With Americans dying on a daily basis in a conquered Iraq, Bush is off to stump for international leadership in Africa. All of a sudden we are greatly concerned with African affairs. Bush appears to be quite eager to extend our national commitments on that perennially troubled continent—perhaps in hopes that the world will forget about Iraqi WMDs. Our European friends have even intimated that we have a moral obligation to intervene in Liberia's bloody strife because that nation was founded by ex-American slaves in 1822 America's own image.
    Liberia was never an "American colony in Africa." It was an African colony in Africa. Liberia was founded with the assistance of American "colonization societies." These societies were comprised of progressive liberals of the day. Their high purpose was not only to rid America of the institution of slavery, but to repatriate Africans to the continent from whence they came.
    Liberia is the oldest independent sub-Saharan African nation, and an excellent example of African nation-building by Africans. After almost two centuries of national experience, Liberia is a political and economic basket case. In spite of having been founded by ex-slaves, and calling itself a republic, Liberia has never exactly been a model of progressive democracy. The ex-slave founders of Liberia quickly developed into an oppressive ruling oligarchy in their own right, enslaving and exploiting natives from the interior in true colonial fashion, or worse. The descendents of former slaves became the elite (to use that term loosely), ruling class. Liberia has been a politically corrupt nation since its founding. The natives finally successfully revolted in 1980 and the nation has been a humanitarian disaster ever since.
    Of course, all of Africa's ills are blamed on the legacy of European colonialism. But, sadly, if black Africa has ever had anything like a golden age, it was during that colonial period. European colonialism was oppressive enough as it sought to suppress tribal warfare and cannibalism and develop agricultural capacity. But the volume of African slaughter of Africans which has become common-place since the colonial powers left has literally put the former colonial powers to shame.
    Other than its own tribal culture — a few of which actually survive — about the only things that amount to anything in Africa are the often deteriorating legacies of the colonial era.

    African leaders, such as Nelson Mandela, have laid down the law that America cannot protect it's own agricultural sector. American agriculture protectionism would be, not only inhumane, but criminal. The American market must be open to African agricultural production. What this means, of course, is that African farmers should supply the American market rather than American farmers—at least to the degree possible.
    I'd say that African farmers ought to feed Africans—not Americans. Few Americans are starving, but many Africans are. Everybody knows how Africans bleed and starve—and how Americans have been sending food to starving Africans for decades. Unfortunately, there's no profit in Africans feeding Africans. Africa's New World Order elites want to earn foreign exchange and profits from their sorely exploited agricultural labor force, some of which are being turned to wage slaves on corporate farms designed to produce for export to "wealthy" nations.
    This, of course, is their idea of salvation for strapped African economies. It's the only way they can hope to repay any of their debt to the World Bank which provides the loans required to develop corporate scale farms in some of the better managed African nations. Well managed or not, they have to conform to the dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  African labor is far worse off under African management than under colonial management, and things won't improve when America opens its markets to the products of African agricultural interests (such as ADM). Of course, they aren't really African agricultural interests, they are foreign corporate interests. The New World Order is, in fact, a new form of capitalistic corporate colonialism being unleashed—not only upon Africa, but the entire world.
    There is little doubt that our trusty mis-representatives in Washington, under Bushmen leadership, will allow more American farmers to be destroyed in order to accommodate the IMF and their own vision of global Utopia.

J. Q. Pridger, 07/07/03

Since 9/11 our civil liberties have come under a concerted attack. The war on terrorism threatens to permanently eclipse both liberty and justice for all, in what was once the land of the free and home of the brave. Pridger

The USA Patriot Act and Office of Homeland Security are political weapons of mass destruction (PWMDs). Pridger

The manner in which we treat the most detested enemy combatant is a measure of the kind of justice Americans can ultimately expect from their government. Pridger

Support the ACLU in opposing our government's war on civil liberties. Pridger

Pridger has never been a great fan of the ACLU, but now the ACLU has some real work cut out for it. When the ACLU defends real civil liberties, Pridger backs it a hundred percent. Moral support that is—he doesn't send money. The ACLU still spends far too much time and money acting as an anti-Christian spoiler on behalf of a few cranky atheists, pornographers, and sexual deviants. He doesn't want his money spent on those causes. Nor does he want any of his money spent to promote the right to profanity in public entertainment. Pridger

REPARATIONS OR REPATRIATION?

Anything seems possible in America. The NAACP and Black leadership are on a reparations roll. Literally all of our so-called Civil Rights initiatives and laws were passed on behalf of the descendents of former American slaves. Affirmative Action, welfare, and dozens of other federal programs—though many also "helped" poor whites—have been a form of slavery reparations. They have been going on for well over half a century. The Black leadership isn't satisfied, however. None of the special laws and perverse Supreme Court actions, negating the will of the majority (throwing democratic principles out the window), have been sufficient. Since Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, welfare, and forced integration have not resulted in broad-based Black prosperity, the Black leadership wants reparation checks—big ones. The incredible thing is that they are apparently serious, and some powerful white liberals are agreeing with them.
    I wonder how Black reparations would be paid? Obviously, reparations would have to come out of federal taxes and deficit spending. That means that working and prosperous African-Americans would be in the ironic positions of having to pay reparations to themselves. Or could reparations for prosperous African-Americans take the form of exemption from the income-tax?
    No matter what form any reparations might take, they would certainly result in further isolation, segregation, and resentment and bias against the growing Black minority. Martin Luther King, Jr. once hoped for a time when Blacks would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Almost all resultant legislation and special treatment have resulted in the exact opposite.
    Black stereo-types have altered with the times, of course. When whites visualize African-Americans today, they no longer see the smiling watermelon-eating child, the kindly Uncle Tom, the matronly Aunt Jemima, or the laboring share-cropper family. They don't see a happy Little Black Sambo putting away stacks of steaming buttered pancakes.
    Black activists and organizations like the NAACP, aided by the white liberal establishment, have gone to great lengths to purge such stereotyping as being extremely political incorrect. Today, thinking "Little Black Sambo" is almost a hate crime! (It has even proven impossible to have a restaurant named Sambo's) White people no longer visualize the world of Amos and Andy, or the exuberant jazz man. They don't even visualize Michael Jordan, Red Foxx, Sammy Davis, Jr., Little Richard, or Nat King Cole. They don't visualize George and Louise Jefferson, as the stereotypical black couple. Least of all do they  visualize Clarence Paige, Clarence Thomas, or Colin Powell as the typical African-American. These are the fortunate "exceptions." George Washington Carver? Who was that? The Black "victim" establishment considers that Carver was an Uncle Tom, and his legacy has been written off by them as worse than worthless.
    Lamentably, what most whites visualize today are threatening dark figures, violent gang members, urban drug pushers and addicts, prison convicts, rioters, "in-your-face" rappers, and black welfare moms. These compose the composite which most whites visualize as today's black stereotype. Even the successful professional black athlete emerges as a threatening figure—able to get away with green hair and rape. Needless to say, this does not reflect social progress.
    Few whites refer to blacks as niggers, Negroes, or even "Blacks" these days. While this would seem to be a manifestation of social progress, it really isn't. Using the "N" word is tantamount to a hate-crime, punishable by social ostracism, if not law. The only conviction resulting from the famous O. J. Simpson murder trial was that of a white policeman later convicted of having perjured himself over uttering the "N" word. Most whites are now afraid to use the word, while trying to act as though it is respect and common decency that motivate them. Even the use of such benign phrases as "you people" has become taboo when those being addressed happen to be black.
    It's okay for Blacks to use the "N" word among themselves, and it's okay to call whites "honkies." We whites act like we think it's funny. A Honky, as I understand it, was a white man who honked out front to pick up his black girlfriend or consort. He didn't want to associate with her society or parents, nor did he want his white friends and family to know how he was getting his kicks.
    My old Pappy is an unreconstructed bigot. He's not just a little resentful of the new "Black pride," especially since "White pride" is considered almost criminal. He says, "If a Black man (though he didn't use those words) happens to bump into a White man in the street, and knocks him down, the White man is supposed to get up, brush himself off, and apologize. He's supposed to say, 'Sorry, I deserved that,'."
    The fact is, most whites are today secretly afraid of blacks, though few would admit it. Fear is certainly not a constructive emotion upon which to build respect or the Great Society of the future. Fear engenders hate—and though it may be secretly held, and convincingly suppressed, it is a powerfully negative emotion.
    While it was perhaps a form of self-protective cultural fear which once motivated white society to relegate black society to a "separate and unequal" status—that fear was seldom individually held prior to forced integration. Most whites had little personal contact with black society. Few whites actually had a personal fear of blacks. And very few whites hated blacks, even though many may have used the "N" word to describe them. White society may have feared "black society" as a whole, and thus insisted on keeping it segregated from their own. Tradition and segregation laws provided a comfortable separation and distance. For their part, as long as they "knew their place," blacks had nothing to fear from most whites.
    Though it was indeed a second class citizenship, black society enjoyed a separate, parallel, Universe. While it was generally less affluent, it was just as diverse and complete as the white Universe. All of that is gone now. The laws (and/or Supreme Court rulings) that have changed things have not resulted in equality under the law, however. Blacks no longer need be afraid of whites, but whites are indeed afraid of blacks. This is not equality by any measure. Today, corporate America is kept in a constant state of anxiety, lest those dreaded charges of "discrimination" be brought against them.
    The parallel Universes are gone from the American landscape. Blacks no longer have "a place" of their own, though most still live in a very different world from most whites. In many significant respects (and it is extraordinarily politically incorrect to state it), this has been a great loss to both white and black society. Not only did the "colored towns" and businesses disappear, but most of our great cities and towns that hosted them literally imploded and fell into ruin. Urban renewal generally followed, finishing the destruction initiated by urban blight. Those relatively few blacks fortunately enough to have "moved on up" to middle class economic status, or actual affluence, are slightly "more equal than others," while those who have not, enjoy special protected status while living in a cultural void. They occupy either government provided low-income housing (along with the "po' white trash" who have also benefited from the great social revolution), or penitentiaries.  At least that is the perception of the majority of the white population.
    Martin Luther King's dream has only touched a relatively few blacks in a positive way. But it has touched the Nation in ways that are so politically incorrect to mention that a whole generation of both white and blacks has grown to adulthood not knowing what has actually transpired. Most think something wonderful happened in the sixties and continues. Yet black leaders now look toward reparations.
    White youth is now emulating urban black culture. This, at least to some degree, is an attempt to get past fear by trying to be like "them." Accepted language long ago came into conformity with the most blatantly obscene expressions (once largely limited to the military barracks and places heavy with cigar smoke)—the "F" word having been particularly popularized. And particularly associated with the Black vernacular, "MF" this, and "MF" that—being largely recognized as legitimate freedom of expression, punctuate the scripts of Hollywood movies (at least the ones that most appeal most to youth). This language liberalization has served as a great cultural leveler. Likewise, the universal availability of pornography acts as a cultural leveler. Of course, none of the blame for this can be put upon any minority. After all, the majority supposedly rules. But it didn't rule. Nine White men ruled. The Supreme Court has changed the face of Civil Rights and the nation. Democracy died in the process.
    In a sense, reparations would be another attempt to buy off what is perceived as being a growing Black threat—with the sanctimonious endorsement of a few white liberals and conservative absconders who in chorus echo, "Yes, they deserve it. And we deserve to have to pay it," while, in truth they know better. Reparations won't benefit one long-gone black American slave. If there are any black slaves left, they would most likely be found in Africa.
    If white Americans could vote by secret ballot, they would overwhelmingly vote for black reparations in the form of repatriation of all African-Americans to Africa. This applies to liberals as well as bleeding heart conservatives, though few are honest enough to admit it. The nation of Liberia is in dire need of some new blood at this point in its history (pun recognized, but not intended). There isn't one in a thousand white men honest enough to own up to this, however. Such expressions would be considered racist, and could even be dangerous.
    If black Americans could vote on the same thing, an overwhelming majority would opt for reparations, but definitely NOT for repatriation to Africa. Even the most grasping amongst them know full well that they are much better off in America than they could ever hope to be in Africa. A few even realize that many of their slave ancestors were probably better off on most American plantations, than those left behind in Africa—that the average African was little better than a slave among his own people in Africa, and his life was much more expendable to his chief or king than to the plantation owner who purchased him for considerable sums of money. Almost none would admit this, of course. Such expressions would be considered extremely politically incorrect. The fact is, the slave trade was largely handled by Africans at the African end of the American trade-trade triangle. African slaves were both captured and initially sold by fellow Africans. The vision of an idyllic life in an African village in a tropical paradise is as fictitious as the vision of Anglo-American slave-hunters beating the African bush for slaves. Not that Anglo-Americans wouldn't have done it, of course (a few actually may have), but it simply wasn't necessary. Slaves were delivered up to them, under a well and long established system — for a little rum and money.
    Not all Black Americans are on the victim, anti-white, and reparations bandwagon, of course. Some Black Americans are not only intelligent, possessing good sense, and poignant insights — but are honest to boot. For some surprising Black views visit Issues & Views, a black opinion magazine edited by Elizabeth Wright..

