Family Security Matters and their lame excuse for removing the article advocating Bush being made emperor.

here it is. Now i usually respect views different than my own, but when i tried to grab this article, their site was down because they were removing stuff. this site is pretty hard-core neocon. even though it’s a bad excuse, at least they admit that the article existed. i keep in my favorites, just to keep an eye on ’em. kind of like a few sites do to me.

here’s where you used to be able to download the cached page, where someone had saved it, but the actual article has been erased even from the cached link! not to worry, i found the original, and pasted it underneath this one!!!!

Think Tank Calls For Bush to Be Dictator For Life
08-16-2007
www.roguegovernment.com
Lee Rogers

Family Security Matters a neo-conservative based think tank has published an article advocating that George W. Bush should be a dictator for life. The organization has since taken the article down, but is still viewable via this cached link.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy: By Philip Atkinson

The article written by Philip Atkinson states that Bush would fail his country by becoming an ex-President or can achieve greatness by becoming President-for-Life Bush in order to bring sense to Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Atkinson is bluntly advocating that Bush should become dictator for life with these outrageously anti-American statements.

From the article:

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

Atkinson also advocates that Bush should get rid of everyone in Iraq through military force and repopulate the country with Americans.

From the article:

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

Although these statements by Atkinson are completely insane and entirely anti-American, the author also shows complete ignorance as to the type of government the United States is supposed to be. The author states that Bush is a victim of Democracy when in fact the United States is not a Democracy.

From the article:

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy. The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.Although I do agree that Democracy is a horrible form of government, Atkinson’s argument holds no water since we do not have a Democracy in this country. The United States is in fact a Constitutional Republic, so it is not possible for Bush to be a victim of Democracy.

Unfortunately, Atkinson might get his wish of a Bush dictatorship. The HSPD-20/NSPD-51 directives issued by Bush states that the President is to have complete control over all three branches of government during a catastrophic emergency. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security plans for continuity of government operations have been kept secret from Congress.

Either way, Atkinson the author of this article is clearly an insane individual who hates America. From advocating the colonization of Iraq with Americans as well as a Bush dictatorship, it is clear this individual needs some serious help. It also leaves questions as to the judgment of this Family Security Matters organization considering they openly published this anti-American trash. An investigation by Free Market News Network, found that Family Security Matters is actually a front group for the Center for Security Policy a group that Vice President Dick Cheney is a known associate of. Removing the article was clearly a means of damage control and it shows how rabid and insane the neo-conservative base has become. This article shows that today’s neo-conservative is nothing more than the 21st century equivalent of a Nazi in pre World War II Germany.

HEY!!! I FOUND THE ARTICLE!!!

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at rpa@ourcivilisation.com.

read full author bio here

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. I have been in contact with this lunatic. He is quite serious about his demented “philosophies”, as is shown in all his other writings. He is British. I am British. I apologize.

    Here are the results of my two emails sent to him:

    The first email and response:

    ME: So, you wished to see President Bush use his nuclear weapons to clear Iraq of Arabs and replenish that land with Americans? Well, you are NOT an American, but why don’t YOU relocate to Baghdad after the nuclear blasts. But I would strongly advise you not to drink the water.

    ATKINSON: It is not a rebuttal of an argument to make inane remarks. To refute an argument you must point out where the presumptions are wrong or the logic is in error. 911, the attack on the World trade centre by a barbarian war band, was predicted in 1952 by professor Arnold Toynbee in ” A Study Of History”. The work was a study of civilizations and revealed that Western Civilization was declining. This meant that as EVERY previous declining civilization was attacked and destroyed by barbarian war-bands, our civilization would be attacked by barbarian war bands until destroyed.

    This raises two significant problems:

    1/ Our civilization is declining, a notion that is not generally understood but is explained at http://www.ourcivilisation.com.

    2/ How do you defend yourself against barbarian war bands armed with nuclear weapons? What should America do if New York disappears in a mushroom cloud, and Al Qaeda, or whoever, makes odious demands that must be met if Chicago is not to be next?

    What do you recommend America does to deal with these two problems?

    The second email and response:

    Subject: Your article: Conquering the drawbacks of democracy.

    ATKINSON: It is not a rebuttal of an argument to make inane remarks.

