Macro Micro: Beyond Tyranny in the Modernist Form of Democratic Governance

By Amr Ismail – October 2004

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible”

President George Washington, September 17th, 1796

"Since America's founding, prayer has reassured us that the hand of God is guiding the affairs of this nation."
President George W. Bush, May 16, 2002

“We can also be confident in the ways of Providence, even when they are far from our understanding. Events aren't moved by blind change and chance. Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God. And that hope will never be shaken.” 

President George W. Bush, February 6, 2003

In reference to core principles of Democratic Governance, the United States is no longer a free or a democratic society, such an assumption is supported by factual data and analysis of the political and social dilemma gripping the US. when the model of Democratic Governance enforced by the dominant world power is supported only by one pillar – free market capitalism, there is no telling how fast this model cracks its atom.

Beneath the complexity that governs today’s world conflicts lies more than the notion of a dominant world power quest for hegemony and control of world resources. Perhaps the most crucial issues we face today revolve around the viability of political governance, the relevance of the social rule of nation states, and the advancement of a single global culture where elite corporations rule societies unchallenged.

The US Government has engineered the abolishment of the power and authority of the sole international body that governs international affairs, and the undermining of the functions of international arbitration institutions in favor of a state of anarchy and an absence of international law. The philosophy and vision of the United States foreign affairs translate into a policy working to hand Corporate America its best prize yet, the death of the nation state and the emergence of a world order where a limited number of Global Corporations form the dominant world power house.

Rapid deployment of free market practices and democratic ethos are almost always contradictory to the sovereign rights of nations and to the human rights of citizens in those nations – markets.  A market or a nation or a regional territory must be opened at any cost including the option to go to war. 

Problems that grip a “nation” turned “market” are chronic, create conflict, and alienate a sizable portion of the local population. The extent of such problems is the direct cause for a nation to receive or not to receive a good credit rating from the relevant credit agencies on Wall Street.  A nation’s level of security as a market is determined by the scope of involvement of US foreign policy in its affairs, and a nation’s wealth management and growth is always hostage to its own credit rating.

Today, and as in other significant and memorable times in history, “War and Peace” is the central theme that dominates international affairs. A provoking attack was directed at the national symbols and international interests of the United States on September 11, 2001 allegedly committed by a group of foreign individuals with no affiliation to a particular nation state. The response by the United States remains futile and has led the world’s dominant power and an increasing large number of nations into a state of social instability and political or economic insecurity that bears an unmistakably familiar sign “No End in Sight”.

But there is an alarming reluctance by many thinkers, intellectuals and in particular academics in America to engage and challenge head on their political and corporate leaders. There is an evident failure on the part of political and economic theorists in the US in their ability to grasp an evolving home grown tyranny, besides their ambiguous stance towards war crimes committed by their own colleagues whom many are the craftsmen of the ideologies that govern the US foreign policy.

Unlike Richard Nixon, Samuel Huntington is an advocate of war and conflict and he does it so well he can probably match Thomas Friedman in concealing his destructive hypothesis on US foreign policy. Huntington in the “Clash of Civilization” article is not particularly original, he had expanded on a number of ideas or thoughts from a book published just one year earlier; “Seize The Moment” by Nixon touches on many issues related to foreign policy, but Nixon’s scorn for academic advisers to the white house and to foreign policy makers in particular is well noted and should in 2004 raise many eyebrows.

It is odd that no reference to Nixon’s notes on foreign policy advisors ever been made since the recent US quest begun. At the outset of his article Huntington brushes aside economy and ideology as a driver for conflict! Which lowers the credibility of his hypothesis to a no academic match. In a world ruled by economic interests, he is gladly dismissing the US policy of continued domination of world resources as a non-economic quest. When he says “In the politics of civilizations, the peoples and governments of non-Western civilizations no longer remain the objects of history as targets of Western colonialism but join the West as movers and shapers of history, he sounds naïve and patronizing to say the least. 

