Bharat Rakshak

What Is an American?

by Edward L. Hudgins

Edward L. Hudgins is director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on July 3, 1998

This article appeared on cato.org on July 3, 1998.

We celebrate July Fourth as the day the Declaration of Independence created the United States. But in my heart I also honor July 15. On that day in 1930 Giustino DiCamillo, my grandfather, arrived here with my grandma, aunts and an uncle to start their lives as Americans. My mom was born the next year.

I never had the chance to hear my grandpop's deepest thoughts about his extraordinary journey and rich, long life, which ended when I was fairly young. But one way I can understand his character, and the character of my country, is to reflect on the question, "What is an American?"

An American is anyone who loves life enough to want the best that it has to offer. Americans are not automatically satisfied with their current situation. My grandpop wanted to be more than a poor, landless tenant farmer, no better off than his ancestors. Americans look to more than the next meal; they look to the future, the long term, a better tomorrow.

Edward L. Hudgins is director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute.

An American is anyone who understands that to achieve the best in life requires action, exertion, effort. Americans aren't idle daydreamers; they take the initiative. Fortune did not fall into my grandpop's hands. He had traveled to America several times before 1930 to find work, establish himself, and make it possible to bring over the family. He toiled for years to achieve his dream, but achieve it he did.

An American is anyone who understands the need to use one's mind and wits to meet life's challenges. How would grandpop secure the money necessary for his first trip to America? Where would he find a job and a place to stay? You don't need college to know that you have to use your brain as well as your brawn to make your way in America.

" The principles of this country are no mere abstractions; they are written in the hearts of all true Americans.'

An American is anyone who understands that achieving the best in life requires risks. Immigrants have no assurance of success in a new land with different habits, institutions and language. They leave friends, relatives and familiar places, often risking their lives to cross oceans and hostile country to reach their new homes. But they, like all Americans, understand that the timid achieve nothing and forgo even that which sustains us through the worst of times: hope.

The nature of Americans explains the precious opportunity that has drawn millions to these shores. The Declaration states that all men are endowed "with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Americans seek economic prosperity, leaving behind the resentment in other countries that is aimed at those who better their material condition. Throughout the world and throughout history, millions of individuals have endured poverty with dignity. But there is no inherent dignity in poverty. Individuals came to America to farm their own farms and run their own enterprises. My grandpop found work on streetcar lines so he could buy a house and provide a better life for his family.

Americans seek personal liberty, to live as they see fit, to worship as they please. Americans seek freedom from the use of power wielded arbitrarily by whoever holds the political sword. My grandpop no doubt did not want to be at Mussolini's mercy.

The Declaration -- and the Constitution that followed it -- created a political regime for individuals who wished to be united with their countrymen not essentially by a common language, ethnic background, or other accident of birth. Americans are united by a love of liberty, respect for the freedom of others and an insistence on their own rights as set forth in the Declaration.

Unfortunately, the American spirit has eroded. Our forebears would look with sadness at the servile and envious character of many of our citizens and policymakers. But the good news is that there are millions of Americans around the world, living in every country. Many of them will never make it here to the United States. But they are Americans, just as my grandpop was an American before he ever left Italy. And just as millions discovered America in the past, we can rediscover what it means to be an American. The principles of this country are no mere abstractions; they are written in the hearts of all true Americans. And it is the spirit of America, the spirit of my grandfather, that we should honor on July Fourth.

While grappling with ideas for a book on American identity (Journey into America, Brookings Press, forthcoming) I've been trying to figure out what actually defines an American and would be grateful for any assistance by readers of this column.

The primary definition involves the legal citizenship of the United States. This ensures the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and, in turn, obliges the citizen to accept the philosophy underlying the Constitution. The concept and practice of checks and balances is fundamental to the Constitution. The citizen can also assume the protection of the military and the other security agencies from different kinds of threats.

