December 14, 2006
anna missed lifted from a comment
I can imagine a scenario. In which the U.S.was invaded by an alien
and stronger military force. Its not clear exactly why this force
descended upon America, because several underlying reasons appear to be
masked by the justifications made public by the invading force.
Many here, prior to the invasion, would have agreed with the
invaders, that America had become a rogue nation personified by
feckless leadership and foreign adventurism. Indeed, many here
distraught over this degenerative state of affairs, and disheartened
over their own impotence to effect change, came to in secret, a willing
desire for invasion, if only it would topple the leadership.
But, the invaders were more clever than that, and so came to
capitalize on that frustration and use it to for their own mysterious
ends. First to scuttle resistance to the invasion itself, and then
later to fashon wedges of influence to divide the people and formulate
an enduring occupation.
Knowing that America was a religious country, the invaders made a
calculated decision, and chose to engender support for one religious
group at the expense of the others. In retrospect it was an obvious
choice, not only because the Cathloic Church was the largest religious
sect in America, it promoted certain values the invader could
appreciate. Like for instance anti-individualism. Not to mention the
clear association the other large religious sect, the Baptists, had in
supporting and enabling the former regime, particularly its hapless but
Prior to the invasion, many would have argued that religious divides
in America were a thing of the past, and made irrelevant ever since the
election of J.F.Kennedy, intermarrage, and practical political
But it was apparently not so, at least since the invasion, whereby
the invaders disparaged and demonized the Baptists as militant rum
running religious fanatic individualists drunk with fascist power. And
at the same time enshrined and empowered the Catholics with key
military and government interm appointments that would secure in long
delayed elections, demographic , financial, and political control. The
Baptists have of course, in response have lived up to their name and
splintered into several "party of God" incarnations attacking the
Catholics as "un-American commie sellouts".
Over the years the situation has degenerated with a vengence. From
the early Baptist bear trap and hunting rifle attacks on the invasion
force itself, through to the steady escalation of attacks on the
Catholic "collaborators". That presumably, have disenfranchized the
baptists back into their worst stereo-typed white trash forced trailer
park nightmare into a fractured militancy where even the KKK has
reemerged as one of the most feared insurgent factions, attacking both
the invader and collaborator alike.
But now too, the Catholics have also become suspicious and alarmed
at the level of Baptist reprisal attacks, have begun to reconsider some
of their "Catholic City" legislation aimed at pushing the Baptist
factions still residing in the city back into the rural areas, as a
matter of national security. And the occupiers too, seem to have
changed sides, increasing the pressure to accomodate new Baptist
demands for autonomy. And so it goes, and still no one is quite sure
what the ultimate goal of the occupation really is, unless they did it,
because they could. I guess we'll never know, maybe something good will
ultimately come of it anyway.
Update (12:15 pm, Bernhard): Imagine the by then dissolved U.S. military in the above scenario.
Posted by b on December 14, 2006 at 04:14 AM |
cool for front paging this. i already saved it. a keeper for sure.
anna missed, you're a star.
Posted by: annie | Dec 14, 2006 4:29:18 AM |
Yes. Thanks for going to the trouble of fleshing out the idea in interesting detail.
The first and most significant change in perspective is changing from "we do to them" to "they do to us". Then the rest unfolds.
I live near the Mekong River. The Mekong flows from Tibet through China, makes the border between Lao and Burma, the border between Lao and Thailand, disappears into Lao for a bit, then emerges again as the Thai-Lao border, runs through Cambodia and Viet Nam and into the sea.
China has now built lots of dams on the Mekong within China and seems to turn the water on and off like a faucet. I begin to understand what it's like to be a Mexican waiting to see if there's any water left in the Colorado or the Rio Grande when they leave the US. I imagine what the ramifications of the arbitrary, haphazard control of the river will be on the human, animal and plant communities that have evolved along side it.
I think that Anna missed was not so much interested in eorking out all the parallel details of the "thought experiment", although I he did a very interesting job, so much as tryng to point out that life is not lived in the rearview mirror.