Huntington's definition of a civilization is ambiguous and questionable. What appears to be an academic view of world security is a mere analysis of how to divide the world into so called “Civilizations”, dropping nation states all together, in the name of an accelerated process of economic modernization (or progress as it had resonated over hundred years ago), meanwhile we must assume that the only mechanism to hold the seven or eight civilizations together is no other than free market capitalism! When he refers to Western democracy strengthening anti-Western political forces as a passing phenomenon, he could only mean one thing, that military power is an ever-present option to democratize a country and to turn it into a profit center.

And while Huntington indulges in expanding the reader’s horizon on West-Islam conflicts he fails to mention Israel in his analysis, not even once, he probably didn’t have to, the construction of thoughts in his writing is almost identical to those of the Ladeen, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz and Co. hypothesis. There is no doubt that in his latest writing "Who are we?" Huntington aims to mobilize Americans around an identity with the intention to support their government's foreign policy. Huntington is therefore cheering for more wars and expects the public to cheer with him.

Is this how top academics honor their oath of service to the public? Unfortunately, yes. It may be new to some in the US that their government is engaged in destructive foreign policy practices and that it commits war crimes, but such policy has been going on for a long time and the only difference we see today is that the US government is caught red handed doing what it does best: committing the exact same crimes it accuses “rouge” political regimes of carrying. Examination of diplomatic channels reveals US’s inability to command world affairs rationally or orderly; a long scar depicts the long trail of destruction and decay that identify the model.

A glimpse at how the state of affairs was before September 2001 reveals deeper problems of a nation whom its administration safeguards world order.

Hubris and Arché for Douloi is what best describes George Bush and Richard Cheney speeches on god’s late life temptation for a slice of free market capitalism. What more appropriate places than the world economic forum, G8 Summit, or a Republican congress to invoke the notion of liberating the Middle East waving a democratic condiment to pave way for America to ultimately control world resources and thereby reign its corporations as the undisputed world super power with no distant second! 

A vivid reminder of colonial masters statements that sends a clear and present message: “You belong to us, and we own your resources in whatever economic form that lets us – here in the west, maintain a lead in what we define as the civilized race, and we will ensure you don’t make the leap toward what is rightfully ours- your souls”.

The pair continues to insult world nations by asserting their unilateral approach while calling on other Western like-minded states to become their posy. With total disregard for a global economy heading south, and a make it or break it trade issues between North and South, they –with blistering presidential powers, are basically confirming their country’s continued quest for more blood in the Middle East and beyond. More affluent political figures in history had swiftly fallen victim to a dramatic turn of events due to a power blind syndrome.

The landscape of the political system is reshaping itself making the ride increasingly dangerous for the economic fundamentals of free market capitalism, while Cheney and the accidental president insist on ignoring facts, showing disdain to public opinion, embracing Zionists’ end game, and alienating the US even further. Democrats may differ from Republicans on some domestic issues, but they bears same marks of foreign policy, and do continue executions of US ruling elite plans for a prolonged war and for trade disputes. 

America wants to sell “freedom” to the world but no one is buying! Tanya Hsu Senior Political Analyst & Director of Program Development Institute for Research, Middle East Policy reminds us as she writes:

"In 1975, Robert Tucker, US intelligence and military analyst, wrote an article for “Commentary” magazine, owned by the Jewish American Committee, entitled “Oil: The Issue of American Intervention”. Tucker stated that, “Without intervention there is a distinct possibility of an economic and political disaster bearing … resemblance to the disaster of 1930s…The Arab shoreline of the Gulf is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors.” And this was followed in February of the same year by an article in Harper’s Magazine by a Pentagon analyst using a pseudonym, Miles Ignotus, emphasizing the need for the US to seize Saudi oilfields, installations and airports entitled “Seizing Arab Oil”. According to James Akins, former US diplomat, the author was probably Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State at the time. Kissinger has neither confirmed nor ever denied the charge. Further, in August of 1975, a report entitled, “Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study”, was produced for the Committee on Foreign Relations. In this report, the CRS stated that potential targets for the US included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria. “Analysis indicates … [that military forces of OPEC countries were] quantitatively and qualitatively inferior [and] could be swiftly crushed.”