Being a legal citizen is more than the acquisition of a passport, it is also the recognition of the ideas that were forged by the Founding Fathers of the United States. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin were extraordinary statesmen by any standards and had a collective vision of a new society in a new world. Jefferson's eloquence and imagination are clearly reflected in the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence. It is that Declaration that Americans celebrate on the Fourth of July with fireworks.

A more visible and therefore more obvious definition of Americanness comes from a sense of belonging to American culture. Movies, television shows, and sports create heroes, a language, and references for Americans. Expressions are picked up from television shows and become part of mainstream language. Bart Simpson's expression "eat my shorts" from the 1990s, for example, is now a recognized part of the American lexicon.

American culture was more unified in a general sense a generation ago when television was still a relatively new phenomenon. The glow of the Second World War and its victory still suffused the nation. Americans had fought a just war and triumphed over some of the most evil men in history. Americans saw themselves, and were largely seen by the world, as the good guys.

Today, American culture appears much more fragmented. There is a bewildering range of shows, music, religious and political discussions available to the viewer. There are equally bewildering role models. The excesses of the consumerist culture are embodied in figures like Paris Hilton, who is a caricature of herself.{The Islamist in him is speaking here! I mean about that icon.} Many people are seduced by the idea of consumption for the sake of consumption, excess for the sake of excess. This zeitgeist also feeds into the idea of being American, the notion that every American has the absolute right to do what they will of their lives.

America's fragmented culture also means that superstar politicians like Barack Obama are seen so differently by so many Americans. To some, he is almost Christ-like in his virtues and promise. To others, he is the Antichrist and is set to destroy America itself. The extremity of these opinions reflects the fragmented nature of America today. Different opinions in the arena of politics is the very essence of democracy and the debates between Jefferson and John Adams were as acrimonious as they are between Democrats and Republicans today. The difference is that after the bitter political exchanges, Jefferson and Adams could spend years as kindred souls, exchanging letters and ideas about a variety of subjects. The atmosphere around Obama today is becoming dangerously brittle and I suspect will become even more tense in the coming months as the economy and international affairs challenge him further. The debate around Obama then will expand beyond politics to the realm of the irrational and the subconscious which will include race and religion.

Great moments of achievement and catastrophe also bring Americans together. These special moments in a nation's life capture the imagination and focus on that special meaning of being American. These are the moments that Americans will remember and put away in their minds in the category of "where were you when...?" The moon landing forty years ago is one of those great achievements which only Americans were capable of pulling off and therefore it was a uniquely American achievement. Similarly the assassination of JFK in 1963, the American diplomats taken hostage in 1979, and the attacks of 9/11 brought the nation together in grief and shock.

There is a fourth definition which comes from non-Americans. Because America is a superpower -- currently the superpower -- it attracts both admiration and envy. Most foreigners, when asked to spot Americans in Paris, Cairo, or Delhi would say they are taller, fatter, and louder than anyone else. Even America's neighbors see it as bullying and arrogant. Ask Mexicans or Canadians what they think of America.

The question of defining a large country, indeed a continent, is a challenge. I have been traveling the length and breadth of the country with a team of young American researchers to discover the answer. What we found was a sense of vitality, openness to discuss issues, and belief in the vision of America inspired by the Founding Fathers. We also found uncertainty and anger.

I would very much like to read your ideas on what being an American means.

....
When the Puritans lived in England they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. The Church of England prohibited them from worshipping in their own way. There was no debate about the validity of the Puritan's doctrine. They were considered heretics by the absolute power and authority of the Church, exercising the power of the Status Quo.

The Church of England believed in Christianity. But was it the teaching of their founder to persecute others, lock them up and take away their freedom simply because their beliefs were different? In this case, if they had cared to see, their own professed beliefs would have acted as a mirror to expose their hypocrisy and evil.

Having the chance to resettle in America the Puritans acted. If they had stayed in England, the Church and the Government would have destroyed them because of their beliefs and because they did not have the support from the general populace at the time.