A description of the forces at work in our world that results in a model capable of explaining and even predicting events is insufficient.
We must somehow manage to get hold of the stream of events and throttle those that run so counter to the way we imagine and desire that life might be lead.
And the reality is that too many of us are still, pointlessly, forced to die trying.
John Francis Lee | Dec 14, 2006 5:07:56 AM | 2
Yikes! my daydream.
A good writer could maybe make some hay with it though.
Posted by: anna missed | Dec 14, 2006 5:35:43 AM |
Great post, anna missed! Great comment from John Francis Lee, too!
Posted by: Argh | Dec 14, 2006 7:20:42 AM |
"Okay, so I dont have a damned thing to do today."
Brilliant, anna missed! A day well spent.
Posted by: beq | Dec 14, 2006 7:28:02 AM |
Great post am.
Just wondering if your next installment includes the blowing up of St Patrick's Cathedral in NY.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Dec 14, 2006 10:29:51 AM |
It's okay, Herr Rumsfeld says the
war on terra is over.
Posted by: Dismal Science | Dec 14, 2006 10:51:44 AM |
Along the same lines, if all the oil reserves were in China, we would be battered with horrific hate speech about evil heathens and Chinks and communist dictatorships, cruel barbarous practices, different genes and blood, lack of humanity, etc. etc. ad nauseam -
Muslims, Jews and Christians would all be ‘people of the book’ with a common monotheistic root, or some drivel along those lines, and Islam would be religion of openess (adjusted to local conditions, just like Baptists, say), purity and love, with some charming habits that would soon be taken over. After all, the French
ramdam means noise and party time, and everyone loves to party; Baghdad was the greatest cultural center ever; Persian women are the sexiest and most subtle; Iraqi pistachios are worth their weight in gold; Arabic script is of wondrous beauty and logic; the Taliban are against drugs, and our Afghani sisters are too cool, smart and determined; Muslims have a great ideas about how to run the market but also be humanitarian (zakat); and Kadaffi gave up WMD!
But now, the Chinese!...
Posted by: Noirette | Dec 14, 2006 10:52:57 AM |
Ironic that you should bring that up cloned poster as I just read the following before coming to da bar and seeing b highlight am's 'Scenario'
Brian Dominick: Media Coverage of Right vs. Islamic 'Terrorism'
[Compares media coverage of superstition-based violence in the mass media when the superstition is Christianity versus the superstition of Islam.]
Further, forgive me, but I have not gotten someone's post (a moon patron, I forget who posted) of late out of my mind,
When Will the First IED Strike Cleveland? - The Boomerang Effect, being as we have witnessed the resurgence of The New Crusades in the 21st century, It isn't to far fetched to take it a step further, to a new era of Christian Reformation wars. I recently read, a fringe website that discusses the true aim of the straussian neocons was to destroy the Treaty of Westphalia and usher in a new era of religious wars. Of course my dystopian mind runs wild, but what can you expect when you read such things as The Christian Reconstructionist movement, Excerpt: "... Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality."
"...women who have abortions should be publicly executed, along with those who advised them to abort their children."
Nice group, eh?
and as been posted here before, let us not forget, also from from
anna missed , "the despoiling of america" by katherine yurica. this is not conspiracy theory stuff
How Dominionism Was Spread
The years 1982-1986 marked the period Pat Robertson and radio and televangelists urgently broadcast appeals that rallied Christian followers to accept a new political religion that would turn millions of Christians into an army of political operatives. It was the period when the militant church raised itself from centuries of sleep and once again eyed power.
At the time, most Americans were completely unaware of the militant agenda being preached on a daily basis across the breadth and width of America. Although it was called “Christianity” it can barely be recognized as Christian. It in fact was and is a wolf parading in sheep’s clothing: It was and is a political scheme to take over the government of the United States and then turn that government into an aggressor nation that will forcibly establish the United States as the ruling empire of the twenty-first century. It is subversive, seditious, secretive, and dangerous.
Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called “Christian Reconstructionism.” Its doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans. Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’” He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate “…labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.” Clarkson then describes the creation of new classes of citizens:
“Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment [to] blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.”
Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, “They cut and run if I mention the word ‘Dominionism.’” Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, “In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, “How to Participate in a Political Party.” It read:
“Rule the world for God.
“Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
“Hide your strength.
“Don’t flaunt your Christianity.
“Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.”
Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that people “look to God and not to government for help.”
It is estimated that thirty-five million Americans who call themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the United States, but most of these people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of their beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So successfully have the televangelists and churches inculcated the idea of the existence of an outside “enemy,” which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society.
When one examines the progress of its agenda, one sees that Dominionism has met its time table: the complete takeover of the American government was predicted to occur by 2004. Unless the American people reject the GOP’s control of the government, Americans may find themselves living in a theocracy that has already spelled out its intentions to change every aspect of American life including its cultural life, its Constitution and its laws.
much more at www.yuricareport.com
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 14, 2006 11:29:22 AM |
glad you front paged this one. I read it earlier and thought it was a shame it might get seen after other threads were going.
thanks, anna missed!
and so much for "clash of civilizations," too, as noirette noted.
Posted by: fauxreal | Dec 14, 2006 11:44:12 AM |
... and panicked Baptist families start fleeing south across the Bronx river, in fear of electric-drill wielding Catholic militia ...
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Dec 14, 2006 11:48:34 AM |
Oh and not to forget the 20 million American refugees on the other side of the Mexican & Canadian borders.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Dec 14, 2006 11:59:04 AM |
and the 8,000,000 "excess" death ....
b | Dec 14, 2006 12:46:23 PM | 13
...and the exodus of professionals while one side battles for creationism and the other calls for a "do over" for forgiveness of Galileo.
...while one side requires men to wear white patton leather shoes and act like closeted homosexuals and marry women with helmet hair and the other requires a "Scalia" ...aka celice, aka barbed thigh band.
...and the statue of liberty is pulled down and replaced with a barefoot and pregnant 16 year old as the national symbol...
(and I meant to say, above, might NOT get seen...typos R us)
Posted by: fauxreal | Dec 14, 2006 12:53:18 PM |
neocon = improvised explosive device
neobarbarian = rutabaga
Catholic militia = ?
Posted by: beq | Dec 14, 2006 1:13:52 PM |
Hans plays with Lotte, Lotte plays with Jane
Jane plays with Willi, Willi is happy again
Suki plays with Leo, Sacha plays with Britt
Adolf builts a bonfire, Enrico plays with it
-Whistling tunes we hid in the dunes by the seaside
-Whistling tunes we're kissing baboons in the jungle
It's a knockout
If looks could kill, they probably will
In games without frontiers-war without tears
Games without frontiers-war without tears
sim (pun intended)note:
Senator John McCain (R. - AZ) has
introduced legislation (pdf) that would hold blogs responsible for all activity in their comments sections and user profiles. Provisions of the proposed bill include: (1) commercial websites and personal blogs "would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000," (2) bloggers with comment sections may face "even stiffer penalties" than ISPs, and (3) any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender. "Because 'social-networking site' isn't defined, it could encompass far more than just MySpace.com, Friendster and similar sites." The list could include any site that allows comments, authot and personal profiles. Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that this proposal may be based more " on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts." "McCain’s legislation could deal a serious blow to the blogosphere. Lacking resources to police their sites, many individual blogs may have to shut down open discussion." *
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 14, 2006 1:38:11 PM |
Catholic militia = ? a romantic candlelight dinner at the Cracker Barrel
Posted by: anna missed | Dec 14, 2006 1:38:48 PM |
O' ye of little faith, lest ye never forget,
Father knows best...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 14, 2006 2:02:20 PM |
Wonder with whom the tornados would side in the Great Trailer Park Wars?