THE GAY REVOLUTION

Should gays have equal rights and equal protection under the law? Of course! They always have had, though their sexual preferences may not meet with the approval of most people (and in some cases, the law). But that's their business as long as they don't flout their preferences before a disapproving public. Most homosexuals qualify as citizens, can vote in elections, and do what they damned well please with each other behind closed doors. Pridger

Same-sex marriage may become a civil liberty in Canada. Our neighbor to the north is apparently caving in to the homosexual lobby and sanctioned so-called gay marriage. That's a sign of the times, I guess, and it's a little scary that a sexual deviant group has gained sufficient political clout to overturn the will of the majority. Some people would call it progress. I think it's something else—it ties right in with the increasing degree of materialistic hedonism modern society not only tolerates but increasingly promotes. Pridger

Pridger has nothing against homosexuals. Everybody has a right to conduct their lives as they see fit, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Sexual deviants do exist, and have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just like the rest of us. But in your face "We're queer, and we're here!" types tend to be more than just a little annoying when they demonstrate and insist on "displaying" in public in other peoples' neighborhoods. Pridger

I suppose gay marriage is a fairly effective form of birth control. Pridger

Rather than having babies, gays attempt to increase their numbers by recruiting. Procreation is diminished in direct proportion to their success. Pridger

In same sex marriages, are the partners husband and wife, husband and husband, or wife and wife? Pridger has a lot to learn on these matters. After all, it's a strange new world out there. Weird or queer are probably more appropriate terms. Pridger

Many gay couples have an understandable desire to adopt children. They crave a modicum of "normalcy" in spite of themselves. The main worry here is that in many cases such adoptions may actually amount to a form of recruiting. Pridger

Gay divorces will eventually outnumber tragic or sad divorces. Pridger

Gay marriage itself sounds exclusive and discriminatory. If same-sex gay marriage is sanctioned by law, is same-sex non-gay marriage also sanctioned? Since the whole thing is about "love" and "alternative lifestyle households," essentially for tax and insurance coverage benefits etc., why shouldn't non-homosexual, non-sexual, marriages be sanctioned for the same reasons? Are gays to be considered more privileged than non-gays? Why shouldn't "good buddies," brothers, or even brothers and sisters, be allowed to get married? Why should marriage have sexual connotations in the first place? Why should marriage be restricted to the union of two persons? In the case of non-sexual marriages, bigamy shouldn't present any moral problems. What's wrong with group marriages? In any case, who cares whether sex is involved at all? Who cares if nothing sexual goes on behind closed doors? What's wrong with Platonic marriages between opposite sex or same sex couples or groups? Pridger

The fact is that all of this this seems exceedingly silly, and that includes gay marriage. The very idea of marriage would become totally meaningless if anybody and everybody could get married merely as a household convenience. Marriage, above all, is about love, procreation, and family—not regulatory and tax benefits. Pridger

The Supreme Court has shot down Texas' anti-sodomy laws. Sodomy is finally about to become legal in the entire United States of America. That's making quite a statement. It's good that the authorities will no longer have a handy excuse for breaking down bedroom doors in the dead of night. Pridger

The problem is that when the Supreme Court rules on such issues, society takes that as a positive endorsement, as in the case of abortion. Roe vs. Wade became an official endorsement by the highest court in the land of abortion as a casual form of birth control, and a literal holocaust has followed. Pridger

The Supreme Court, of course, doesn't believe in God. But if there is a Supreme Judge presiding over human events, you can bet we have at least seven generations of atonement staring us in the face. We are destined to live in very interesting times. Pridger

Actually, the REAL problem is that the Supreme Court has evolved into the dominant branch of government—something it was never intended to be. Jefferson saw it coming. It has become the final arbiter of all things, and routinely negates the will of the majority in favor of a growing assortment of minorities. Democracy, of course, has thus ceased to exist, and an activist Supreme Court has been able to literally reinvent the nation in an image contrary to both the original intents of the founders and the will of the people. Pridger

By far the most significant message of Roe vs. Wade was that human life in the womb is not considered sacred, or even human. Not only is it not sacred, the ruling signaled that the human fetus is little more than another form of bodily waste to be disposed of at will by the mother. Pridger

Of course life begins at conception. Only a dunce (and perhaps Supreme Court justices), could seriously argue differently. Not only is it life, but it is human life. That ought to have some relevance in a society that has made "protecting the children" and criminals number one priorities. Pridger

Pridger believes early abortions should be tolerated in extraordinary circumstances. It should never be a "casual" decision based solely on convenience. Pridger

Perhaps the question should be, when does the fetus take on truly human attributes? The fetus develops from a dual cell organism through the entire evolutionary process in a matter of nine months. It is impossible to determine when that spark we know as "soul" develops, but perhaps abortions should be limited to that period prior to the time when the fetus sheds its gills or tail. We can rationalize killing a fish or monkey, but never an innocent human being. Pridger

Now exposure of deviant sexual behavior will no longer be cause for the least embarrassment. Deviant sexual activity, given the endorsement of the highest court in the land, will no longer be considered deviant at all. In fact, even such behavior in public will probably become privileged, and eventually commonplace. Pridger

More progressive states did away with their anti-sodomy laws long ago. I remember when sodomy became legal in Illinois. Sodomy was legal, but fornication remained a crime. I was pretty young then, and found this rather difficult to understand. It seemed to me that sexual deviants had finally been unleashed upon the farm animal population. How progressive we are! I thought. Pridger

Homosexuals consider the lifting of anti-sodomy laws a great blessing, and I guess it is. But those laws weren't aimed solely at homosexuals by any means. Sodomy, even between married heterosexual partners, was just as illegal as between homosexuals. The only difference was that homosexuals, if they were to engage in sex at all, had little choice but to break the law. There are probably a few heterosexuals still doing hard time for sodomy violations. Fortunately, the laws were seldom enforced except when the authorities had a particular ax to grind with a known sodomite—gay or straight. Sometimes married couples were caught in compromising situations purely by accident, and were prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Pridger

It may be hard to believe now, but so-called heterosexual sodomy wasn't all that common in middle America until the boys came marching home from the more exotic environs of Europe and Asia after our several foreign wars. Even French kissing was once considered rather bizarre and repugnant to many. Pridger remembers one woman—a libertine—who described one of her lovers as being "queer for women"—meaning he liked more than just the missionary style of love-making. Pridger

I'd never heard the term bestiality in a sexual context back when Illinois became progressive. In most states sodomy covered it all. Like every other form of deviant sexual behavior, including pedophilia, its alive and well on the Internet. Of course, our government is probably pretty active in the pedophilia area of the Internet. It has police agencies very actively trying to entrap unsuspecting and careless pedophiles. These agencies may even host a few of the most popular kiddy porn web-sites. I don't think the Supreme court has become progressive enough to rule positively on these things yet. But give it time. Pridger