What happened to the Puritans and their choice to settle in America set in motion a wave of determination so great it not only became the driving force of the development and character of American society but it also became the impetus for the spreading of human rights and democracy worldwide.

Why was this force so powerful that nothing could stop it from displaying its indomitable resole in the human spirit? The Church of England tried to suppress the individual in their spiritual beliefs, their private domain, the seat of life where all people inquire about their own existence. It tried to imprison their mind, the seat of judgment which is the main driving force to discern good from evil. This triggered a chain reaction that would release the flow of individual rights, that would saturate the American psyche, thus becoming the driving force that would shape our history and become the standard of behavior to protect what is most noble in humanity.

Now the seed was planted, from that time on the given right of the individual to stand up and defend himself against any force or system that would subdue his rights was set in motion. This phenomenon where noble ideals continue to rise up even from the ashes of our own indignities is uniquely American. The fact that we continually champion the cause for individual rights under any circumstances is what makes our struggle so important to the world's social structure and its future.

As time continued, many other people came to this country, some for political reasons, some to escape prosecution and persecution, some for economic reasons, and many were forced to come here and be sold as slaves. Soon many different colonies were formed containing people from all parts of the globe, but still the English maintained an oppressive social and economic grip over the colonies. The colonists were an independent lot and there was no way they accepted the Church of England or the aristocratic social structure as something they could embrace.

This became apparent in the War of Independence, which produced documents such as the Declaration of Independence and eventually the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These would confirm that the foundation of the country was the focus on individual freedom. This was a far cry from a monarch and aristocracy where the people were neither empowered by charter or even given the right to hold their own leaders accountable for their actions. Through this struggle a government was formed by the people and for the people where the leaders would be directly accountable to its citizens.

Jefferson stated in the past people were never empowered to censure or punish their leaders and those that would even raise their voice in protest were considered traitors.

This right is of central importance because it truly defines the core of our social and ethical system, which had set us apart from the rest of the world. The Constitution provided the separation of Church and State. Now the government became the blanket under which all people could have their own beliefs, the freedom to speak out without fear of backlash from any group, religious institution or the government itself.

The government was structured to protect and defend the rights of all the people. Thus it became the model that influenced thinking so deeply, that it would give rise to the movement of enlightened structures in both the secular and religious realm in the twenty first century.

This is in direct concurrence with the spirit and teachings of great religious leaders where the integrity of the individual is to be cherished and protected. These founding documents would be the foundation for the rights of each individual and would be the building blocks of a new emerging civilization where the people are empowered to keep those who are in positions of authority in check, in other words, to keep the status quo in check.......

