Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Phillip Atkinson of Family Security Matters calls on Bush to be "President for Life."

Digby, : Annotated


  • Cliff Schector apparently broke this into the blogsphere after hearing about it on Thom Hartmann's show.

    I heard about this on, where else, the Thom Hartmann show. He discussed Democratic Underground's look at Family Security Matters. This bunch of sickos (apologies to Michael Moore) advocates that Bush should be our permanent president and that there should be no more democracy. Democracy is bad. Kings are good.

    Who's on their advisory board? Reagan era remnants abound. Here are some names that Hartmann tossed out: Barbara Comstock, Laura Ingraham, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, and...drum roll...Dick Cheney. Oh, and by the way, it's the same Gaffney who goes on CNN with talk of aggression against Iran. That Frank Gaffney.


    - post by graphictruth

  • This is part of the article (thanks for preserving it, Digby) that has resulted in the Family Security Foundation scrubbing their site of nearly every trace of Phillip Atkinsion


Snapshot of article on Family Security Matters siteBy elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.


Much has been made of this, of course. Comments here and there accurately refer to it as "sedition" But as true as that is, it may not matter; not if the sedition is committed by those who are in charge of the nation. And "Family Security Matters" is part and parcel of all that, and as tempting as it is to dismiss this as sheer lunacy - it is the shared lunacy of some very highly placed and well-connected lunitics.

Lisa at Impeachment Project at first had difficulty taking it seriously - just as I did.

At first, I assumed this must be one of those Landover Baptist style parody sites, but if it is, it's a pretty convincing one. They're apparently a front group for the creepy DC think tank, Center for Security Policy, and they've been on Fox News.

...

UPDATE: According to this, Family Security Matters isn't only a front group for the Center for Security Policy/National Security Advisory Council. The CSP/NSAC actually picks up the phone at the FSM's contact number. And please read through the list of people affiliated. There are lots of high ranking members of the Bush administration, not the least of which is Dick Cheney.

True, as far as I'm aware, Dick Cheney did not actually write the article calling for a Bush dictatorship. But Dick Cheney and many other members of this administration are part of the organization that published an article calling for a Bush dictatorship. And that's scary, no matter how you look at it.
I took a closer look at Atkinson, who was listed at the time of the original publication as a Contributing Editor, and who could be found at ourcivilisation.com.

It's instructive to consider his views on the proper raising of children into "good citizens."

Unquestioning Obedience Of Authority An Essential Lesson

Even after the age of seven years of age, when the child can reason, instruction must be continued without explanation, as unquestioning obedience to authority is one of the requirements of a dutiful citizen.

Continuation Of Tradition

The basic values and knowledge that are the foundation of Tradition—those beliefs that are implicit in the customs, manners, language, and laws of the community—must be taught in the same unexplained way; not just to reinforce the notion of the need for unquestioning obedience, but also because these beliefs are an essential part of communal understanding and so must be adopted by all citizens. Observe, these beliefs were created by the genius of communal understanding, which is superior to each citizen's comprehension, so disqualifying any individual from being able to properly judge the reasons behind such beliefs. Hence it is not just the child's duty to adopt these beliefs without question, but it is the parent's duty to impose them without explanation.

Brings some insight into the alleged thinking behind "No Child Left Behind," eh? But this is not the first time Atkinson has suggested a return to Monarchy:

Only The Concern Of A King

If a community is to succeed, its decisions must benefit the long-term interests of the whole group, so those involved in the process must

Always place their private interest second to that of the group.

  • Possess sufficient ability to be able to recognise what is in the best interests of the whole group.
Such a combination of qualities is rare, which makes it unlikely to ever be the majority character of any group that takes a vote. Which in turn almost guarantees that the decision made by a vote will not be in the best interests of the community as a whole. There is only one individual who is qualified for the role of group decision maker, and that is the person whose private interests coincide with public interests; the one person who feels the community is their property to be tended and guarded with utmost care. Only a monarch can adopt such an attitude.

The Worst Form Of Rule

Western Civilization has embraced rule by popular choice, unhindered by obedience to a monarch or church, since the French Revolution, which marked the beginning of its decline. The onset of our decay is inevitable because of the completely selfish nature of western, or pure, democracy, which is explained by an English contemporary of the French revolution, Edmund Burke, in his essay "Reflections On The Revolution In France".


But Atkinson - in all his writings - is guilty of the worst sort of ignorance about the nature of our political system. His criticisms of Democracy, while vile, and biased, are not without substance - and the Founders were equally, if more rationally concerned about the problems of even an indirect democracy.

This Is why, when asked what sort of Government we now had, Ben Franklin famously said "A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it."

Many are now wondering aloud what to do if martial law is declared and the Constitution is suspended, as seems to be the desire of Bush supporters. I am afraid that there is no comfortable answer to that question. What must be done - if you wish to support the Constitution and retain your rights - is to take up arms and oppose those who try to impose martial law on some pretext.

And I can assure you, it WILL be a pretext.

But ultimately, whatever faces appear in Washington are irrelevant. It's the people that put them in power and who benefit from them remaining in power that are the true culprits. Those persons must be held accountable, or any civil war will go on endlessly - as they continue to profit.

So follow the money. This is a task within the grasp of any competent investigator, Greg Palast, for instance.

When you get to the end of the line - ensure a just and appropriate outcome by Constitutionally appropriate means, as defined by the Constitution in regards to acts of treason. For that is what a war against the American people and the Constitution surely is.

For "Constitutionally Appropriate Means," refer to the Bill of Rights - the first two Amendments.

A very straightforward way to help speed the plough is to send some money to Greg Palast

tag: , , , , , , , ,

3 comments:

m Andrea said...

Why am I the first person to comment? I am always either the last person to find something exciting, or if the thing already exists then it gets wildly popular in about two months.

You have been warned, heh.

Anyway, George Orwell wrote his little love letter to the future so the two-headed beast could be aborted, not for it to be a neocon's playbook.

You may disable my bloggie's addy if it upsets you, it tends have that effect for some reason.

christopher said...

Your starting to make a good case for domestic enemies being locked up for their ideologies. I thing if H.R. 1959 makes it through the senate you sir should be the first one they make an example of under the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, (please don't pass that bill though as a true patriotic American I believe this gentleman has the right to express his opinion no matter how revolting it maybe. Also sir, if you are searching for potential terrorists with access to nuclear weapons I would look here at home first, start by searching folks who wander around D.C. wearing suits and ties.)

Bob King said...

Hey, I dunno. It's been around for ten months or so. Oh, and some of my best friends are called "feminazis" to their backs.

Kinda like I'm a Patriarch. Yeah, but I hope I'm putting a good spin on an unfortunate archeotype.

Christopher:

Um... I sense that you may have confused my words with the words I quoted.

HR 1959 is a bit scary - but considering how scary the Right Wing is getting, I can see the reasoning.


Perhaps it's time to close down the Madrassas - let's start with Regent University and work our way down.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Popular Posts

News Feeds

Me, Elsewhere