Gays in the Military? "Don't ask, don't tell," is fair enough. But the entire military establishment is being subverted through the ongoing feminization of military ranks and the numerous problems that accompany such aberrations. Women in the military are already so numerous, and such an important resource, that it allegedly could no longer function without them. In time, it won't matter much whether anybody asks or tells. The military will eventually embody an unavoidable sexual subculture which will make it an attractive environment for all nature of straight and deviant sexual activity. Pridger

It is said that 12 to 15 percent of any society is gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual. Liberals and homosexuals feel we should be more tolerant of homosexuals and homosexual behavior. But the kind of tolerance they promote (which would negate, or outlaw, natural biases against deviant behavior) would tend to push those percentages up, as homosexual recruiting, through seduction of youth, would increase. What's wrong with this? Nothing, unless one lives in a democracy where societal moral standards are supposed to be set by the majority. Pridger

Of course, state and police authorities have no business breaking into bedrooms or dictating what consenting adults do in private. Laws permitting such things should be rightly expunged from the books. The same could be said of laws pertaining to other currently outlawed activities, such as doing recreational drugs. Education at home, church, and school should be sufficient to discourage harmful drugs. Pridger

The greater public good and health issues are still cited in the case of drugs. Little is said about the health risks of homosexual behavior. If anything, AIDS has caused further liberalization—and further empowering homosexuals politically. Anal intercourse is inherently unclean. This is more than just self-evident. It violates the most elemental ideas of sanitation. But saying this is now is about as politically incorrect as saying the women are uniquely suited to homemaking and child-rearing roles. Pridger

Therein lies the primary danger of adopting homosexuality as a specially recognized minority deserving "special protection," and special consideration, under the law. The increasingly strong and vocal "homosexual lobby," thus favored, is able to enjoy a louder voice than traditional groups which still comprise the majority. This is true of all specially recognized minority groups and designated "victims" of the oppression of the majority. Pridger

"Squeaky wheels get the grease," they say. Specially designated minorities tend to be the squeaky wheels of society. Pridger

Vermont passed "Civil Union" legislation a year or two ago. It seems to be working okay. Vermont has become a rather peculiar place. The question still remains—are civil unions available to anybody and everybody, or are they the special "right" of sexual deviants? Pridger

Of course, victimization should cease, by all means (and it would in a truly Christian society), but special political empowerment in its place is more than just dangerous. Such empowerment of minorities tends toward the total perversion of democratic principles and republican government. The ultimate result will be the total moral and political bankruptcy of the nation. Pridger

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely arranging their prejudices. William James

Even arranging and rearranging prejudices takes some thought. Discrimination is a necessity to any discriminating individual. Most particularly, we favor truth and common decency and people who value both. Pridger

THE SEXUAL AND SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS

SIGNS OF THE TIMES: Senator Bob Dole went directly from being a presidential candidate to being a poster boy for the drug Viagra. My! How progressive we've become! And Dole is supposedly a conservative? When I saw that, the Clinton victory didn't look nearly as bad. Pridger

SIGNS OF THE TIMES: The Clinton presidency brought disgrace and shame to the Oval Office and blushes to the nation. Yet he remained an extremely popular president. So many could "relate" to him. Pridger

SIGNS OF THE TIMES: Al Qaeda furnished the excuse for the Bush presidency to deliver Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. We've conquered Afghanistan and Iraq. What now? Pridger

DEMOCRACY AT WORK: $25,000,000.00 REWARD for the head of Saddam Hussein. $15,000,000.00 for his sons.  Now why haven't we been doing that throughout our history? There have been tyrants aplenty. Pridger

Why didn't we do that before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? Perhaps two costly wars could have been avoided. Maybe that's why. It might have messed up the larger program. Pridger

I wonder if Congress has appropriated that money for Saddam's head on a platter? Has the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of putting bounties on the heads of deposed heads of state? Pridger

George Bush Senior Liberated Kuwait and invaded Panama to kidnap the head of state there. A stellar record. Nonetheless, he was defeated by Bill Clinton. Pridger

Clinton liked to cheat on his wife, could tell funny jokes, and play the saxophone. He was also a morally compromised swinger. That apparently made him tremendously popular with the lowest common denominator of the greater public—they could relate. Pridger

Clinton was our very first X-rated president. At least he was the first to be fully exposed to the public while in office, impeached for lying about his sexual exploits, and then reelected! Pridger

One of the very first Clinton initiatives as Commander and Chief was made on behalf of Gays in the military. He had to backtrack a little when the military establishment balked, but he showed his true colors. Pridger

It is probably no accident that the whitehouse.com website is a pornographic website. That it has been allowed to survive using that name tells us something about the moral priorities of those who protect our national image. The most fundamental sense of common decency in government would dictate that a pornographic website using that name should be squashed in the bud by the considerable means available to government. But no—apparently the White House and Congress are not overly concerned. No doubt the ACLU and Supreme Court would defend both the name and content of whitehouse.com as fundamental freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Pridger

I wonder how many children have been introduced to pornography by trying to visit the White House website? Pridger

Federal judges are well on their way to finally ruling that America IS NOT a "Nation Under God." Once that can be made perfectly clear, there can no longer be any doubt as to who makes the rules in this world! Pridger

Religious oppression, at long last, is finally being lifted from our nation and it peoples. The power of religion is being replaced by the necessity for more police power—and we have to build a lot more prisons. Pridger

Isn't this supposed to be a nation of laws? What did we ever need God for? Pridger

The road from Puritanism to hedonism has been a long and rocky one. But now we can all relax and enjoy. Pridger

God has been so down-graded in our society that His name is seldom taken in vain any more. Much more colorful language is now in style. (Not that "God" isn't considered a four letter word—it certainly is!) Pridger

Entire generations of Americans have grown to adulthood, and millions of immigrants schooled in American civics and culture, believing that pornography and sexual profanity (particularly the "F" word), have always been central to American culture and the American identity. Pridger

Having thus attained the moral low ground, we are now announcing to the world that we alone possess the moral rectitude to lead the world into a future of peace and prosperity. Ironically, it must be done through war. Pridger 

There can only be one Supreme Being in this world. It ain't going to be the United Nations. That's a job for the world's only remaining superpower. Pridger

Sex has always been one of mankind's primary driving forces, and always will be. Didn't God admonish Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply? There's only one way to do that—but there's a lot more to raising families and civilizations than the act of procreation. Pridger

Healthy young men and women would seldom think of anything other than sex if pangs of hunger didn't serve as a temporary diversion. Only after suppression of sex, through religious taboo and resulting societal rules of morality and common decency, did mankind learn to channel much of its energies into other areas of interest. The result was a quest for material and spiritual knowledge and understanding. The arts, and industry resulted. These things eventually led to what we call civilization. Only the societies and nations where sex and hedonism were most vigorously suppressed, participated in the great materialistic successes that spawned the industrial revolution. Pridger

The Christian religion had a lot to do with the success of the United States, and God has been very helpful, even if the majority has always been rather hypocritical. Now we're so successful that we don't need God any more. At least that is the progressive view. Pridger

All great nations and empires eventually collapse when they abandon the moral precepts which led to their creation, growth, and eventual greatness. No nation that descended into hedonism has ever survived as a great nation in the past, and there is no reason to believe that this one will be any different. Pridger

In spite of contraception and easy abortion, some people still have babies. I attended a baby shower the other day. I don't ordinarily attend such things, but there was beer and a barbeque involved in this one. The girl who was going to have a baby, along with the prospective father, were on the road to becoming unwed parents.
    I asked my friend, the prospective grandfather, whether a marriage was planned prior to the birth of his first grandchild.
    "No," he said. "If my daughter and the father were to get married, they'd be assured of years of financial hardship. If she becomes an unwed mother, she will 'qualify' for several special state and federal aid programs. The state will not only take care of the delivery expenses and doctor bills, but will pay for my daughter's college education and day care costs for the baby. She will also qualify for very nice low income housing. Meanwhile, the unwed father can get a job and start saving for their future without undue financial hardships." Pridger

I knew a young couple who had made the mistake of getting married. The young man had a job, though it did not provide health insurance. To my surprise, he resigned his job a couple of months before his wife was expected to delivery their first child.
    "Why did you quit your job?" I asked. "Because," he said, "If I continue to work, we won't be able to afford the expenses of having a baby. The hospital bill alone will be over $5,000.00—and that would be if everything goes right. If I'm unemployed, the state will cover all those expenses." One can hardly fail to notice that there is something seriously wrong with this system. Pridger

Apparently there are few advantages to heterosexual marriages (at least for poor couples), but there would be advantages to homosexual marriages. When a society becomes this progressive, is there any wonder that things start breaking down? Pridger

GLOBALISM
THE MODERN DAY GOLDEN CALF

A recent CNN report claimed that the top 100 corporate CEOs are compensated 1000% more than their average employee. Most other CEOs only make about 400% of what their employees make, which is way too much. This is only true in America. Other nations have remained considerably more equitable in spite of globalization. No other nation has exported so many jobs, factories, and whole industries. American CEOs and corporate managers have rewarded themselves with the wages of former employees. Corporate managers refer to corporate downsizing as "producing more value" for stockholder (but mostly for themselves). Pridger

This isn't the way "trickle-down economics" was supposed to work. Well, actually it was—but the truth wasn't for public consumption. It was no accident that trickle-down economics was a primary rationale for deregulation and the liberalization of international trade, and the public bought the con. Pridger

Few realized to what extreme proportions the pockets of corporate top management would evolve. Few realized that liberalization of trade (globalism), would tend to remove American workers from the trick-down drip stream entirely, replacing them with foreign workers who could be satisfied with a much smaller trickle. Pridger

Those who posed impertinent questions about the wisdom of wholesale downsizing of the American industrial wage workforce were assured that the resultant slack in the job market would be filled with good service sector jobs and jobs in emerging high tech industries. The greater portion of American downsized labor, we were told, would soon be highly paid "knowledge workers." Nobody thought to mention that the new international marketplace would open these new jobs to the foreign competition too. Qualified foreign knowledge workers from India and other countries would work for considerably less than American knowledge workers. Pridger