... 2) The leukosphere or white identity. In the 600s of CE the English king Oswald of Northumbria, a new convert to the religion of love decided to wage holy war on both other coreligionists like the British king Cadwalla and the heathen Saxon king Penda, a worshiper of Odin and Thor. Oswald was the victor of many brutal wars, killing Cadwalla in due course, though his holy war on the heathen Penda ended in him being hacked to pieces on the battlefield. His brutality notwithstanding he was made a saint as he had fought the heathens on behalf of the pretamata – a reminder of innate deception typical of these memetic diseases, the preta and the rAkShasa mata-s. About 100 years down the line came the dreaded German holy warrior Charles-I (Charlemagne) who imposed the religion of love with utmost brutality on other German people. Likewise, Charles waged holy wars to spread to spread the memetic disease of the pretamata to the western Slavs and the Avar khaganate. In the process practically exterminated the archaic Indo-European culture of the Germans and the western Slavs. He seems to have even found some kind of resonance with his fellow holy warrior from the religion of peace Harun al Rashid in Baghdad with whom he exchanged gifts. He is fondly remembered by the descendants of his victims as the “father of Europe” and his tall, fair, blond haired image still provides them with their ideal of a puruSha. These events encapsulate the emergence of the precursor of the identity under discussion. In essence, it was the artificial identity of the pretamata that was stuffed down the throats of the unwilling heathens of Europe. Subsequently, the same identity forged the European alliances against the Islamic Jihad. But over time it receded to the background with fragmentation and local identities taking precedence. Fast-forward several centuries ahead to when the United States was born. Its elite had their deep cultural moorings to England, despite seeking political independence from it. In its war of independence it had succeeded in no small measure due to the aid offered by France. Thus, in its very birth the US had links to European powers that had long been rivals. Within the North American continent it was at war with the natives and was being steadily settled by other European peoples. On the whole, the birth of the US was a success story – it had beaten the mighty English who were victorious against most other nations of the world. It had built a formidable navy in a short time and projected power far away in the North African coasts by smashing the Moslem fleet in the Barbary War. Its successes also lead to introspection about its own place in history and identity. Given its origins and peoples, it had no need to adopt a narrow identity pertaining to a particular European nation despite its links to Britain and France, but sought to forge a new one. In this situation, two things came to the fore – the sub-current identity of the pretamata, which had been submerged in fragmented Europe and the white racial identity. The former was particularly strong as they needed something to replace the regional allegiances of Europe to their respective kings. So the rAkShasa spelt with the capital G took the place of the king or Kaiser. The latter emerged as a result of their encounter with the “other” in the form of the natives of America who were locked in a life and death struggle with them and the slaves they had shipped in from Africa to ply on their fields. Their military triumphs against the natives, as well as elsewhere in the world, along with degradation of the Africans to a lowly position, gave them a feeling of a superior white identity. Indeed, even their great intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated free-thinking on religion, upheld these core aspects of the developing identity. This becomes clear when one examines his “Indian Removal Plan”. His main idea was to enforce the pretamata on the natives at the expense of their own traditions and force them to adopt “Western European culture” and eventually assimilate into the white identity of the US. Failing this they were to be driven westwards or exterminated.

The events surrounding the American civil war, often acting in different directions, led to further strengthening and recalibration of the white identity. The civil war resulted in a strong sense of white identity being reinforced in the southern states. In the north while the prevailing mood was for universal rights it was not as if the white identity had been given up. In fact, non-English European immigrants, primarily Germans and Irish joined the union’s cause, providing it with the much needed manpower in the war against against the southern states. Now the important role played by these European immigrants meant that upon victory of the union they were to play a major role in the north. This again meant that the white identity was a more suitable one than an English one. In particular the Irish had earlier not been considered white enough, but now they slowly gained that status and reinforced a much wider identity based on generic adherence to the pretamata and being of lighter complexion. Even through the civil war battles to suppress and exterminate the natives of the land continued, further reinforcing the white identity as one of superiority, relative to the free tribes who refused to accept the white ways. The post-civil war period saw the rise of white movements that attacked blacks in the southern states. This resulted in blacks going north for finding better and safer work opportunities and fell in a competition with the Irish who occupied similar working class niches. This also contributed to the strengthening of white identity further. Finally, with the failure of post-civil war reconstruction and rise of racial tensions the white identity strengthened greatly and now resonated with the ideas of supremacy, which were also current in the German identity movements. However, its American flavor, instead restricting glory just for the Germans, extended it to all light-skinned people of European decent who followed the preta-mata. The strength of this identity in the US is attested by the opinions and actions of the post-civil war American president Woodrow Wilson and the roaring success of the blockbuster movie during his reign titled the “Birth of a Nation”. It also explains why the apparently genuine efforts of the American presidents like Grant and Coolidge to improve racial relationships and non-white rights were not very successful. Eventually, with the American victory in world war 2 and the conquest of Germany, this white identity (of course with the pretamata subcurrent) also came to guide the European unification and establishment of the leukosphere through the recognition of the white colonies of Australia, New Zealand and some degree South Africa as brethren.