And when scrolling National Security Archives on early US propaganda in the Middle East, two paragraphs can’t escape the eye about American racism,

The First: The views expressed by some State Department officers reflected mainstream elite opinion in a still-segregated Washington, D.C. In 1952, an Office of Near Eastern Affairs official commented, regarding the anticipated demise of Saudi King Abd al-Aziz, that "we might well welcome" succession by his brother to the throne, because his sons "are not especially outstanding and are all born of Negro mothers."

The Second: The embassy opposed plans to invite a Native American artist, Solomon McCombs, to tour Iran if African-American Olympic track champion Malvin Whitfield visited there as an athletic representative -- "In the judgment of the Embassy it would be unwise to have two such visits of representatives from minority groups come so close together. Under the circumstances it seems unwise to urge that Mr. McCombs be sent, since too much emphasis on our minorities would probably be misconstrued."

Observers see little has changed in how the American ruling elite views its home and foreign cultures.

Ludwig von Mises, in his book, Omnipotent Government, stated: “Durable peace is only possible under perfect capitalism, hitherto never and nowhere completely tried or achieved. In such a Jeffersonian world of the unhampered market economy the scope of government activities is limited to the protection of lives, health, and property of individuals against violence or fraudulent aggression.... All the oratory of the advocates of government omnipotence cannot annul the fact there is but one system that makes for durable peace: a free-market economy. Government control leads to economic nationalism and thus results in conflict”.

According to Author John V.Denson “The definition of a free market, which Mises states will allow us to have peace and prosperity, is one where the economy is not only free of government control, but also where economic interests do not control the government policy, especially foreign policy, which has been the case throughout the twentieth century and continues to the present time. The highest risk for war is where various economic interests are able to control foreign policy to promote their particular interests rather than the well-being and liberty of the individuals within a society”.

Mises, a free market economy advocate, and Denson both acknowledge what Tocqueville had observed before them, namely the rise of tyranny in free market democracies. 

A religiously motivated US government is the biggest threat to world security.  An important consensus the political duopoly in the US cherishes is Israel. And by projecting and promoting the notion that the Israelis are working with Americans only on a functional level (Intelligence Agencies), the US government is steering the public away from gaining a coherent insight into disturbing facts about the nature and the objectives of its foreign policy, which has begun only recently to negatively impact the domestic agenda, and principles of freedom and civil rights.

The emergence of the United States as a Judo-Christian nation in modern history marked a dramatic shift from the ideology and principle thoughts that it was founded on. That shift is remarkable in nature and unique in its formation.

The driver for that shift was an “international movement” that had reached by then a sufficient level of maturity to bring the shift to completion. When we study where they came from and where they or their ideas are represented today, we recognize the massive task that they had achieved. It is significant that such a shift took hold of a nation destined to lead the world; in further looking into the thesis and the theoretical framework that founded the Zionist movement; one can say it is atavism at best.

The new Judo-Christian identity reflects working and harmonious relations between clergies and selected owners of capital. Many may argue that the Journey of the Zionist movement was motivated by a religious dogma and that the creation of Israel as a nation state in Palestine in 1948 was a direct result to the targeted massive slaughter of European Jews on the hands of the Nazi regime; this argument lacks an atom and a sphere. 

The creation of Israel is regarded today as a failed strategic imperial experiment, but not according to American Jewish Leaders and Evangelic Christians. As Jewish life in the US has been completely zionized, it is believed that the most sophisticated and powerful Jewish community in over millennia is housed in the US.

The marking of American defence of Israel based on the extreme religious reasoning of Evangelic Christians burdens the conflict yet with a powerful and bitter confrontation between the US and a larger population than the one immediately neighboring Israel.  Perhaps the best means by which Israel can co-habit with its neighbors is to completely abandon its colonial program, give up occupied land, agree to Palestinians right of return, and mend fences with Arab and Muslim nations; if US policy makers choose to ignore such realities, no peace will ever be possible.