There are literally millions of already trained knowledge workers (not to mention billions of ordinary workers), in India, China, and elsewhere ready, and perfectly able, to fill all the needs of the international labor marketplace. What chance do ordinary Americans ultimately have in competition with them? The short answer is "none!"—until Americans are willing to accept global wage levels and government is willing to provide for their health care and retirement needs. Pridger

Entrepreneurial opportunity is out there and available for all Americans, Rush Limbaugh assures us. All they have to do is strive toward excellence. He's right, of course. But what the Rush Limbaughs neglect to mention (or acknowledge), is that the vast majority of the public is not mentally or psychologically equipped for entrepreneurial success. Pridger

There has not been a tribe or nation of peoples yet which were composed of all chiefs or chief executives and no workers, and there never will be. The question is, do we want a society populated by a few super-rich masters and many poor wage-slaves, or to we want a society populated by rich masters and a large and prosperous working middle class? Pridger

What most people want and need is nothing more than a good job that pays a decent wage and provides health benefits, job-security, and old-age retirement. Relatively few people are willing to strive for riches—all they ask is the opportunity to make a decent wage and provide a decent living for their families. This is what the American dream means to 90% of the population—not great wealth. True wealth comes only with happiness, and the overwhelming majority of people are willing to work hard to attain that modest goal. Pridger

The United States of America (before globalization), came closer than any other nation in the history of mankind to providing the ideal mix of corporate employment, individual entrepreneurial opportunity, and the resultant broad-based prosperity of a great laboring middle class. Though the mix was never perfect, we have since abandoned the system that brought us into proximity with it. Pridger

Abraham Lincoln is seldom recognized for his economic genius. He made the case for protectionism in few words. During the initial great railroad building boom the choice had to be made whether to buy our rails from Europe or from fledging American firms at higher prices. "If we purchase rails from Europe, we will get the rails and they will get our money. If we purchase from American firms, we will get the rails and have our money too." (paraphrased).

America used to have a great abundance of "good jobs" that paid what was called the American industrial wage. Many of those jobs have been sacrificed upon the altar of globalism—the modern day Golden Calf. Pridger

The corporate elite define a "good job" (in the American context), as a job for which the worker is paid more than he is worth. Their natural goal is to eliminate such economic travesties. Pridger

The American autoworker who makes about $20.00 an hour and has health and retirement benefits, is an example of a good job. It's the kind of a job that most Americans naturally aspire to, and holds the key to the American dream for the average person not cut out to be business owner or government bureaucrat. A person with such a job can support a family in decent style, purchase a nice home, drive to work in a fine automobile, take a yearly vacation, and maybe send his children to college. Pridger

What is an autoworker's job actually worth in the international marketplace? Perhaps a dollar or two an hour in the labor markets of the most "desirable" developing nations. This is the hammer global corporate elites have managed to elevate over the heads of American labor both nationwide and industry-wide. And they have the sanctified laws of free market economics on their side, not to mention the active support of far too many mis-representatives in Washington. Pridger

Unionism and organized labor were the combine which forced corporate capital to share its wealth with labor. The assumption has been that workers should share in the prosperity their labor helps to create. It was abundantly demonstrated that corporate management, stockholders, and labor could prosper concurrently under the American capitalist system. They can afford to pay labor more than it is worth—and in so doing find that labor will add to the profits of capital. Pridger

Naturally, corporate management and stockholders aspired to greater things than just good profits. They understandably wanted more profits. Stockholders wanted higher dividends and greater rates of stock appreciation. Unions said, "You're welcome to all the profits you can make, but you've got to pay labor first." Labor wanted more too. It didn't just want a living wage, it wanted a decent American living standard. Labor won out for some decades, and our national prosperity included labor as well as CEOs, management, and the stockholders. Then Uncle Sam changed the playing rules and said to capital, "The world is your apple! You are deregulated. Go get it!" Pridger

The key to the degree of broad-based prosperity that America enjoyed was that labor was never paid just what it was worth. It was intentionally paid more! Not because corporate employers wanted to pay more, but because organized labor coerced it to do so. Our own government, in more enlightened times, helped make it all possible—by protecting both American business and American labor from undesirable foreign competition. But now our government has changed its mind. Pridger

With the advent of globalization Wall Street boomed as never before. But inexplicably (in the midst of such unprecedented national and global prosperity), balance of payments deficits mushroomed along with public and private debt, trade deficits, all nature of personal and business bankruptcies, and job loss. Whole nations that had been riding the new international prosperity began experiencing economic collapse. Finally Wall Street stock values even started to evaporate at an alarming rate, and the most spectacularly successful new-era corporations began to collapse. No problem, say the court economists, academics, and politicians. All we need to do is continue doing more of what we've been doing. Maybe a little warfare would help. Pridger

Maybe not. Pridger

BUSHWHACK: 1. To make one's way through thick woods by cutting away bushes and branches. 2. To ambush.

AMBUSH: 1. Concealment from which a surprise attack is launched: lie in ambush. 2. A surprise attack from a concealed position. 

BUSHWHACKING (Our contexts): 1. A political ambush for a less than obvious political agenda by members of a family named Bush. 2. The employment of stealth technology in the realms of language, politics, and economics. 3. Altering playing rules without the fully informed consent of the players.