Thus, rather than being something very deep and ancient, as some Hindus mistakenly believe, this identity is a rather shallow one of recent provenance. The shallowness of the white identity, like the modern German identity, is revealed by its need to appropriate other peoples identities and achievements as their own. The tale of how both these groups appropriated the ethnonym of my people does not need any further elaboration here. But we may turn to some other examples, namely the appropriation of Greek and Roman achievements as their own. For instance, in his work “Wisdom of the West”, Bertrand Russell appropriates Greek scientific and mathematical achievements as collective property of the west, and this indeed is the norm in modern America. Hitler thought that the yavana warriors in Thermopylae certainly had some German connection. During the height of the battle of Stalingrad he hoped his field marshal would not surrender but die fighting as a fitting enaction of the Spartans being hammered by the Iranians at Thermopylae. The same yavana-s were also claimed by the Americans who made a movie to mark their hostilities with the Islamic nation currently occupying the land of the Iranians of yore. They use terms like senate and senator emulating the Romans. Yet, no where do we find the Greeks or Roman claiming such a grand white identity. If anything Hellenistic civilization was destroyed by the founding principle of white identity, i.e. the pretamata, despite the valiant efforts of Julian (To realize the importance of the pretamata to this identity note the fact that Panjabi Americans, who might barely make the cut on the skin color metric, were still able to gain the admiration of those with leukotestate identity by converting to the pretamata).

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... dentities/

vera_k wrote:On the barbarian culture theme - there is a broad conflict within the country such that the barbarians are primarily limited to the southern states. Although these states lost the civil war, the pace of social change is slow enough that pre-civil war instincts are not too far below the surface. The country overall has chosen to be accomodating to this culture for the sake of national unity.

Americans seek economic prosperity, leaving behind the resentment in other countries that is aimed at those who better their material condition. Throughout the world and throughout history, millions of individuals have endured poverty with dignity. But there is no inherent dignity in poverty. Individuals came to America to farm their own farms and run their own enterprises. My grandpop found work on streetcar lines so he could buy a house and provide a better life for his family.

Americans seek personal liberty, to live as they see fit, to worship as they please. Americans seek freedom from the use of power wielded arbitrarily by whoever holds the political sword. My grandpop no doubt did not want to be at Mussolini's mercy.

Supratik wrote:the hispanic population in US is about 16%. of these whites make about 50%. so non-white hispanics are still
less numerous than blacks and the white hispanics actually bolster the overall white population of US

vera_k wrote:On the barbarian culture theme - there is a broad conflict within the country such that the barbarians are primarily limited to the southern states. Although these states lost the civil war, the pace of social change is slow enough that pre-civil war instincts are not too far below the surface. The country overall has chosen to be accomodating to this culture for the sake of national unity.

gakakkad wrote:
@ SHIV-

There is one more thing that you should analyse here...

If you look at the spanish conquistadors...they intermarried with the indigenous population leading to the a mixture in south america...ie they dissolved themselves with the indigenous population...even though when they first arrived they were ruth-less.... but they did eventually mix with the locals..judging by the genetic composition of Mexican and most south american population
But if you look at anglo-saxon colonization anywhere...they almost wiped out the Indigenous population (america , australia) or subjugated it (like India or China)... they did not intermarry.. The number of Anglo-Indians in India is extremely small indicating that they rarely married with the Indians...

That may reflect cultural differences in Northern europeans and southern european population...

PS- Whats with the present day fascination with britian... english music has been more popular than most american music over the past half a century ... People also seem to have a fetish for the British accent and often try to replicate it (only ending up parodying it)...

Jarita wrote: Kind of grudging admiration for the Pakis for shocking these guys. major ego damage for these imperialists. They need to change their worldview - allegiances shift daily in Asia (that is what they call duplicity)

Pakistan: A local news service reported today that the Pakistan Army is planning measures to restrict Haqqani network movement along the Afghan border as part of an understanding reached with the United States, at least two senior security officials said.

Pakistan will do its part while coalition forces stop infiltration from across the border, a Pakistani military official said. The military will restrict all militant group movements as well as deny them space within Pakistan's borders.