    ME: I did not intend my remarks to be “inane”. My original correspondence was an attempt at sarcasm. I was considering the practicality of your suggestion of first blasting Iraq with nuclear weapons, until they were all dead, and then replenishing a radioactive area with Americans. Do you think that many Americans would volunteer to emigrate to a radioactive area? Also, in that scenario (and let me suggest that instead of “nukes” the military were to use only “daisy cutters” and “MOABS”, which are the highest-yield ordinance weapons beneath “nukes”, but nevertheless depopulated Iraq, what would be the daily lot of any people “injected” into that country, if not eternal war with the other Arabs and Muslims of the region, if not the troubles of Israel magnified? I suppose your solution would be to simply eradicate such neighbours also?

    ATKINSON: To refute an argument you must point out where the presumptions are wrong or the logic is in error.

    ME: So you are saying that any political thesis can only be refuted on logical, or accuracy grounds. So this is the “Machiavellian” philosophy, in that all political considerations are matters of logic mixed with veracity, with no moral aspect impinging the implementation of the policy results of this logic? Foreign policy, and military affairs are to be conducted on a strictly “logical” imperative, bound by nothing except the defence interests of the United States, and also with the United States exercising its military power to preclude any other nation from practising likewise, since you wish to see President Bush become “Ruler of the World”.

    In this regard, could you also elaborate somewhat on how you would envision President Bush becoming the actual “Ruler of the World”? What would be the actual mechanism by which this is to be achieved? Is it simply by employing nuclear weapons against nations who refuse, until they accept, or does the process include negotiation at any juncture? In my view, it has always been quite logical to assume that there would eventually be a world structure of government, however it arose, and whatever its composition and powers. My concern is that if it is to be by conquest, as you and many others heavily imply that it should, that it would inevitably prove to be the very world of terrorist mushroom clouds you profess to abhor. I think I am entitled to infer from your writing, and I have read a number of your “essays”, that you clearly do not believe in the “micro-management” of such matters, and you believe that a “strong resolve, with bold and decisive action” is required to settle these types of issues.

    In seeking to become World Ruler, what should be the response of President Bush, and the United States, in the event that a nation such as Russia were to insist that they wished to continue without his rule over their country, and were prepared to use their own nuclear weapons on any country that wanted to dispute their right to do so? Should World Ruler Bush then accept a “renegade” Russia standing in defiance of his global rule, or engage in a nuclear exchange?

    I do not believe these matters are academic. I strongly believe that use of nuclear weapons is relatively imminent, and will occur within a minimum distance of the next five years.

    I have studied various of a number of “out-lining” documents of the neoconservative philosophy. I have equally studied various leaked documents of the Chinese military, and on Russia. Simply put, I have made a broad study of the international scene with regards to potential futue military conflicts. I am opposed to much of the neocon agenda, but I am equally opposed to the agendas of many other important players. The neocons, at least, proffer some degree of considered argument on how to achieve hegemony. You offer no solution other than bombing and genocide as “policy”. I am not suggesting that bombing and genocide has not been the stark policy of many world powers, but you are proffering this and this alone as the means of obtaining “full-spectrum dominance”.

    ATKINSON: 911, the attack on the World trade centre by a barbarian war band, was predicted in 1952 by professor Arnold Toynbee in ” A Study Of History”. The work was a study of civilizations and revealed that Western Civilization was declining. This meant that as EVERY previous declining civilization was attacked and destroyed by barbarian war-bands, our civilization would be attacked by barbarian war bands until destroyed.

    ME: Firstly, your analysis is quite sweeping, and encompasses EVERY previous civilization (by “civilization”, I think, in this regard, you also include the ancient and more recent empires), and assumes the attacks by “barbarian war-bands” are all and equally comparable within your analyses, and you go much further, in heavily implying that there is a generic solution to this historically routine endgame of a civilization, an let us accept that what is strongly advocated in your original article (the aspect I wish to address) is pre-emptive action to forestall either the attacks, or the effects of the attacks, of the “barbarian war-bands”.

    Let us first consider the full implications of the first part of your statement. Specifically, what, in your personal opinion, were the defects in US intelligence, air-defence, and radar systems, etc, that led to their circumvention by a “barbarian war band’, armed only with “Stanley knives”?

    ATKINSON: This raises two significant problems: Our civilization is declining, a notion that is not generally understood but is explained at http://www.ourcivilisation.com.

