advice that President Washington past down through the generations, that I have listed and still many, many more I have not, has been ignored. Perhaps in one or two examples if these "rules" were broken I would not fear for the safety of my country, but it is impossible to find any advice of President Washington’s that we as a nation have chosen to follow. This we should fear. I think the civil war that the U.S. experienced plainly illustrates the possible consequences of disregarding his advice. It is my belief from my study of history that we have in every case betrayed the ideals of our founding fathers. That we as a people have been lulled into the belief that the great experiment of the United States Government ended long ago. We have become complacent and the "jealousies" that we should possess have been exchanged for an unquestioning allegiance to the President, and not an allegiance to the country which our constitution represents.

Since all media is propaganda one of the few choices the consumer has is to decide what influence they want the producer of their media to be under before they ingest it. It has been said an opinion is like a set of scales, and if the information you receive is all one sided your opinion will be off balance and quite frankly irrelevant to the larger picture. This is the point that General Washington eluded to in his farewell address in regards to the one sided media disseminating the "intrigues of the favorite". During the media blitz about the war, the FCC had been considering rescinding a law that limited the number of media outlets one corporation could legally own in a given market, monopolies they once were called. This was originally designed to protect us from one sided views and ideas, as well as create competition that is the hallmark of capitalist societies. The chairman of the FCC the other day said that this law is outdated, that this was a pre-Internet law. I interpret this to mean, for one his mind was already made up, and two that if you don’t actively seek to acquire information from a variety of mediums, honestly how many of us do, then you are not regarded in his equation, that you are not worth considering. If the state budgets are cut as they are all being, and library funding disappears, then the last bastion of technology for the poor will disappear too. Is the Chairman of the FCC prepared to invite you to his house to use his computer? I think this is yet another example that the people in charge are out of touch and another example of leaving the poor people out in the cold. Perhaps if our economy gets so bad that we have no bread we will be told to eat cake!
I believe that this paper adequately highlights why it is so very essential to have a broad based media that covers all topics from every angle, and I believe is what was meant by article 12 of the Virginia Declaration that states, "The freedom of press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick governments". Of course you may chose to interpret this to mean the exact opposite of what I interpret it to mean. I’m certain that the framers of the constitution, of which the Virginia Declaration was a major influence, had not anticipated the giant media conglomerates of the 20th and 21st centuries. I hope that by the end of this paper you might understand my point of view. If then you don’t write your own paper. At this point I really don’t know what’s been done by the FCC about this since the media refuses to cover it, but judging from the ignorant comments of the chairman, It looks bleak. Of course the people who own the large media companies don’t want to educate the public on this and the war is a convenient way of pushing this subject out of the headlines (perhaps just coincidence).
Ask yourself this, why is this media conglomeration an acceptable form of monopoly, but Bill Gates and Microsoft are portrayed in the media as the antithesis of a free market economy. Microsoft is not trying to purchase every computer company in the country. The lack of unbiased knowledge that the American public receives via the media can only be a direct attempt to misinform, or should I say, ill-inform the public due to self-promoting interests.
When Stalin became the leader of the U.S.S.R after the death of Lenin he showed that he understood the importance of media by erecting movie theaters all over the Soviet Union to show movies that Stalin himself edited to bolster his image. In some of these films Stalin was even portrayed as the leading figure in the Russian revolution. I think this shows that even the most outrageous concept can be covered with enough sugar to make it palatable. Stalin’s political opponents, like Leon Trotsky were erased from the manuscripts of history. Every village had access to a movie theater. In these theaters the ignorant peasant would ingest all sorts of messages that would shape his opinion of his world. Bathing communist life in the sunlight enlightenment, while portraying the proletariat and bourgeois classes of the capitalist society as somehow foreign to god’s design. This was done to help ensure the populations support of the government. Stalin understood the importance of media as a propaganda machine. Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in her autobiography of her visits to the Soviet Union during Stalin’s tenure as leader. There she saw the Soviets engaged in a type of education of their young that she said appeared to be based on the research conducted by the scientist Ivan Pavlov. Mrs. Roosevelt wrote that this "conditioning" would ensure that the population would be more manageable and react to certain stimulus in more predictable ways.
In the earliest days of the United States various politicians like Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and many of our founding fathers started their own newspapers to disseminate and popularize their views while bashing their opponents, which most of the time was each other. Some of these surviving papers, all of which have transferred ownership to the media barons, have grown into the oldest and most respected in the country today. In fact almost all newspapers share the same shameful beginning as Stalin’s own propaganda machine. I’ve already touched upon the fact that most major media outlets are controlled by people who almost certainly have biased leanings, and that it goes to reason that this, consciously or not, has got to have some influence on what makes it to print. If the leading paper in Boston, for example, were owed by a die-hard catholic. How willing would the owner have been to break the story that Bernard Law looked the other way when one of his priests was accused of being a pediphile?