Turning pages back, observers consider that the first Jewish colony in Palestine was “Richon Letsion” established in 1882. Principles to Colonize Palestine were addressed to The Zionist congress By Theodor Herzl in 1896 to form the basis of a Jewish State. After Franz Oppenheimer’s address to the congress in Basel in 1903, it was clear that Zionism is the only representative of the Jews and their savior. I include Zionists texts “Verbatim” from successive congresses between 1882 and 1931 for reference:

“The gestor of the Jews must be a body corporate. And that is the Society of Jews.”

“Our first object is, supremacy, assured to us by international law, over a portion of the globe sufficiently large to satisfy our just requirements. Modern Jewish migration must proceed in accordance with scientific principles.”

If what referred to here in the text is not a form of global supremacy, it is to say the least regional.

“As soon as we have secured the land, we shall send over a ship, having on board the representatives of the Society, of the Company, and of the local groups, who will enter into possession at once.”

What is referred to here by “at once” definitely implies “by force” as history continues to reveal.

Planning the occupation of Palestine was deemed as the crowning of what is referred to in the text as “supremacy”. Congress after congress and the text was slowly serving as the blue print for a great Israel:

“These men will have three tasks to perform: (1) An accurate, scientific investigation of all natural resources of the country; (2) the organization of a strictly centralized administration; (3) the distribution of land. These tasks intersect one another, and will all be carried out in conformity with the now familiar object in view. One thing remains to be explained -- namely, how the occupation of land according to local groups is to take place. In America the occupation of newly opened territory is set about in naive fashion. The settlers assemble on the frontier, and at the appointed time make a simultaneous and violent rush for their portions.”

“That is then the diplomatic situation with which the Zionist movement is confronted. Four Powers, including the greatest that hold sway over the globe, have expressed themselves as favourably disposed, if not to the Jewish people, at any rate to the Zionist movement. His Majesty the German Emperor expressed his sympathy with our movement at its inception. The British Government is prepared to evince its sympathy in a very substantial and practical manner -- in the form of a grant of land. The Russian Government has declared its willingness to further our plans so far as they comprise the Jewish settlement of Palestine.”

“The United States of North America has recently taken two diplomatic steps which justify the hope that when the time comes we shall not have to turn to them for sympathy in vain. The Sultan will and can never grant you Palestine, for even if he were disposed to do so -- which will never be the case -- he would encounter the opposition of Russia, and on your sweet behalf the Sultan will not pick a quarrel with his most powerful neighbour. Russia will never allow the ground which has been trodden by the founder of the Christian religion ever to become Jewish. Our critics have once more tested the correctness and wisdom of the English saying "Never prophesy unless you know."

“Russia, whom we were told to recognise and fear as the insurmountable obstacle in our path, Russia declares in a friendly way that it has absolutely no objection to the occupation of Palestinian soil by Jews. We had asked that Palestine should be open to our occupation.”

“Jewish immigration into Palestine cannot be subsumed under the same general heading as Jewish immigration into other countries. Whereas immigration into other countries has been motivated entirely by economic considerations, that is, by the impulse to find better economic conditions, the motives which impelled the Jews to migrate toward Palestine were not economic but predominantly religious.”

This particular text is very disturbing. By implying that migration to Palestine was predominantly motivated by religion, the plan was in fact to ethnic cleans Arabs and to be given a seal of approval from the British Empire and friends (call them a coalition of the willing!) It is a program of colonization presented by a lobby of European Jews represented by a Zionist organization, and it is the privilege of the ruling empires to be able to manipulate territory under their control. Given the background and the personalities that shaped up the Zionist movement, it is fair to say that the colonization of Palestine by European Jews was equally motivated by sinister economic considerations as any colonization program is.

“The acquisition of the Emek Jezreel for Jewish colonization has been the object of Jewish efforts for many years. It was natural that this region, the largest fertile plain of Palestine, should have aroused the interest of the Jewish colonization societies at the very beginning. When the pogroms of 1890 caused large numbers of Jews to emigrate from Russia, some of them turned to Palestine. As a result there arose, in the larger Russian cities, Jewish societies whose aim was the acquisition of land in Palestine for purposes of colonization.”