Comment: What is striking is the contrast between US news reporting about the visit by a high-level US delegation and Pakistani reporting. The US media presented Secretary Clinton's visit as a thrashing, but the Pakistanis treated it as a negotiation.

The US media got swindled again. There is no breakthrough. The US asked for help with the withdrawal and the Pakistanis promised to do what they could to facilitate it. That is the significance of today's report and the Clinton delegation visit.

The typical Jeffersonian is to the “left” of the American political spectrum, upholding traditional “liberal” ideas such as increased Federal Government involvement in social and economic development, upliftment of underprivileged sections, civil rights, environmental conservationism, regulation of corporations, global initiatives against poverty/disease/global warming and so on. Such politicians as Dennis Kucinich are at the extreme left of this group.

However, not all Jeffersonians are leftist. Libertarian Isolationists such as Ross Perot and Ron Paul, who believe in a Fortress America model where the US military is exclusively employed to guard America’s borders and enforce illegal immigration laws, also purvey an essentially Jeffersonian foreign policy.

After several months of in-depth research and, at first, seemingly unrelated conversations with former high-level intelligence officials, lawyers, politicians, religious figures, other investigative journalists, and researchers, I can now report on a criminal conspiracy so vast and monstrous it defies imagination. Using “Christian” groups as tax-exempt and cleverly camouflaged covers, wealthy right-wing businessmen and “clergy” have now assumed firm control over the biggest prize of all – the government of the United States of America. First, some housekeeping is in order. My use of the term “Christian” is merely to clearly identify the criminal conspirators who have chosen to misuse their self-avowed devotion to Jesus Christ to advance a very un-Christian agenda. The term “Christian Mafia” is what several Washington politicians have termed the major conspirators and it is not intended to debase Christians or infer that they are criminals . I will also use the term Nazi – not for shock value – but to properly tag the political affiliations of the early founders of the so-called “Christian” power cult called the Fellowship. The most important element of this story is that a destructive religious movement has now achieved almost total control over the machinery of government of the United States – its executive, its legislature, several state governments, and soon, the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

The United States has experienced religious and cult hucksters throughout its history, from Cotton Mather and his Salem witch burners to Billy Sunday, Father Charles Coughlin, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, and others. But none have ever achieved the kind of power now possessed by a powerful and secretive group of conservative politicians and wealthy businessmen in the United States and abroad who are known among their adherents and friends as The Fellowship or The Family. The Fellowship and its predecessor organizations have used Jesus in the same way that McDonald’s uses golden arches and Coca Cola uses its stylized script lettering. Jesus is a logo and a slogan for the Fellowship. Jesus is used to justify the Fellowship’s access to the highest levels of government and business in the same way Santa Claus entices children into department stores and malls during the Christmas shopping season.

When the Founders of our nation constitutionally separated Church and State, the idea of the Fellowship taking over the government would have been their worst nightmare. The Fellowship has been around under various names since 1935. Its stealth existence has been perpetuated by its organization into small cells, a pyramid organization of “correspondents,” “associates,” “friends,” “members,” and “core members,” tax-exempt status for its foundations, and its protection by the highest echelons of the our own government and those abroad.

The Roots of the Fellowship

The roots of the Fellowship go back to the 1930s and a Norwegian immigrant and Methodist minister named Abraham Vereide. According to Fellowship archives maintained at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College in Illinois, Vereide, who immigrated from Norway in 1905, began an outreach ministry in Seattle in April 1935. But his religious outreach involved nothing more than pushing for an anti-Communist, anti-union, anti-Socialist, and pro-Nazi German political agenda. A loose organization and secrecy were paramount for Vereide. Fellowship archives state that Vereide wanted his movement to “carry out its objective through personal, trusting, informal, unpublicized contact between people.” Vereide’s establishment of his Prayer Breakfast Movement for anti-Socialist and anti-International Workers of the World (IWW or “Wobblies”) Seattle businessmen in 1935 coincided with the establishment of another pro-Nazi German organization in the United States, the German-American Bund. Vereide saw his prayer movement replacing labor unions.

