babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Can you predict the future?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Can you predict the future?
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 26 October 2002 06:24 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Chehoslovakia...Austria...Poland...WW2

Afghanistan...Iraq...Iran(?)...


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242

posted 26 October 2002 11:34 PM      Profile for koan brothers     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
the next world war will be fought with stones.

-albert einstein


From: desolation row | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 27 October 2002 08:11 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, I had the horrible premonition that, in view of human History and cycles of Empire, a totalitarian United States, pursuing world power, was all but inevitable. All the trends I have seen since then seem to point in this direction.

As they say “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The US military power appears as absolute as it can be (and accelerating) and I believe it has a life and a mind (a terrible one) of its own, trying for total world power.

I know it sounds extreme, but so did Hitler and the 'Third Reich' at the time and the 'unthinkable' happened. There is nothing sacred about our times, such that it could not happen to us.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 27 October 2002 09:38 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sheesh.. do you not stop making Hitler references?

I'm sure I am qualified as anti-American, but I'm not rabidly so. And from what I read (from numerous sources) I shouldn't be.

I may think the US is misguided on any given policy, but I don't think they are preparing the prisons and gas chambers for any given person of a designated race. And the last I checked, the U.S. could be analogous to the British Empire in power, but while I know lots of deaths occured under British rule, I haven't read of anything that equates them with outright genocide in gas chambers.

Apparently Pentagon hawks are embroiled in a battle with the CIA, insofar as it has been reported that the hawks are trying to fire George Tenet and set up their own intelligence unit within the Pentagon.

The fact I know this speaks volumes. The fact that the CIA, of all organizations, is trying to feed reliable info to the Whitehouse is absolutely astonishing. Or am I being misled on this too? Is the saying that Washington is the city of open secrets patently false?

And what of the international "consensus"? If the US gets Russia and China to abstain from a Security Council vote, does that mean those countries are Nazis like, too? Apparenlty the US is shifting focus to gather suport from the non-permanent UN sercutiy council countries. If Bush gets support there, does that mean Mexico or Syria are also Nazis like? (Err, obviously Bush ain't gonna get support from Syria, but those are the only two countries I know of in the SC off hand.)

Zatamon, are you a student of the Nazis era press? Would the German, or Austiran, or Italian people have been fed the same facts?

Would we know, pre-Sept 11, that Powell was a cautious person in regards to foriegn diplomacy and about his subsequent "mis-steps"?

Would he know of a split between Hitler and Himmler, Geobbels, etc, like we know of the obvious split between Powell, and the Cabinet hawks like Wolfowitz/Rumsfled, and their given department heads?

"We" as in the "western" world might be going to war, and the ramifications of this war can't be properly quantified, but I'm sick of you popping up and saying "I know this sounds extreme" and that "it could happen to us."

Long ago, one babbler claimed that the Nazi regime drugged Poles and gave them guns and made up an incident in which they were all shot. Is that true? Is the Bush administration doing that now?

I'm not a student of Mazis history, but you place in me in the position of defending our American brethren and, well, I'm quite happy criticizing them, thank-you very much.

So, Zatamon, I'm assuming you've been following the Iraq threads here intently and also watching the American media. To say, "it could happen" and reference the US in Nazi terms, I assume you obviously have intellegence that should just blow my mind, considering too, that you are an expert of Nazi propaganda.

Or are you just saying "it could happen" because, like in any given situation, "it could happen?"

So spill.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 27 October 2002 09:53 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
clockwork, my friend, I suggested this to you before and I am compelled to suggest it again: do keep an open mind.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question:

How would the US government react if there was another terrorist attack, comparable in size and brutality to 9/11? Or more than one, several in quick succession? What if a suitcase nuke was detonated in a big city?

You don't think it would lead to Marshall Law declared? I half expected it last time, after 9/11. Would not all Arabs be rounded up in camps?

You see, if the US continues its present course of what I call "The war of terrorism", the scenarios I painted above are very realistic. Even likely to happen.

If 9/11 proved anything, it is the fact that the US is not invulnerable. The 'unthinkable' can and did happen once. So it can (and probably will) happen again.

You still don't think that Marshall Law, maybe temporary at first but never lifted again, may be in the cards?

Let me give you a historical example from an earlier post:

"On February 22 1933 a deranged communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, 24, from Holland attempted to strike a blow against capitalism by burning down the German Reichstag. German Chancellor Adolph Hitler’s SA agents knew about his plan but instead of preventing him they were concerned that the fire he set wouldn’t be effective.