The theoretical framework of US foreign policy calls for the expansion of this colonial program!

"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."

Abraham Lincoln.

Turning pages ahead, it is mistakenly assumed that the current dilemma facing the US government is limited only to its past and current involvement in Middle East affairs, however that assumption may hold true in relation to particular events. There is a larger context to that dilemma and to the Zionist movement end game. 

By virtue of their elite status in American society, Jewish groups enjoy placement at the highest level in the most privileged and distinguished institutions in the nation. The “body corporate” is what an American soldier will die in a war to defend, without Israel there is no America! What kind of rationale is that? It seems rational only to a political dogma that seeks “supremacy”.

It is common that there is a dominant lobby group within a given political structure; it is also common that a dominant lobby group may represent only a fraction of the population. But what should not be common is placing the interests of that lobby above national interests, which is treason.   

US pollsters believe that more than 18% of US voters belong to churches or movements that subscribe to establishing greater Israel in biblical land, that’s most of the Middle East region. So, a major political constituency – represented personally by the American president and his administration – in the heart of democratic governance, which is actively seeking to provoke a series of wars and conflicts in the name of Jesus.

A microanalysis of how the evolution of American society has been influenced by a Zionist agenda is relevant to this discussion, but difficult to include here due to its length. The reality today is that Christian Zionists are as militant as Jewish Zionists are.

If the media had knowingly or unknowingly promoted the idea that Iraq is part of a war on a terrorist group and that Saddam Hussein was behind September 11 attacks, then the US government had an obligation to correct the media being certain there is no evidence to support media claims. If the government had promoted that claim through media channels to influence public opinion to back the war in Iraq, the media had an obligation to check facts and question the administration instead of lifting the flag of war.

Neither would be a realistic situation. The media that is owned by the largest corporations of free market capitalism has always served as a speaker for ruling classes, no deviation from its known mission in history. The domestic propaganda of US media rivals that of its international operations. The media is directly responsible for misleading the public and distorting facts.

For the most part, investigative reporting and debates are crafted to bring home an already decided line of thought or course of action. A seasoned and selected academic or intellectual expertise accompany the process of manipulating public opinion; this expertise is well nurtured by corporations and strategic institutions, they share similar values and loyalty to the political process much like their senior colleagues who serve at top government posts as first or second tier in charge of policy, change, or advisory boards. Descrying facts about decades of destruction as a result of US foreign policy is a courageous challenge.

Mainstream Media channels continue their deceptive news reporting that contributes greatly to selling the public failed and deceptive public policies. Aside from a massive and deteriorating budget deficit, a lost war politically and militarily, deeply disappointed working and middle classes, numerous scandals throughout the entire presidency, an economy unable to bosom, evident failure of policy and function, the Bush administration claims a clean record.

With the establishment of a homeland security department and the amalgamation of law enforcement and secret service agencies, the eternal separator of foreign affairs and homeland affairs no longer exists.

The view that the new structure may be compared to changes experienced by agencies to accommodate the era of the cold war with the Soviets is null. As for policing the nation, since Philadelphia 1833 there are currently over 17,000 publicly funded law enforcement agencies operating in the US, employing over a million people and have an average operating budget of USD 50B. Some large corporations like GM have their own police force that is in many cases larger than most large cities’ own police force!

The structure that is taking shape today inside those agencies will play well into the hands of the US government in two ways: one is to provide the tightest security measures in the vicinity of the American homeland and to perform unquestionable tracking of citizens, two is to oversee, choose, train, set policy for security and secret service agencies in foreign countries where US interests rank high, and to quell or mitigate (including use of force, criminal acts and war crimes) resistance to US hegemony in those countries. 

The two functions may have had a line of separation in the past, but the newly implemented structure likely forms the best policing and policy enforcer organization to serve the interests of one dominant world government founded on Judo-Christian fundamentals, free market principles and on despise or fear of world culture.  

Whether the choice is for a democrat or for a republican, let us not forget that a ruling ideology is sometimes a permanent institution.