A student of the un-Christian German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Vereide’s thoughts about a unitary religion based on an unyielding subservience to a composite notion of “Jesus” put him into the same category as many of the German nationalist philosophers who were favored by Hitler and the Nazis. Nietzsche wrote the following of Christianity: “When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God’s son? The proof of such a claim is lacking.”

One philosophical fellow traveler of Vereide was the German Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, a colleague of Leo Strauss, the father of American neo-conservatism and the mentor of such present-day American neo-conservatives as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Strauss’s close association with Heidegger and the Nazi idea of telling the big lie in order to justify the end goals – Machiavellianism on steroids -- did not help Strauss in Nazi Germany. Because he was Jewish, he was forced to emigrate to the United States, where he eventually began teaching neo-conservative political science at the University of Chicago. It is this confluence of right-wing philosophies that provides a political bridge between modern-day Christian Rightists (including so-called Christian Zionists) and the secular-oriented neo-conservatives who support a policy that sees a U.S.-Israeli alliance against Islam and European-oriented democratic socialism. For the dominion theologists, the United States is the new Israel, with a God-given mandate to establish dominion over the entire planet. Neither the secular neo-conservatives nor Christian fundamentalists seem to have a problem with the idea of American domination of the planet, as witnessed by the presence of representatives of both camps as supporters of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, the neo-conservative blueprint for America’s attack on Iraq and plans to attack, occupy, and dominate other countries that oppose U.S. designs.

What bound all so-called “America First” movements prior to World War II was their common hatred for labor unions, Communists and Socialists, Jews, and most definitely, the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Vereide’s Prayer Breakfast Movement, pro-Nazi German groups like the Bund, and a resurgent Ku Klux Klan had more than propaganda in common – they had an interlocking leadership and a coordinated political agenda.
\
Not only was Vereide pro-Hitler, he was the only Norwegian of note, who was not officially a Nazi, who never condemned Norwegian Nazi leader Vidkun Quisling, a man whose name has become synonymous with traitor and who was executed in 1945. Vereide and Quisling were almost the same age, Vereide was born in 1886, Quisling in 1887. They both shared a link with the clergy, Vereide was a Methodist minister and Quisling was the son of a Lutheran minister. The Norwegian link to the Fellowship continues to this day but more on that later.

Another pro-Nazi Christian fundamentalist group that arose in the pre-Second World War years was the Moral Rearmament Movement. Its leader was Frank Buchman, a Lutheran minister from Philadelphia. Buchman was a pacifist, but not just any pacifist. He and his colleagues in the United States, Britain, Norway, and South Africa reasoned that war could be avoided if the world would just accept the rise of Hitler and National Socialism and concentrate on stamping out Communism and Socialism. Buchman coordinated his activities with Vereide and his Prayer Breakfast Movement, which, by 1940, had spread its anti-left manifesto and agenda throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Buchman was effusive in his praise for Hitler. He was quoted by William A. H. Birnie of the New York World Telegram, “I thank Heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front line of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism.”[1] Buchman also secretly met with Heinrich Himmler, the head of the Gestapo and controller of the concentration camps. Buchman was at Himmler’s side at the 1935 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg and again at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The predecessor of Buchman’s Moral Rearmament Group, the Oxford Group, included Moslems, Buddhists, and Hindus. Buchman and Hitler both saw the creation of a one-world religion based largely on Teutonic, Aryan, and other pagan traditions mixed with elements of Christianity. Buchman saw Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism as being compatible with his brand of Christianity. Hitler, too, had an affectation for Islam and Buddhism as witnessed by his support for the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the anti-British Muslim Brotherhood, and Tibetan Buddhists.[2] But Buchman had no sympathy for the Jews who Hitler was persecuting. Buchman told Birnie, “Of course, I don’t condone everything the Nazis do. Anti-Semitism? Bad, naturally. I suppose Hitler sees a Karl Marx in every Jew.”