    ME: “A notion that is not generally understood”? Oh, really? By whom is it not understood? You are offering, as serious argument, that it is simply not generally understood that our civilization is in decline? Granted, I’ll concede that there are people who do not understand that our civilization is declining, but I should think this would be overlooked only by those very forces who are responsible for its decline. Do you accept that recent and continuing large influxes of illegal immigrants into the United States is a contributory factor to America’s continuing civil decline? Do you not concede that actively attempting to secure those borders would contribute to the solution of this? What is your opinion on why the borders are poorly defended, especially in light of your concern over the terrorist threat. If a terrorist wanted to perpetrate outrage within the United States, his best point of entry would clearly be the southern border.

    ATKINSON: How do you defend yourself against barbarian war bands armed with nuclear weapons? What should America do if New York disappears in a mushroom cloud, and Al Qaeda, or whoever, makes odious demands that must be met if Chicago is not to be next? What do you recommend America does to deal with these two problems? How do you defend yourself against barbarian war bands armed with nuclear weapons?

    ME: This would depend on a number of factors:

    a). What delivery system carries the nuclear weapon (missile, aircraft, ship, manual placement)?

    b). Where did these “barbarian war bands” obtain these nuclear weapons, since it is not possible for “barbarian war bands” to develop and manufacture them?

    If the delivery system were to be a missile, then defence would have to be via the then prevailing mechanisms established to intercept and destroy it at the safest possible distance from the population (and since you and I cannot possibly know what that system would be there is no point in speculating upon it).. If the delivery system is by aircraft, then quite simply, by the time it was dropped and detonated it would be too late. I am thinking here not of a military aircraft of a state, but a private or commercial aircraft granted entry to US airspace in the normal manner, but containing a terrorist nuke. What should be done in this event? I see no point in speculating on that matter. The authorities in charge at that time would make the decision, and we would learn about it.

    You asked the question, “What should America do about these two problems?”, but it is glaring that you have proffered no answer to this yourself. The issue of a “barbarian war band” obtaining (since they cannot manufacture) a nuclear weapon and detonating it within the United States, is not solved by annihilation of the Iraqi people. You and I must accept that the scenario of a terrorist group, or unhinged individual coming into possession of a nuclear bomb is only possible with the assistance of a state (nation). A nation who wished to see the United States suffer such an attack would deliver such a weapon to the terrorist(s), and the terrorist would attempt to get into US territory. In fact, the easiest way to do this would be to place it within a cargo ship container and detonate it at a US port. In any event, we must regrettably accept that there is nothing the United States, or any other nation, can do to completely prevent acts of terrorism. Anyone, who has the three factors of initiative, means, and opportunity, can commit acts of terrorism, especially where such a person does not care if the act of terrorism is to cost their own life. This is essentially no different to the Japanese “kamikaze” pilots of the second World War.

    In the event of the manual placing of a nuclear bomb within the United States, there is nothing that can be done to prevent this, and you must accept this fact. Getting a nuclear weapon into the United States, once one has bee obtained, would be as simple as driving a truck. So essentially, there is no defence against a terrorist nuclear bomb, given the culture of the United States as a “nation of immigrants”. There simply are no types of people who look “conspicuous” within the USA. Nations which do not practice this multiculturalism would stand a greater chance of apprehending such obvious “outsiders” merely on appearance. This is the practical fact of the matter.

    Personally, I believe we are on the threshold of a nuclear winter. I think all the political and academic considerations of all these matters will soon be rendered irrelevances. But you will certainly get your wish to see the United Stated use nuclear weapons in the very near future. But it will be not be on Iraq.

  2. Hey, has anyony seen this video of Fred Phelps talking about Dick Cheney’s grandson? This CANNOT BE MISSED! BEST VIDEO OF THE YEAR! Ha ha ha!

    CLIKCK THIS: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8194338250744686470&q

    Regards,
    Tricky Dicky!

  3. nixon, i’m glad there are people like you around who will debate people like atkinson. and i side of course with you. from what i have seen over here, america is split down the middle. you’ve got people who think Bush is doing everything good and that Al-Qaeda is the supreme evil, and you have people who think Bush and company are setting us all up, and that we will be under martial law soon. i know i sounds nuts, but i think we fund Al-Qaeda even now. also, i am very worried because i know we will attack Iran, and in order to do that, there is going to have to be a major attack over here. i dont know if i’m making any sense, i’m still asleep, i had a long night.
    the point is tricky dick, you have very good insight in my opinion into world events. your comments are very welcome on my blog.
    🙂
    i’ll try to make more sense later!
    -Pat (aka daredevil92103)


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Palestine Summer Encounter
  • www.myspace.com/palestine
  • Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator
  • Awaken yourself, click here
  • Palestine Blogss - The Gazette