Well what did President Washington mean by saying, "Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and an excessive dislike for another…serve to veil and second the arts of influence"? In the 70’s President Nixon who maybe not so coincidentally is remembered as a bad President stated bluntly, "People have got to realize that Jews in the US control the entire information and propaganda machine and there is a force to take into consideration". Ben Stein recently published a work entitled, "Do Jews Own Hollywood? You Bet They Do and What Of It". CNN, AOL, Time Warner, FOX, CBS, Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, ESPN, Disney, Touchstone, Buena Vista, ABC, New World Entertainment, DreamWorks, MCA, US World Report, The New York Times, NEWSWEEK, The Washington Post, and this is barely the tip of the iceberg. When the FCC rescinds that law I mentioned earlier the list will go on indefinitely until there are no more companies, just one single propaganda machine. Comrade Stalin will be quite envious.
In the eighties some of you might recall the Rev. Jesse Jackson made a racial slur in reference to New York City calling it "Himey Town". Look at what the media has accomplished in regards to this mans reputation. A man who stood shoulder to shoulder with one of the greatest Americans of any generation Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. Jackson’s reputation completely destroyed in what appears to me to be an on going, although periodical campaign in the media. If the Reverend Jackson can be so destroyed, what would save any of us if we say something that attracts its wrath. I remember during President Clinton’s trials and tribulations a remark my Father made in passing that I have not forgotten, to the effect that when he was younger the media never would have dishonored and shamed the President like they did President Clinton. I say its not the same media he recalls.
This is an interesting thing to consider. If in Mark Twain’s classic "Tom Sawyer", Tom’s friend Jim were repeatedly referred to as a kike would that book be so dear to America…certainly not, and Mr. Twain instead of being regarded as one of the greatest writers America has ever produced would be instead regarded as a disseminator of anti-Semitic propaganda on the scale of Joseph Goebbels, burnt in effigy along with everything he ever wrote, and forgotten.