Posted by: Happy Fun News Hour | Dec 14, 2006 3:33:51 PM |
Catholic militia =
Bene Geserit Witches (linked page is titled Arabic and Islamic Themes in Frank Herbert's "Dune")
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Dec 14, 2006 9:31:30 PM |
You know, I have been thinking of writing a story with the theme of "iraq in the US". What was that english saying about minds thinking alike?
thanks for the link. Remember, not to bite too hard.
the youtube-movie does not work for me. They generally don´t, but a direct link often does the trick.
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Dec 14, 2006 10:18:19 PM |
listening to all the talk of 'Christianity' by the US military is pretty unnerving - don't any of them realize that Jesus didn't say "hunt them down and kill them" when he was on the cross?
Posted by: Susan | Dec 14, 2006 10:18:57 PM |
these you tube screens NEVER work for me, i'm probably doing something wrong though. if no remedy, title of video works
Posted by: anna missed | Dec 14, 2006 11:39:22 PM |
My thoughts too Susan. I watched until I felt my stomach turning. Hypocrites first and last.
Posted by: beq | Dec 15, 2006 7:27:19 AM |
That Christian Embassy movie is one of the scariest things I've seen in a while. It's the same feeling I get when I see footage of congregations in these huge evangelical "churches" in rapturous sway to the words of their "preacher." Only in the Pentagon, the potential for utter catastrophe to ensue is increased by an inestimable factor. It is the expression on their faces that is the most telling -- it's clear they would do
anything if their religious beliefs said it was "divinely ordained." "National interest?" What's that?
I swear I'm starting to think the US has been invaded by aliens.
Posted by: Bea | Dec 15, 2006 9:02:42 AM |
"I can imagine a scenario. In which the U.S.was invaded by an alien and stronger military force."
This is why we have gun rights
Posted by: | Dec 15, 2006 9:27:12 AM |
@27 - each Iraqi household has at least one gun ... didn't help much against an invasion ...
General Odom via Joshua Landis
Myth About Iraq Mythologies about the war in Iraq are endangering our republic, our rights, and our responsibilities before the world. The longer we fail to dispel them, the higher price we will pay. The following six truths, while perhaps not self-evident to the American public, are nevertheless conspicuously obvious to much the rest of the world.
Truth No. 1: No "deal" of any kind can be made among the warring parties in Iraq that will bring stability and order, even temporarily.
Truth No. 2: There was no way to have "done it right" in Iraq so that U.S. war aims could have been achieved.
Truth No. 3: The theory that "we broke it and therefore we own it," with all the moral baggage it implies, is simply untrue because it is not within U.S. power to "fix it."
Truth No. 4: The demand that the administration engage Iran and Syria directly, asking them to help stabilize Iraq, is patently naïve or cynically irresponsible until American forces begin withdrawing – and rapidly – so that there is no ambiguity about their complete and total departure.
Truth No. 5: The United States cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Truth No. 6: It is simply not possible to prevent more tragic Iraqi deaths in Iraq.
The Iraq Study Group's recommendations could be used to dispel these myths and prompt a rapid withdrawal, but it remains to be seen if either the president and his aides or the Congress can or will use them for that purpose. The "one last big try" aspect of the recommendations, if pursued vigorously, will just make the final price the catastrophe higher. The media, by dispelling the foregoing list of myths, could make that less likely.
b | Dec 15, 2006 10:08:10 AM | 28
to no one in particular:
For an intersting argument that the second amendment was meant as an alternative to a standing army :
Rangel and Jefferson Agree on a National Service Program
"If standing armies are dangerous to liberty," Hamilton wrote, "an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions." A citizen's militia, Hamilton noted, "appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it..."
But while many Founders saw a standing army as a threat to democracy, others pointed to threats ranging from hostile Indians to French Canadians and Spanish Floridians as reasons to keep it.
The debates among the Framers of the Constitution led to a clumsy compromise, with the ban on a standing army and universal requirement for membership in a militia chopped away, to be revisited at some (presumably near) future time. The tattered and compromised remnant of that discussion is today known as our Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, in its entirety: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
John Francis Lee | Dec 15, 2006 11:46:31 AM | 29