Such global ecumenicalism is a founding principle for today’s Fellowship. With total devotion to Jesus and not necessarily His principles at its core, the Fellowship continues to reach out to Moslems (including Saudi extreme Wahhabi sect members), Buddhists, and Hindus. Its purpose has little to do with religion but everything to do with political and economic influence peddling and the reconstruction of the world in preparation for a thousand year Christian global dominion. Post-millenialist Fellowship members believe that Jesus will not return until there is a 1000-year pure Christian government established on Earth. It is this mindset that has infused the foreign policy of George W. Bush and his administration. The desire for a thousand year political dominion of the world is not new. Hitler planned for a “Thousand Year Reich” over the planet. It is not a coincidence that Hitler desired and the so-called Christian dominionists/reconstructionists now contemplate a thousand year reign. The Christian dominionists are the political heirs of Hitler, the Norwegians Vereide and Quisling, Buchman, Opus Dei founder and fascist patron saint Josemaria Escriva and their political and religious cohorts.

The Nixon tapes reveal that in 1972, Nixon, Graham, and H.R. Haldeman had a conversation in the Oval Office in which the Jews were targets:

Graham: “This [Jewish] stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.”

Nixon: “You believe that?”

Graham: “Yes, sir.”

Nixon: “Oh, boy.” So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

Graham: “No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something.”

--Graham: “By the way, Hedley Donovan has invited me to have lunch with [the Time Magazine] editors.”

Haldeman: “You better take your Jewish beanie.”

Graham: “Is that right? I don’t know any of them now . . .A lot of Jews are great friends of mine . . .They swarm around me and are friendly with me because they know that I’m friendly with Israel. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country.”

Nixon: “You must not let them know.”

The tapes reveal the inconsistencies of the Fellowship. On one hand, their Nazi and Fascist past and tendencies make it seem unlikely that they would be supportive of Israel. Yet, support for Israel is not only something advocated by Graham but also by the shock troops for today’s fundamentalist movement, the so-called “Christian Zionist” wing of the Fellowship.

ramana wrote:Thanks for the input. My request still stays for we need people to understand the super power and its different factions that appear to act differently. Need to find the common thread to reduce mis perceptions.

For example draw two sets of concentric circles: one for political organs of power and then another for society and see how they map to each other like in conformal mapping.

Musharraf, a classic “man on horseback” who came to power in a military coup,

Supratik wrote:Rudradev,

If the analysis is original it is exceptional although one may disagree with the Indian equivalents.

Should be archived or put up somewhere for reference purposes, otherwise a gem will be lost.

Philip wrote: http://insider-magazine.org/ChristianMafia.htm

EXPOSÉ: THE “CHRISTIAN” MAFIA

"Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, ail other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.

"In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah."

http://archive.jta.org/article/1962/01/ ... viet-union

Acharya wrote:

arun wrote:X posted from the India-US Strategic News and Discussions thread.

Josy Joseph writing in TOI reveals that declassified Indian documents shown that US hostility to India during the 1971 war with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was more intense than previously disclosed:

US forces had orders to target Indian Army in 1971

Need to understand this more and discuss this more.
Pakistan behavior is monitored and also its foreign policy is under the scanner of US policymakers and US military establishment(Ayub Khan). That is one of the reason the Pak ruling elite turns to its military very often.

The wars waged by Pakistan (atleast 65 , possible 48, likely 99) was war gamed by US military and they do some scenario planning.

If the Pakistan behavior goes out of hand or they overstretch and fumble during war , the US establishment will take the risk to protect them by attacking India or reducing the war making abilities of India (spare shortage)

Karl Indufurth State dept official even made a statement to the effect in 2001 that US will back Pakistan during a war with India.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_poin ... 511473.stm