Political Labels have become pretty meaningless by now. Orwellization has pretty much overtaken them. I was born a hereditary Democrat, raised a liberal, and shortly after puberty became a free love libertarian. Then, after I went to work for a living, I almost became a Fabian Socialist. Once I got a little ahead in the world, however, I tended to became a little more conservative. By the time I was thirty I actually got a little interested in politics and history and tried to figure out what liberals, libertarians, Democrats, conservatives, and Republicans actually were and what they stood for.
    Though I had always recognized myself as a liberal (strictly in the classical sense of the word), bordering on being a true libertarian, it finally dawned on me that I was actually and definitely a conservative. How could this contradiction be? I saw the liberals literally destroying the nation in a sustained frenzy of leftist cultural warfare while conservatives seemed to be trying to preserve a semblance of what the nation actually stood for. The liberals didn't want a Republic with limited government based on liberal ideals — they wanted to remake the nation into a socialist Utopia governed by an all-powerful paternal federal state. I saw that the predominate liberalism of the left and the Democratic party was a destructive force rather than a truly progressive and constructive one. While most "do-gooders" had good intentions, the policies they demanded were doing more damage to the body politic than an open revolution of the proletariat would have done. Though some conservatives were somewhat reactionary or downright bigoted, at least most stood for preservation of America's core political ideals.
    At least that's the way it appeared on the surface. In a few more years I discovered that Republicans and conservatives (at least the ones that ascended to power in Washington), were just as intent on destroying the republic as Democrats and liberals. Both major brands of politicians had their own unique roles in wrecking constitutional government and bringing about a New World Order. The liberals nurtured paternalistic government, while the conservatives (supposed champions of limited government) brought on the machinery of the federal police state. Both developed a One World agenda which subverted American nationalism to a larger global vision. Our so-called representatives, of both parties, apparently totally forgot that their political franchise was limited to serving the people who elected them.
    When president Ronald Reagan got up and said "Government doesn't solve problems, it is the problem," I actually thought I might be cut out to be a Republican. But the Reagan administration and the Republican party had already been Bush-whacked. It took a while for most true conservatives to realize it, however. It eventually became obvious that what was happening under the Reagan presidency, didn't match his staunchly conservative rhetoric.
    Few of us realized how the nation had been Bushwhacked, and how the conservative label was being subverted by totally new kinds of so-called conservatives. The Reagan revolution was real, of course—and it signaled a sea-change in the way and means toward a One World government. It was during his watch that it became clear to many on the left that the vision of a New World Order, if it were to survive at all, would have to be under the capitalist banner rather than the communist model which had theretofore guided them. It became obvious to all but the most ardent leftists that the Soviet Communist system had failed and was slatted for total collapse.
    The "Evil Empire" (which we had actually helped nurture and expand into a superpower), came tumbling down thanks to Reagan's uncompromising stand against communism. How disappointing that was to the "Better Red than dead" crowd! The rest of us rejoiced while we scratched our heads, wondering just how it was that the other great superpower—the one that had supposedly been scaring the hell out of us since the end of WWII—could simply collapse. I don't think Reagan, the C.I.A., or even the One World movers and shakers had expected that. The expectation had been that the entire Soviet Union would join the capitalist New World Order in tact as one massive, controllable, geopolitical area.
    In spite of the grand and successful stand against the Soviet Union, other things happened to call Reagan's intentions into question. While his rhetoric remained staunchly conservative, actual accomplishments belied another agenda. Whether it was his rhetoric or what has followed that reflected the true Ronald Reagan remains unclear. (I lean toward giving him the benefit of the doubt and feel his administration, having been Bushwhacked, was misled and diverted from a true conservative, nation oriented, agenda.) In any case, Reagan seems to have fallen into lock-step with international free-market capitalists' vision of a new international order. The Global Village was on track and it would be a capitalist Utopia.
    The predecessor and precursor of the North American Free Trade Agreement was initiated under Reagan, as was an amnesty and legalization of immigrant status for millions of theretofore illegal Mexican aliens living in the United States. The Maquiadora program began the industrialization of Mexican border towns by American companies. Besides beginning the transfer of jobs and factories to Mexican workers, the Maquiadora program, and (subsequently), NAFTA, have drawn millions of Mexicans to the border areas, exponentially increasing the problem of illegal border crossings.
    It was Reagan who officially introduced us to a "new international economic order," and his administration ushered it in. His vice president and successor actually let the "New World Order" cat out of the bag, articulating those exact words. While no conservative mourned the demise of the Soviet Empire, the new international economic order development was definitely not part of any "traditional conservative" agenda! In fact, the New World Order was one thing conservatives had been warning of for the better part of a century. The problem was that most had been conditioned to consider it a threat exclusively from the communist left. Many unwary conservatives had been lulled into supporting the "free market" economics of the Milton Friedman school—both national and international. In the twinkling of an eye, the world order was apparently turned upside down, and many on both the right and the left were left in total confusion and disarray. (Only a relative few knowledgeable conservatives had been warning of a capitalist New World Order threat—and they were always considered the looniest, most ridiculously paranoid, conspiracy theorists of all.) This confusion and disarray, now including the left as well as the right, remains to this day. Confusion and disarray of the great unwashed public, I eventually learned, was fully intended and carefully cultivated by our leaders—whoever they are (for the real ones never stand up and take credit for the direction of history). The public school system had been gradually tailored to accomplish the social conditioning necessary to the global agenda, by dumbing down a whole generation of Americans.
    When Reagan instituted the process of deregulation, "to get government off our backs," the resultant deregulation did nothing to get government off the backs of the people.  It got government off the backs of the very corporate entities that most needed continued government regulatory oversight. It further empowered corporations, which already enjoyed more rights and privileges than natural persons. The communist collective model for a New World Order was replaced by the corporate collective, free trade New World Order. As for the American people — for all the talk of limited government and freedom and liberty — they remain among the most heavily regulated on the planet, and this regulatory burden is continuing to increase. (Since 9/11 that regulatory burden includes a wholesale federal assault on civil liberties which were once considered relatively secure.)
    Of the two (the communist or corporate model for world domination), the latter is actually the most dangerous in the final analysis. Communism, for all its faults, did have a governing idealism. Godless communism at least purported to elevate the proletariat and get rid of the fat cats. Corporate capital operates under no such constraints. While no less Godless than communism, the one corporate ideal is the maximization of profits — it's only god is Mammon. Unleashed from the regulatory restrains which had held capital depredations in check, corporate collectivism works on behalf of a relative few stockholders against the interests of labor.
    What's worse, it works so well! It works so well because it harnesses both the best and the worst in human nature to accomplish what effectively becomes its self-fulfilling mission—perpetual expansion, self-aggrandizement, always tending toward monopoly (and ultimately toward inevitable self-destruction).
    The concept of trickle-down economics was a Reagan idea. It wouldn't have been such a bad idea either, if it were not for the fact that the fat cats quickly learned how to grossly expand the size and capacity of their pockets. Not much trickled down, and soon CEOs of American corporations were pocketing 400 times more than their average salaried employee.
    Wholesale union busting was initiated during the Reagan administration as the result of the Aircraft Controllers' strike. With that ill-advised and equally ill-fated strike, organized labor lost the official favor of government it had enjoyed for over half a century. The new international order was inherently hostile to the interests of labor, but few saw this handwriting on the wall. The seductive allure of the word "free" in free trade, an international free market system, and inexpensive foreign imports, served to bamboozle the people. To the unvarnished public, anything labeled "free" has to be good. Henceforth the greater public, being consumers one and all, could be made to vote, in mass,  for the New World Order without a thought as to the consequences. They unwittingly voted for free trade every time they purchased the results at the Wal-Mart check-out counter.
    "Union Made" effectively disappeared from consumer shelves — and "Made in America" is becoming increasingly rare, as American producers are being replaced by third world labor. This, on behalf of the American consumer, who is increasingly disenfranchised in the global labor marketplace by his own buying habits. It was a true stroke of genius, this corporate formula for a New World Order. Once initiated, it effectively operates on autopilot — something that was impossible under the communist New World Order model.
    Many things had to be accomplished before the American public could become effective agents of this New World Order, and they were duly accomplished, over several decades, under both democratic and republican administrations. Such things as foreign wars and police actions, cycles of prosperity and depression, red scares, civil rights battles, and federalized debasement of public education standards were skillfully used to keep the public in confused disarray during the periods of greatest transition.
    True conservatism was Bushwhacked at the onset of the Reagan presidency and again with the election vice-president Bush to the Oval Office. The first Gulf War propelled George I to the heights popularity, and only a loose reading of lips destroyed his chances for re-election. The result was the election of Clinton to the presidency, which did more damage to that office and the nation than another Bush term could have hoped to accomplish. The change from a Republican to a Democratic administration did nothing to change the course of corporate New World Order globalism. In fact, it continued to flourish during the Clinton years. Clinton, having had serious reservations about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), rammed it down our throats upon taking office.
    Naturally, after Reagan and Bush I, organized labor strongly favored regime change and supported Clinton. But did Clinton even attempt to undo any of the damage accomplished under his predecessors? Ah, yes, he said a few kind things to labor and got their hopes up, but that was about it. Jobs, factories, and entire industries, continued to be exported to Mexico and Asia at an accelerating rate—especially to China. Clinton seems to have had a special relationship with China. But, you see, while Reagan and Bush were New World Order Republicans, Clinton was a New World Order Democrat. Except for a little rhetorical window dressing, their "greater agenda" was exactly the same.
    Organized labor has finally discovered that globalism is the enemy. But it can't put its finger on globalism very well. Nobody got to vote for or against it. It was handed to us, on a silver platter, by our trusty leaders—a done deal. Only a few paranoid conspiracy nuts warned us about it, and nobody listened.
    Neo-conservatives, many of them converts from leftist-liberal ranks, had commandeered the conservative label, and swept the ranks of the Republican Party, leaving many true conservatives in total confusion. It even took a while for the likes of Pat Buchanan to wake up and discover what had happened. The Friedman economic model had mesmerized the right. Prominent conservative pundits, like Rush Limbaugh, have served as "Judas goats" to the conservative cause, and unthinking ditto-heads followed toward the figurative slaughter, entranced by Rush's skillfully orchestrated liberal and Clinton bashing.
    Both major political parties have undergone sweeping changes which for some reason few seem to take active note. The Democratic party used to be the war party. Now the Republican party is the war party. The Democratic party used to be the party of the working man. Now it is the party of the welfare and victim classes which working men and women have to support. The Republican party has remained loyal to big business and Wall Street.
    As outlined above, Democrats and Republicans have combined to change the very nature of big business. There was a time when what was good for big business and Wall Street was also good for American workers. That is no longer the case under the new international order. So, though the Democrats still claim to be the party of the working man, they no longer are in any meaningful way (particularly, not the American working man). And the Republicans, following the old Rockefeller model into the neo-conservative age, are champions of internationalized corporate capital. Both parties have proven themselves to be agents of internationalism, globalization, and the destruction of both national sovereignty and the American working middle classes.
    The movers and shakers behind the New World Order, and other national and international skullduggery, skillfully use both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and confused conservatives to their own ends. Certain things can be accomplished under a democratic administration that would not be impossible under a republican administration and visa-versa. Ironically, often conservative administrations have been used to accomplish liberal agendas more successfully than would have been possible under liberal Democratic administrations. After Clinton's successful terms, a republican administration was again called for — and it happened despite serious election day ambiguities. Another Bushwhacking was in order.
    Prior to his election, Bush II said we were militarily over-extended in the world and he was going to begin to undo some of our foreign entanglements. It was like Clinton's promise to stave off the destructive NAFTA agenda. Of course, events miraculously intervened to change Bush II's plans, and our foreign entanglements have expanded exponentially.
    Like that other day which will live in infamy, 9/11 did not happen spontaneously in a vacuum. Its causes were knowingly and carefully orchestrated over a period of many years. Though it quite literally seemed to come out of a clear sky, years of carefully planned provocation were required to bring the 9/11 calamity about. As with Pearl Harbor, probably the only real surprise was its spectacular, made for Real TV, degree of success. Another surprise was that such an attack on America took so long in coming—for something of that nature had been fully expected for a long time. It was a matter of "when," not "if." The previous failed attempt to bring down one of the World Trade Center towers provided a rather pointed hint as to what was being planned and expected. The intelligence community wasn't as unintelligent as appearances make it out to be. It's hands were tied so something would finally break to facilitate already drafted military plans.
    The post-Reagan, post-Cold War, "Peace dividend" didn't materialize, of course. Nor did Clinton's alleged budgetary surplus, though a lot of it got spent anyway. What else is new? Peace in Palestine? Hardly. It would appear that a lot of chickens are suddenly coming home to roost. Too many for comfort. But appearances are deceptive. Those chickens have been called in, and the world finds itself in yet new circumstances that nobody dreamed of only a couple of short years ago. Just who or what is really calling the shots is rather difficult to pin down. Even the best informed are in a state of confusion.
    Like Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, Bush II is doing the bidding of forces behind the scenes, presumably making the world safe for international capital interests, so we can all have peace, prosperity, and cheap imports at Wal-Mart forever. The fortunes to be made in this process would tax the capabilities of the most sophisticated computer. The costs are high, of course, both monetarily and in lives. But, as always, such things are absorbed by the hapless masses, now inclusive of the entire global labor market.
    True conservatives — I wonder what we can call them now? — can only view the ongoing transformation of our nation with growing alarm. Liberals, of course, blame conservatives for all the ills of the world, and lament the "conservative press," while conservatives blame liberals and the "liberal press." Talk about confusion!
    Anyway, here we stand with another Iraqi War victory under our belt, with our avowed Christian president still openly trying to track down and assassinate both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And there are those on the "New" and Religious Right that are right up front in the fray crying for blood.
    Like his father before him, the present President Bush now stands at the height of public popularity and approval. Chances are, by the time the next election rolls around, our victories in Afghanistan and Iraq will have grown so burdensome and costly that the fawning public will have ceased to fawn and a democratic administration will be called in for the next term. Bush will only be allowed a second term if he manages to find some semblance of weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil. Otherwise, the press will gleefully grind him up. Be that as it may, Bush has probably fulfilled his mission and may now be put out into the political pasture where he can enjoy his presidential pension and the profits from his several family business enterprises.
    Today many liberals and conservatives find themselves united in opposing the so-called neo-conservatives and both their domestic and global agendas. Many lay claim to a Populist label, though they approach common ground from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Now we hear the term Paleo-conservative to describe certain "traditional" conservative anachronisms — the dinosaurs that still believe in American Republican institutions, the Constitution and limited government, national borders, and American nationalism.
    In spite of much common ground between Populists from the right and left, there are very significant differences between them. The hallmark of the right is American nationalism and patriotism. Seldom is any form of nationalism or true patriotism to be found in the ranks of the left. If they ever express pride in America it is because of its increasing cultural and racial diversity and its willingness to have its former Anglo-American culture subverted, overwhelmed, and obliterated.
    Significantly, it is not the rabid right-wing American nationalist and patriot who eagerly embraces our increasingly frequent imperialistic forays into foreign wars and policing the world on behalf of Mammon. That kind of jingoism is the prerogative of the new imperialists. Such New World Order "American" patriotism is the realm of the neo-conservative and his kinder and his liberal internationalist counterparts.
    The true American nationalist patriot would stay home, mend his own fences (police his own borders), and try to get his own house into order — the goal being liberty and justice for all at home before purporting to remake the world in America's image. Unfortunately, America's image (both at home and abroad), is an increasingly tarnished one, and is in dire need of serious refurbishment.
    The true American patriot would reestablish both American political and economic independence. He would re-invoke constitutional government and repair to fortress America, speak softly, and carry a big stick. His motto would be "Friendship and mutually beneficial commerce with all, but entangling alliances with none." He would protect the American marketplace first and foremost on behalf of Americans and revive national prosperity for the working masses. American business would once again be encouraged and coerced, through an enlightened degree of protection and regulation, to be loyal to the American worker, the American marketplace, and the American flag.
    By the same means the American family farmer would be given incentives to return to the land and repopulate the countryside, to provide the vitally important national insurance policy only 100% food self-sufficiency (produced by numerically strong freeholders owning their own land), within our borders can provide.
    Perhaps it's too late for all this. Perhaps there has already been too much damage done to reinvent American into a viable sovereign nation under the Constitution. Perhaps the cultural war has already been too badly, totally, and finally, lost. But nonetheless it is the goal of the true conservative to try to preserve what is good and still working well, and attempt to reestablish that which worked well in the past.
    It isn't regression to stop and back up when you find out you're barreling down the wrong track. It's good sense.
    Of course, the liberal has an appropriate role too (if he could be made loyal to the nation). Pridger admits to considerable liberal blood in his veins — at least that referring to the original meaning of the term. In fact he has referred to himself in the past as a "liberal conservative," (i.e., a libertarian with common sense). After all, as William Jennings Bryan once said, "A liberal is like an old mule pulling ahead, and a conservative is like a plow holding him back, and between the two of them they break the soil."