So while Marinus was upstairs setting his fire SA Storm Troopers under Karl Ernst, entered the Reichstag basement through a tunnel connected to Herman Goering’s residence and distributed enough gasoline and incendiaries around to ensure a good blaze.

After the Reichstag had burned and Van der Lubbe had been captured, an incensed Hitler told his nation “The German people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as well!”

The next day he issued the following proclamation; “Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscation, as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

The Reichstag Fire had increased Hitler’s power and authority Tremendously, but it still wasn’t enough. Hitler wanted total control. With an election scheduled for March 5 1934 he had an opportunity to take it.

Accordingly, the Nazis made an all out attempt to win a majority in the Reichstag so they could get an ironically named “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich” passed. This act would confer on Hitler the constitutional functions of the Reichstag including, the power to make laws, control of the budget and the ability to make treaties with foreign governments.

Political enemies were arrested by the thousands and put in hastily constructed prisons. Old Army barracks and abandoned factories were converted to this purpose and thus was begun the concentration camp system.

Large donations were solicited, and received, from industrial organizations like Krupp and I.G. Farben. But in spite of an energetic and well-executed campaign the Nazis didn’t win the majority they needed to pass the act.

They were undeterred however, and when the newly elected Reichstag convened in the Kroll Opera House on March 23, they packed it inside and out with SA Storm Troopers. And with Storm Troopers on the outside chanting slogans like “Full Powers, or else! We want the bill, or fire and murder!” and Hitler lying on the inside with statements like “The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures" and promises to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union; the measure passed and Hitler became dictator of Germany.

....................

It is funny how blind people can get, isn’t it? Just one example is the Jews in Nazi Germany, who all heard Hitler frothing at the mouth, and some of them may even have heard of (or read) ‘Mein Kampf’, still it was a very small minority of the German Jews (a lot of scientists among them) who took it seriously enough to leave the country. Most of them dismissed Hitler as a loudmouth upstart, who wouldn’t have the guts to do what he was shouting from the rooftops, for all to hear. For most of them it was too late by the time they admitted that they had been wrong.

Now, if it was possible to be so blind, in spite of Hitler telling them what he was going to do, isn’t it so much easier to be blind when those who may have nefarious intentions tell you that they are your friend (while stabbing you in the back), they will protect your freedom (while severely curtailing it) and democracy (while they redefine it), they will respect your laws (until they change them) and serve your best interest (while going for a major power and money grab)?

If it was possible to be so deadly wrong about Hitler in 1934, in spite of him telling people what he wanted to do, is it not equally possible to be deadly wrong about Bush and his gang now?


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 27 October 2002 11:02 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PS. I reread clockwork’s reply to me and realized what some of his problems were. He assumes I am accusing the US of being a Nazi state and potentially follow the exact same route, including the gas chambers. For the record: I never said that. This thread is about some similarities between the two regimes, but never about identity.

I wanted to raise the issue of a possible (intentional or accidental) US drive for world power. This would be completely consistent with what we know about cycles of empires. clockwork called me 'rabid anti-American'. For the record: I am not. I am against all empires (Roman, British, German, Russian, American, whatever). The US is the only current empire on the planet and is behaving very much in the typical imperial way. Gas chambers are not compulsory for empires to adopt and I never said the US would.

However, built in (for all empires) drive for power, expansion, conquest, domination, even concentration camps (see US WW2 history) is a different story.

clockwork, I suggest you never underestimate the 'Oooops!' factor. Keeping an open mind helps you avoid that mistake. In the worst case, an open mind still doesn't hurt.

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 27 October 2002 12:56 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suppose, yes, if you read my post and extrapolated I did called you a "rabid anti-American". And I suppose, sure, I used the gas chamber reference when you did not, specifically, mention it. I was sloppy.

"Hitler" evokes certain images. The "Reichstag Fire" has certain cultural associations and I suppose it was improper to feed off that.

I only wish the babble search engine wasn't the piece of crap it is.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 27 October 2002 01:05 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In spite of our repeated clashes, clockwork, I am pretty sure we are on the same side. I am often emotional in my appeal (experience taught me that logic does not work as well) and often raise extreme examples and possible extreme scenarios –- all in the cause of fighting complacency. Apparently it irritates you and I can sort of understand. I will try to be more precise in my future posts and use as many ‘disclaimers’ as I think necessary.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 October 2002 02:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It would be instructive to make comparisons with the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union had a tendency to restrict press freedom, to feed the official media what it was thought the people should hear.

Is not the same trend occurring in the United States? I have heard it said that the US media quietly corrects Dubya's more atrocious malapropisms before running stories that involve quotes from his speeches.