How many Jews have we ever seen smoking crack on TV? Or robbing a liquor store? Or prostituting themselves out? About the only "dregs" that Judaism will willing lay claim to is Bob Dylan or Gene Simmons and their both American icons! I truly am surprised that the game "monopoly" still has that little fat guy as a trademark, if it still does that is, and if it does its only because America has been conditioned to deny what that little character represents. Ask someone in a crowd what that character represents….uh, a banker or maybe a capitalist. Ask the same person who Al Jolson, Aunt Jamima , Sambo, Mushmouth, Fat Albert, or Amos and Andy represent and I bet its to the effect of a stereotype of an ignorant black! In a crowd or not, you will likely get they same answer to the second question. This is just like the cartoon "Dodd and Elrod", or "Snuffy Smith". Everyone knows these cartoons represent white trash, and many would announce this fact in a schoolroom full of children without the slightest hesitation. The "Monopoly" guy is an exception that slipped past the sensors, I guess.
Note for yourself how many times black persons are portrayed as righteous brothers like Ruben Carter and how many times you see them portrayed as whore mongering ,crack smoking ghetto trash. It’s changed some over the decades since the civil rights movement but still has decades to go. Conversely, note how many times you see a Jew either portrayed like the main character in "The Pianist" or like…the fact is there are no bad stereotypes of Jews in the media! Every year or two there’s a movie put out portraying Jews as the struggling oppressed ones. Imagine though the "Monopoly Jew" as a TV character who has all the attributes of Scrooge McDuck…How many seasons would this run?
Blacks for decades have rebelled against Hollywood claiming that it’s depiction of Blacks as ignorant, barefooted, foot shuffling, Uncle Tom, house-niggers driving Miss Daisy around is an insult, god damn right it is. One of my favorite expressions of this is in a song entitled "Burn Hollywood, Burn". It’s these stereotypes that allow a decent, innocent, hard working, family man like Ruben Carter to get railroaded in the first place, and believe it, it happens daily in one way or another. Who do they turn that anger on? Well you heard Ben Stein so defiantly declare "Jews own Hollywood". Hollywood willingly perpetuates these stereotypes upon America and who takes the heat? Hollywood is not only responsible for Ruben Carter going to jail in the first place, but then when he’s finally acquitted Hollywood is responsible for pointing out the injustice that whitey has once again wronged the black man. I ask you again who takes the heat for this? I’ll tell you who takes it, the ignorant white trash on the west side who "aint gotta goddamn clue as to what the hell yer so uptight about"! Black peoples hostility toward them only exacerbates their own hostility toward blacks in return, or vice versa, because its pointless to say where it originates.
The point is, we are all pawns in this game, and the white trash on the west side are no better or worse off than the niggers on the east side! I’m saying that the media, which black society has acknowledged for years, but that they too have been conditioned to accept, has been portraying blacks in the most negative way possible. This only acts as a catalyst increasing the level of ignorance, fear and loathing, that we are all told by the media, exists in the white community as well as the black. It is my belief that Hollywood owned by Jews has been disguised by their skin color so as to be able to continue these absurd stereotypes, without receiving one word of negative press, which wouldn’t make it into the press anyway cause they own that too! To paraphrase a quote by Marlon Brando, We’ve seen the greaser, the nigger, the slant-eye, even the wily Filipino, but we have never seen the kike, because they know that is going to far. Once you have opened your eyes to this fact you will drown in the flood of images that assault your brain daily, if not hourly.
Why? Why would I even consider giving a voice to this ridiculous, obviously intricate and surely pointless idea? Here you as the reader have two choices, both of which will furnish satisfying answers to this question. You have the choice to stop and go with your "gut-feeling" along with all the neon signs flashing to "nazi-ism", that are no doubt burning at this moment with a wattage equal to the sun, or you can read on.

Thank You for making what I hope is the right choice. It’s a well known fact that a people divided are much easier to control than a people united. As long as a certain "conditioned" people can be kept herded together it is child’s play predicting their reaction to issues or how they will vote as a block. I say the issues that for years have been crammed down our throats as either white or black just help widen the demilitarized zone between Americans. The United States’ as well as the Soviet Union’s governments have used this technique of manipulation to divide an otherwise homogeneous group of peoples, in Latin America and the Middle East for instance, into warring countries vying for the favors of the intriguer. I believe Washington’s words apply to all governments not just Republican governments. They become pawns like Fidel Castro or Sadam Hussein, and when their side they align themselves with disintegrates. Then their countries suffer, their society suffers, their economies suffer, their children die in countless numbers from things like parasites and malnutrition that we have never heard of in our wealth! All for the sake of a game. Us against them! Democracy against Communism! If you understand why this is I have to ask you if you have a soul? If you have a child, have you ever looked into their eyes? It is the only thing you can look at in the world without wondering how the other side sees it. If given the choice of exterminating every complacent, apathetic slob I know in this country, including myself, to fix the situation and save one innocent Iraqi child, I think you know my answer(sorry fellas but the world is better off without you).

TOP

MORE OF THIS PAPER

Email: markwynn01@yahoo.com