Our brave men and women in uniform have nothing but my deepest respect and wholehearted support. But military personnel go where they are ordered to go and do what they are ordered to do. They are not paid to think, but to kill and destroy. Our forces have been ordered to Iraq to conquer that unfortunately nation. They have accomplished their mission and have done a splendid job. The best thing we can do for them now is to bring them home before we lose too many more at the hands of the thankless Iraqis, who for some odd reason do not appreciate our conquest.

"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would turn the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability." George H. W. Bush, 1991

The United States has conquered and occupied Iraq. The evil Saddam Hussein has been replaced by what Islamic fundamentalists have labeled the Great Satan. What now remains is the progressive manifestation of unintended consequences certain to follow. Chances are they will continue to reverberate throughout the twenty-first century. We've set a dangerous precedent, revealing to the world that the United States government considers itself above the "international law" it has for so long been trying to foist upon the rest of the world.
    The alleged purposes of our conquest of Iraq were three fold. (1) To eliminate a tyrant, (2) To eliminate weapons of mass destruction, (3) To impose freedom and "democracy."
    As for the first, we've supported, or otherwise allied ourselves, with worse, not to mention Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam has been compared to Hitler who supposedly killed six million. But while Hitler (the enemy), may have killed six million, our friend and ally, Stalin, killed twenty-million or more."
    As for weapons of mass destruction, we have not found them yet in Iraq. This is proving rather embarrassing to the administration. The best they can do is claim that "Saddam had'em" but either hid them pretty good or destroyed them according to our own instructions. There is considerable consensus of opinion that Saddam had'em, and we knew it, simply because we gave them to him in the first place. Be that as it may, they "wanted" to have them—and at the very least had developed the capability to produce them when needed.
    But we've got huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction ourselves (and lots and lots of them), and most of our allies have them. We, along with our World War I and World War II friends and allies (and enemies), perfected them and provided the wherewithal for others to develop and produce them. Most "advanced" and "developing" nations (friend and foe alike), either have them, or have the capability of producing them. Almost all nations want some kind of weapons of mass destruction at least for defensive purposes.
    As for freedom and democracy. When has freedom and democracy ever been "imposed" on any nation or peoples? Least of all are freedom and democracy imposed by force of arms by an invading alien power. The very idea is almost laughable.
    Of course, our claim is that we have "liberated" the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime. It may be true that Saddam Hussein was oppressive enough. But the fact remains that he was popular with a large percentage of the Iraqi population. And the oppression caused by over a decade of crushing economic sanctions and continuous low-level warfare has put us into the oppressor category in the eyes of many Iraqis. At best, in their view, a homegrown tyrant has merely been replaced by a foreign aggressor. This can hardly be construed as "liberation."
    Saddam Hussein has been ousted, and his military forces defeated. But conquest is not complete until all opposition has been crushed, and invasion forces no longer subjected to sniper fire. This, of course, entails the total disarming of the Iraqi people, for no conquered people should be allowed to be armed. Unless we are committed to a very long-term occupation and the total "subjection" of Iraq and its people to the degree of de facto colonization, we will not get the "friendly regime" that we want. Democracy is the last thing that we really want in Iraq, for if true democracy were to manifest itself, an Islamic regime would almost certainly result. It is more than just likely that it would be hostile to the nation that has caused so much death, destruction, and suffering for so long. It would neither be a harbinger of democratic freedom, nor friendly to the nation that has invaded and waged a sustained war against it. Pridger

HOMELAND SECURITY

I had occasion to visit my local Social Security Administration office the other day. A full time security guard sat at a desk at the door. He demanded photo identification. Now this is in middle-America where we have few foreign aliens or potential terrorists in our midst (though that situation is being corrected as time goes on and the rampant cultural and ethnic diversification of America continues).  I assume that this is standard procedure at all federal agency offices these days, and it is intended to make us feel more secure. I noticed that even very elderly old Caucasian men and women were being carded too, as if they fit some sort of terrorist profile.
    Speaking of terrorist profiling, I'm glad that I don't have an olive complexion, black hair, or foreign accent. Yet racial profiling is under attack as being politically incorrect. The result is that the little old gray-haired white or African American women must be considered just as suspect as a robed Arab with a particularly evil eye. If Mohammad bin Laden, the robed Arab with the evil eye, happens to have a photo ID and maybe even American citizenship, his "security check" results in the same official presumption of innocence as little Miss Muffet.
    The question is, what potential terrorist would neglect carrying a proper photo ID when entering a federal office building? Chances are his appearance and identification would be impeccable.
    Even our county courthouse boasts of a fulltime security policeman to check all visitors. When I visit the courthouse, it's like visiting a maximum security prison. I have to empty my pockets and leave my jack-knife with the guard before proceeding with my business. This is what the "land of the free and home of the brave" has come to! These courthouse security precautions were taken as the result of the Oklahoma City bombing and Clinton's 100,000 new policemen on the beat, not the current war on terror.
    I don't feel any more secure as the result, though maybe the courthouse employees do. I feel like the subject of a police state. It's ironic that the county courthouse disarms me at the door, but the federal security guard at the SS office merely requires a photo ID.
    I've carried a jack-knife since long before I was a Boy Scout, and have never been without one—yet today I'm beginning to feel a little paranoid guilt about it. Though a jack-knife is a long way from a weapon of mass destruction, the 9/11 terrorists are alleged to have been armed with nothing more than box-cutters. With nothing but box-cutters, they commandeered huge guided missiles and brought down the Twin Towers and seriously inconvenienced the Pentagon. What if they'd been armed with jack-knives, guns, or mini-bombs? Could the results have been any worse?
    What if several of the law-abiding citizens on those flights had been armed with knives and guns? Perhaps a great tragedy could have been averted. But few doubt that armed citizens would be far too dangerous on commercial aircraft. There are far too many nutcases at large for that.
    We're in a terrible fix. With miniaturization (and most particularly, with the advent of nano-technology), dangerous weapons can no longer be assumed to be recognizable as such. Jack-knives and box-cutters would seem the least of security worries. Miniature bombs and biological and chemical agent dispensers may come in almost any form. Ink pens, broaches, lapel pins, plastic spoons, shirt buttons, and artificial finger-nails. Even innocent looking fabrics can be dangerous, to say nothing of belts, shoes, cell phones, computers, and little perfume bottles. A child's marble, toy dinosaur, or even a sheet of paper, may be a biological or chemical warfare weapon, or a bomb with the explosive power of a hand grenade.
    With all these possibilities, where will the paranoia end?  Where will future security be found? The short answer would seem: Nowhere and never! Not even the most tightly controlled police state can come close to guaranteeing public safety in this day and age. That won't stop the police state from trying, however. But what of freedom and liberty in such an era as ours? Are these precious commodities inevitably doomed to total extinction?
    They need not be, but, sadly, they probably are. A people who will acquiesce to tyranny, under whatever guise, has voted for tyranny. A people that cries "Give us safety and security at any price!" rather than "Give me liberty or death!" will have neither safety and security nor liberty. Oh yes, government will vigorously and enthusiastically answer their call. Yes, indeed, it will!
    Freedom and liberty are dangerous commodities. It has always been that way and always will be. Today, the case is being made that it is far too dangerous to exist. Freedom and security could never co-exist in anything but largely homogeneous communities or nations, within relatively secure borders. But when the world has become a borderless village, and the greatest nation in the history of mankind has been given to that village, both freedom and security are impossible—perhaps forever! Pridger

"We, the United States, are in an impossible situation. By talking the talk of 'free' trade, we must give up making our product (employment) to nations with less relative purchasing power because their product may be sold here cheaper than we can produce for ourselves, reducing our ability to feed, clothe, house and rear our own next generation by ourselves.
    "By putting ever cheaper inflated dollars in command of our economy instead instead of production, we have allowed dollars to control us and our government instead of us controlling our government and our dollars..." Randy Cook N.O.R.M. (normeconomics.org)

"The possibility that Osama bin Laden may be alive and well, or that Iraq might possess weapons of mass destruction (as do dozens of other nations), may be the least of our long-term worries." Pridger

"The Earth's poles and ice-caps did not shift on May 5th, 2000, but a major shift is underway in global food supplies. The ultimate result may not be apparent for perhaps a generation." Pridger

"The ultimate cataclysm has been conceptualized by science-fiction writers... (But) "fact is always stranger than fiction. The prospect of a few gene-technology companies owning all the world's seed supplies is a fact. Insurance of continued ownership seems to be seated in careful contamination of all non-engineered seeds and protection by law. Once no open-pollinated seed remains available, the scheme becomes a fait accompli. The corporate mantra, 'We have no open-pollen seed available; we have no hybrid see available,' is closer than realized by duly wired judges.
    "GM seed is sold under contract, which gives global seed firms total control of the crop, ergo total control of the farm and the farmer.
    "How, indeed, has all this come about? WTO Codex Alimentarious and Farm Bureau have a lot to answer for...
    "There is absolutely no material or monetary advantage to the farmer using gene technology. Nor does the public benefit. Only corporate ranters and their 'scientific' lackeys benefit, the first powered by raw greed, the last cowed by power and the need to defend worthless bibliographies..." Charles W. Walters, Acres U.S.A.

"Of course, there is probably good GMO and bad GMO. But since nobody is equipped to tell the difference, we must treat all GMO is if it were the plague — or another bio-warfare agent that should be banned for the protection of mankind." Pridger

"GMO is a lot like Rap music. There may be a good Sunday School variety of Rap — but once you associate its throbbing beat and in-your-face vocal cadence with gutter profanity and the promotion of cop and whitey-killing, drugs, rape, and woman-bashing, you just don't want to hear any more of it. It all sounds like poison." Pridger

"Who's to say that genetically modified foods won't produce un-dreamed of genetic aberrations in humans? What if the human immune system becomes totally confused?" Pridger

"The AIDS epidemic, and other health aberrations, including an increasing variety of exotic diseases, ought to be viewed as warning signals. Do we really know what we are dealing with? Do we really know just who is doing the dealing, and what their motives are?" Pridger 

"When a few corporations have a total monopoly on the world's food supplies, as they already do on the world's oil supplies, we'll really begin to discover the downside of the 'Wonderful New World.'" Pridger

"...(Y)ou should not underestimate how important it is for the European consumer to get traceability and labeling... The French position is that the people have the right to know, and they've told us they absolutely want to know (Which foods are and are not genetically modified)." French ag counselor Christian Berger

The EU's approach is "very trade restrictive, and it's not serving a purpose." ...application of labeling and traceability requirements to products with no trace of GMO material is "ludicrous." U.S. Trade Representative, chief ag negotiator, Allen Johnson

"It would seem that trade and immigration restrictions can serve very important purposes. Restricting the flow of weapons of mass destruction, massive quantities of recreational drugs, disease and the diseased, not to mention terrorists, are among the more significant purposes that could be served. But try to tell that to One Worlders." Pridger

"By all means, I want GMO products labeled, if not totally banned! I wouldn't touch them, much less eat them, given the opportunity to choose, and I'll bet most other Americans wouldn't either. If non-GMO foods are available, I want their labels to let me know in large bold letters. I know that I'm probably eating GMO foods regularly now, without knowing it. I suspect it because I'm getting older and older, and weaker and weaker, and am probably getting cancer. I increasingly suffer from Bob Dole's disease, and I'm going bald, to boot! In short, I feel like I'm becoming genetically modified." Pridger

"Americans are fed on the propaganda that we are feeding the world, and that we must continue to do so if mass starvation in the Third World is to be avoided. But they would be alarmed if they had the slightest idea of how much we are being fed by the rest of the world. Food self-sufficiency is the first requirement of an independent nation. Food self-sufficiency should be the first goal of every local economy. The very idea that ADM is 'Super market to the world' should scare the socks off of Americans. But somehow we seem to consider such advertisements comforting." Pridger

"Let the GMO cat get completely out of the bag, and it can't be put back in. There is no end to what can be done to our food supply (and, ultimately, to the natural biodiversity of the planet) under the color of GMO. Sanctioning GMO is much more potentially dangerous than letting the nuclear genie out of the lamp. Unleashing GMO on our food supply, in the name of nothing more than corporate profitability and eventual monopoly, is the epitome of folly. There is no other real purpose in it." Pridger

"It isn't only the intended 'benefits' of GMO foods that we should fear, but the unintended, unknown, long-term consequences (both economic and biological).  Yet Americans are already eating an increasingly GMO diet without even knowing it, and few realize the significance of becoming a nation of guinea pigs. With or without the fully informed consent of the public being thus subjected to experimentation, the responsible corporations have assumed an awesome responsibility." Pridger

"GMO is already so widespread in America that the corporations responsible are desperate to get widespread official approval and broad public acceptance, and they will go to any length to get it. In America that acceptance is considered a fait accompli simply because the conversion of several major crops to GMO is itself already a fait accompli. AMERICANS HAD NO REAL CHOICE IN THE MATTER AT ALL! It was done while everybody was asleep, and to such an extent that reversing it would even now be almost impossible. If the responsible corporations fail to get total international acceptance, their future liabilities (if things go wrong), will be beyond calculation." Pridger

"When all the world's food crop seed supplies have become the 'intellectual property' of a few monopolistic corporations, the New World Order will have truly fulfilled its potential. The global money monopoly — and the monopoly of the world's food supply." Pridger

"Give me the power to control global food supplies, and I care not who makes the laws or prints the money." Pridger

"The true ultimate goal of the New World Order globalism is to insure that every life-sustaining morsel of nourishment, and all consumer goods, must be purchased through approved corporate channels using debt instruments that compound the profits of international capital." Pridger

"This means the destruction of self-reliance and sustainable local agriculture and all regional economic systems. It spells the doom of national independence." Pridger

"How is it that Americans seem so unconcerned about their food supply while Europeans express serious reservations about genetically modified foods? Could it be that Americans will have to wait until there is another upsurge in various cancers and other degenerative diseases some decades down the road? Is that what it will take to wake them up to the clear and present dangers of GMO foods? At that point, of course, not even home gardening will provide an alternate, for it will be impossible to find non-GMO seeds." Pridger

"Another freebee Americans are getting in fait accompli form, without their fully informed advanced consent, is irradiated food. The purpose of irradiation is to make an increasingly threatened and dangerous food supply safe for human consumption. The premise that extending shelf life is an unquestionable benefit has never received the scrutiny it deserves. Americans have not been appraised of the possibility that a food supply that has been rendered immune to natural processes of spoilage may also be devoid of basic nutrients required to sustain life. If microbes and bacteria reject certain fresh foods, maybe we should also." Pridger

There are a lot of do-gooder geniuses out there exploring ways and means to save the planet and mankind. One way would be to find a means by which to kill off about half of the world's population. The technical problem is, how to do it without killing the wrong people. Another way would be to alter the human gene pool in such a manner as to reduce the human stature to about two foot tall. That would effectively make the world three times as large. There are undoubtedly mad professors working on these problems. Pridger

"There is only one possible solution to the otherwise intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would be to make Israel the 51st State of the United States of America.  Such a state might be called Israelestine. Maybe we could then wag Israel a little rather than being wagged a lot by Israel. Israelestine would become our 'Hawaii' of the east. This would provide our much desired military beachhead in the Middle East, from which we could ride herd over the region for the benefit of all of mankind, and administer the New International Order from a location more central to Europe, Asia, and Africa. We could guarantee equality under the law to both Jews and Palestinian Arabs as citizens of the United States. The influence that Israel already has over our national affairs would be transformed to reflect our 'real' national interests.
    "The city of Jerusalem could be turned into an international religious shrine in which all religions and the ACLU would share equal rights. (Perhaps a special Wailing Wall, temple, or altar, would have to be constructed for atheists and agnostics.) The special relationship we now have with Israel would become more productive than it is now costly. Jews, of course, would maintain their predominant influence in the new state through their natural economic and professional prowess, and historic and cultural interests, but would otherwise be shorn of their supra-citizen status. Zionism would be reconstituted as a cultural movement rather than a political movement. Naturally, U.S. laws prohibiting discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, and AIDs, would apply. (Terrorists excepted, of course.) Palestinians would enjoy equal rights of citizenship and the issues of reparations and 'return' addressed in a more equitable atmosphere than is presently even remotely conceivable. The borders of Israelestine would become like our southern border with Mexico, providing for further rich ethnic and cultural diversification of the nation.
    "The whole nation (the continental U.S.), would provide refuge for the peaceful resettlement of all displaced and 'returning' Palestinian Arabs, counteracting increasing Hispanic and Asian influences. Perhaps a special African immigrant portal could be considered in the interests of racial equity of immigration.
    "With the state of Israelestine as our eastern frontier, we would acquire a true national security interest in keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of nations like Iraq, and have a legitimate permanent staging area for regional 'peace-keeping' activities. Gulf Wars, to protect our national interests, would actually make sense. We would be in a position to protect the world's Middle-East oil supplies on behalf of friends and foes alike. Of course, the face of America would be in for more radical change — but that change is happening anyway, and has been happening ever since we repudiated Anglo-American culture, American nationalism, political republicanism, our Constitution, and economic independence, in favor of free trade, globalism, multiculturalism, and a New World Order. If we are really to run this New World Order, and make the United Nations totally subservient to us in our capacity as the world's only superpower, adding the state of Israelestine to the Union would seem a natural imperative." Pridger

"The prime minister of Serbia was assassinated today (03/12/2003). It seems something like that was the spark that led to the opening gambits of World War I (When the archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria, a Serbian nationalist, was assassinated in Sarajevo on June 28th, 1914)." Pridger

"I like our president. I believe he is a good man (with some serious hereditary corporate baggage), who has been overtaken and overwhelmed by events beyond his ability to fully appreciate. It appears that his advisors led him astray in the immediate wake of 9/11, and his entire administration has been swept up in a rush toward a renewal of war with Iraq and an increasing degree of future global conflict. (Of course, it may be true that he has a desire to finish the job his father started but failed to finish — and the oil wealth of Iran undoubtedly holds a strong attraction to the Bush oil interests.) He has boxed himself into a dangerous corner with no honorable way out. We seem nationally committed to a path of international warfare and increasing domestic oppression as the result. The world is becoming a much more dangerous place — much more dangerous than when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda network were the predominate threats. At best, the war with Iraq will result in the death of a few thousand Iraqis and few score American service men and women. But there is a strong possibility that the renewed war will will not go nearly as well as the first Gulf War, and may actually become the opening gambit of World War III." Pridger

World War I had a much less auspicious beginning. World War II was launched by Hitler using similar logic to that being used by our administration — the right of the preemptive strike. Hitler's entire thrust to the west was based on preemptive necessity — in preparation for his intended attack on the Soviet Union. (France had a mutual defense agreement with the USSR.) Hitler considered the Soviet Union a threat to Germany and all of Western Europe (and western civilization in general), very much as Bush now considers Iraq a threat to the United States and the free world. When one considers the two scenarios in historical and current contexts, Hitler's concerns seem much more rational and justifiable than Bush's.
    "We know how both world wars swiftly escalated from regional to global conflicts. Today the world is re-dividing itself into pro-American and anti-American camps because of our march to war. Whether the anti-American camp becomes galvanized into open militant hostility remains to be seen. But there are ominous signs. There is North Korea playing the nuclear card. There is China quietly awaiting its opportunity to bring Taiwan to heel. There is the whole world of Islam, gnashing its teeth. The entire Arab world is against us, though several 'kept' governments are striving to remain friendly. But that friendship is less than skin deep." Pridger

"Actually, there will not be 'another' war against Iraq — we have continued to be at war with Iraq since the War to 'liberate' Kuwait (a mission that was duly accomplished) — a period of some twelve years! During this period we have enforced large 'no fly zones' over much of Iraq's sovereign territory and repeatedly attacked and bombed Iraqi targets. We've subjected Iraq to strict economic sanctions which are nothing short of economic warfare. Though Iraq has never attacked the United States, nor even threatened to do so, we act as though Iraq is the dangerous aggressor threatening us and the world, requiring a resumption (or radical escalation) of hostilities on our part. Obviously, things simply cannot be as they seem. Something is radically wrong here." Pridger

"Our goal is to totally disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction — hopefully kill the head of state — and force a regime change. Is it any wonder that much of the rest of world increasingly sees us as an arrogant superpower gone power mad?" Pridger

"Of course, 9-11 was enough to make anybody mad. But there is no evidence that the Iraqi regime had anything to do with that. Our real goals in Iraq, as almost everybody realizes, can only have to do with two things: (1) Iraqi oil, and (2), the protection of the state of Israel." Pridger

"This time around it will be different. We are insisting on starting a clearly unnecessary war — an aggressive war — and nobody (aside from an apparent majority of Americans) is being fooled. Many feel that this is a courageous assertion of American independence and national sovereignty. Many Americans are convinced we will be doing God's work. Perhaps so — as president Bush sees it. We are going to defend God's chosen people (meaning Israel, select components of the international oil cartel, and the military-industrial complex). There is no other possible justification for a new war against Iraq." Pridger

"Speaking of doing God's work, Islamic fundamentalists (spearheaded by what we call terrorists), make exactly the same claim. Meanwhile the Ninth Circuit of Appeals continues to insist that the very idea of the United States as a 'Nation under God' (much less doing His work), is inconsistent with our national charter." Pridger

"Perhaps the Ninth Circuit is right, and America's Christian majority simply hasn't caught on yet. I certainly hope this is not the case, but perhaps we have indeed become a Godless and atheistic nation, waging a global ideological war against all who would have God or Allah as the Supreme Ruler of all nations. Perhaps those who would keep 'One nation, under God' in our pledge of allegiance are only trying to delude themselves." Pridger

"Which would seem to be more consistent with what might be termed doing 'God's work'? Defending the crass materialistic goals, and global hegemony, of corporate capital (the very embodiment of Mammon and the 'root of all evil'), which we call globalism — or resisting it?" Pridger

"Nations that resist New World Order globalism are termed 'rogue nations,' and they seem to be slated for economic conquest by one means or another. Meanwhile, most designated rogue nations happen to be Islamic. The broader culture of Islam (which is global in scope), is uniformly anti-globalist — giving to the present conflict (and the war now in the offing), the characteristics of a global religious crusade and Huntington's famous 'Clash of Civilizations.'" Pridger

"Given the choice between backing those materialistic forces that are ravaging the earth's limited resources and despoiling the world's natural ecosystems at alarming rates, and those who would challenge their global hegemony, where would God most likely exert his influence? Personally, I tend to suspect that the New World Order is in trouble. We may win the battle in Iraq, but the broader war lies beyond Iraq and the Persian Gulf." Pridger

"It is hoped that war can once again save an economy that is teetering on the brink of catastrophic collapse. But the world is a different place than it was on the brink of World War Two. The old formulas may no longer work. Ironically, this is because of the very policies, promoting international interdependence, that our own government has been faithfully pursuing for several decades." Pridger

"How is it that we can be so certain that Iraq continues to possess so-called weapons of mass destruction unless, perhaps, we were the ones that provided them in the first place? We claim to know more than the UN inspectors. Only 'inside knowledge' (akin to insider trading), could explain it." Pridger

"There is only one certainty in war. The certainty of unintended consequences — sometimes called "blow-back." Pridger

"As often as not, the apparently unintended consequences of war are actually intended consequences. While the first casualty of war is truth, a continuing consequence of war is lack of truth, as the victors put their spin on both the intended and unintended consequences they have wrought." Pridger

"Every war fertilizes the ground and plants the seeds of future conflict." Pridger

"America, as a new nation, began the nineteenth century with almost a clear slate. Healing the wounds of the Revolutionary war was the only war debt with which we were burdened. We began the twentieth century by repudiating a national mandate to remain aloof from the squabbles of Europe, and the world's bloodiest century ensued. It developed with our enthusiastic, insistent, and self-righteous input. During the twentieth century we increasingly became involved in global blood-letting. Though our intentions were always supposed to be good, the stains of blood and suffering have remained, and resulted in the accumulation and huge backlog of hate capital. We Americans tend to have short memories. Our natural inclination is to forgive and forget. But others are much less forgiving, and they have long memories." Pridger

"The Twenty-first Century is off to a very inauspicious beginning. It does not bode well for the future of America or the world." Pridger

"9-11 was a calamity. The war on terror is a continuing calamity. (And the fighting in Afghanistan is not over yet.) A war against Iraq will merely compound the calamities and result in several chains of unintended consequences which will reverberate throughout the twenty-first century." Pridger

"President Bush entered office with the pledge of beginning to disengage America from entangling alliances and open ended commitments abroad. 9-11 was the excuse to repudiate those alleged intentions and set the nation on a totally different path. Perhaps we missed the message. It should have been a wake up call telling us that it is time for us to re-declare our economic and political independence, re-establish the sanctity of our borders, and repair to a fortress America. This would not mean withdrawing from the world. It would mean redefining, or rediscovering, what national independence is all about, and setting an example to the world, while continuing the unavoidable global responsibilities of the world's only superpower. We may have missed our last chance at fulfilling the promise of our nation." Pridger

"Having to go it almost alone in a war with Iraq, may have some unexpected benefits. We may become so alienated from the rest of the world that we are literally forced to once again become a politically and economically Independent nation." Pridger

"The great stumbling block, of course, may be a renewed Anglo-American alliance which now seems to be in the offing. The net effect of such an alliance would be to thwart the idea of a truly self-contained nation in North America, free from the corrosive political influences of Europe. England has nothing to loose in such an alliance, and much to gain. It has thus far resisted full integration into the European Union. Perhaps it has had a purpose that has heretofore escaped full understanding. America would be the child returning to take on the responsibilities of supporting the aged and decrepit Mother Country, inheriting the remnants of a fallen Empire — the dream of Cecil Rhodes finally realized in considerably modified form. Could an Anglo-American axis, which would include Canada, gain a new form of global hegemony? Is an Anglo-American Empire to be the basis for ruling the New World Order?" Pridger

"The fact that English is the world's lingua franca, is clear evidence of the past and present influence of the British Empire. And American-style capitalism, gone international, has indisputably conquered the world from a continuing economic standpoint. The Anglo-American combination could naturally flow into something that has not been consciously articulated for some time." Pridger

"It must be remembered that in the arenas of politics, diplomacy, and global events, nothing is ever exactly as it seems. The art of deception is endemic to every major socio-political undertaking. Least obvious of all is just who or what is pulling the strings." Pridger

"Heaven forbid! but a renewed Iraqi war could conceivably be the opening salvo which triggers a cascade of unintended consequences potentially leading to a World War III. World War I resulted from such a cascade of unintended consequences. World War II was the unintended consequence of World War I. The communization of Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., and the other manifestations of the Cold War were all the unintended consequences of World War II." Pridger

"Stay tuned, history is always in the making, and it sometimes takes very unexpected turns. As Pridger has predicted many times in the past, 'We are destined to live in interesting times.' Interesting and deadly." Pridger

Return to Pridger's Index