Seems similar to how Brezhnev was treated as nearly a demigod when the man could barely function in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

And just as the Soviet Union entered the twilight of stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s, with a leadership increasingly out of touch and a population becoming ever-more-cynical about the whole "system", a similar thing is happening to the USA. The leadership is losing touch because many people who take part in it are very wealthy and have little understanding of the troubles of the working people who make up a majority of the population, and from my unofficial sample of the US population a good percentage is suspicious of George Bush's motives, regardless of anything he says or does.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 27 October 2002 02:41 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno, we can draw many historical parallels, probably according to the readings we've done on different subjects.

I've been exploring the parallel with Rome in my mind, because that's where I've done some reading.

After Ceasar had put the Celtic threat forever out of the equation, and Crassus (or was it Marcellus?) routed Mithradites in the east, Rome had no threats-- except the threat of piracy in the Mediterrenean. Are today's terrorists anologous to Rome's Pirates?

Trouble is, George Dubya Bush is no Magnus Pompey, that's fer sure......


Or is bin Laden Mithradites? Seems to have as many lives......


I dunno, I'll work on this a bit more........


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 October 2002 03:14 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find the comparisons with Rome and the Soviet Union to be better-fitting because the USA is quietly beginning to claim the role of empire with an emperor (an elected one, but nonetheless an emperor), and the USSR, similarly to the USA and unlike the Nazi state, not founded on the notion of perpetual warfare to sustain itself.

The Soviet state did, after all, last for 70 years with no changes to its official boundaries even though the government generally lied to its people. You can run on lies for a long time.

And there isn't much of a difference between a myth and a lie. take, for example, the American culture-hero, Davy Crockett.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 27 October 2002 03:21 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seriously, one strong parallel I've noted between Republican Rome and The U.S. since the 1970's, is the increasing reliance of the courts to settle politicaly partizan disputes.

Fascinating stuff, those years from the Gracchi to the death of Ceasar. It's all the politics you need to know.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 27 October 2002 03:35 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The recent debate on the TVO program 'Diplomatic Immunity' was fairly instructive on this question of American Imperialism.

For those who missed it Janice Stein, Eric Margolis, and Richard Gwynn each took their turn querying Richard Perle, arch-hawk of the Bush Admin and #4 man in the Pentagon, head of the Institute for American Enterprise and as Eric Margolis descibes him "one of the Bush Administration's most influential and certainly smartest member."

This Richard Perle is a regular on the program and he is truly somthing to watch.

The most interesting point in this particular program came for me when Richard Perle masterfully parried Margolis' suggestion that America was exactly an Empire... with the counter that America does not and has never sought to expand its territory in the way that Empires have done throughout history, and Perle continued along the line that America is the great proponent of Democracy et cetera et cetera. At this point Gwynn interjects with something like "well, no, of course not, because America is a smart empire - they can't rule in the way Britain did, say in India, for example, with only one hundred thousand troops, but then they no longer need to. In many ways the United States is a cultural empire first, and this is very smart of them because by exporting it's own culture it accomplishes what other empires did, but with so much less mess, militarily. American Imperialism is defined primarily by the exporting of its own culture - including, by the way, this same rhetoric about American Democracy that Richard Perle just alluded to."

Of course that is my pararphrasing, but his point is an important one. American Imperlialism is not Roman, Napoleonic, German Nationalist or British in flavour. It is American and we only need to ask ourselves if the magnitude of leverage is equivalent - does America have the balance of control, globally, in matters of state, economically, militarily...

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 27 October 2002 04:41 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We seem to be in agreement about one thing: the US is an empire. The question is what flavour? I would agree with flotsom about it being specifically American in nature (I described the ‘mind-control’ nature of it in the “I start seeing some hope” thread), but I sense a change in direction and scope after 9/11.

The awesome military power is there and is increasing rapidly. The ‘justification’ for aggression is blown out of all proportion. The easy ‘victory’ in Afghanistan is still in the minds of the hawks. The road seems to be open for more. Iraq is now in the crosshairs and war is all but a foregone conclusion.

What are the three criteria for circumstantial evidence? Means, Motive, Opportunity. It all seems to be there.

The official policy of “War on terrorism”, whatever it takes, however long it lasts, scares the shit out of me. It is obviously irrational. No one could ever hope to win such a crusade, so it must be a cover for something. Maybe some very influential powers behind the throne decided that this was such a golden opportunity that they could not afford to waste it: grab a few more trophies while the grabbing is good.

Do I have any evidence? Of course not. Do I think it possible, even probable? Yes, I do. You may disagree and I will be the first to admit that I may be wrong. I hope I am.

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca