The Sorrows Of Empire by Chalmers Johnson
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 02:32
VIEWED: 6083
PAGE 3 of 12
Chris,
It's a flame war waiting to happen, like a pirate news moment. I simply said the first time something to the affect that jews are minority of neocons, actually jews are a minority of pnac, the most jewish neocon organization out there, and there is only one jew in the bush cabinet, the world's most powerful neocon organization, and that jew is michael chertoff, who holds the bottom spot in the cabinet, according to the line of succession. By distribution of executive power, neocons are more black then they are jewish. (think about the absurdity of the black neocon agenda? Actually, neocons are very pan-africanist, and strongly support mandela, and his followers, and many of them worked with MLK. But anyone can look at Katrina and see how pro-black the agenda is. I hope that sarcasm came through)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:DT- I'm with you on most of this, but when you say It was Dick Cheney and co. who supported Clinton in the '92 democratic campaign you lose me. I haven't seen any evidence that this was the case. Do you have something to back that up?
It was Cheney having a huge fight with 41 about invading Iraq. Dick said, 'you've got half a million men on the border, just give the order' or something like that. And 41 said "no way, the world would hate us if we become the aggressor." It was Dick Cheney and co. who supported Clinton in the '92 democratic campaign, and in exchange got Halliburton and Halliburton got the job of the old Quartermaster's Corps, under Clinton's military restructuring.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Can anyone tell me if this book addresses that? Because I'm far more interested in critical analysis than in a partisan rant.
Have you seen the documentary 'Why We Fight' by Eugene Jarecki? It's all about Eisenhower's M-I-C and how it relates to today's situation, etc. Also fair and balanced in dishing out the blame.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym,
I can dig some up. The short of it is that Cheney's big Halliburton deals with Clinton, and Clinton's big Iraq campaign, and the way they worked together in Kosovo, the very clear break there was between Bush 41 and Cheney after the gulf war, the whole Texas tie in with the Perot campaign for me all adds together and spells "Duh."
But I'm sure there's people out there who've done more research. This whole Bush is Clinton conspiracy is not really that far out there, there were a lot of people working in cooperation here.
Here's my first starting point, when I threw out the possibility that Clinton was "A good guy" which was I think around december of 1991 or whenever, when he entered the race. The media clearly loved him, and was willing to completely overlook fatal flaws. Time opened with a cover shot and the words "Next President of the United States." That was a pretty round endorsement for a guy who was nowhere in the polls, was under investigation in his own state for criminal activity and mismanagement of govt., and was a known philanderer. But the media loved him. It was willing to love him to the point that it was willing to hate every other democratic candidate.
I think it was somewhere shortly after here that I gave up completely on democrats. I had already been impressed by Bush 41 as not being nearly as bad as my liberal friends promised he would be (nor was reagan) And Clinton started out terrible. Waco, the Iraq stuff, more sleaze, and weird financial deals, some totally anti-American were all underway and out in the open I think within the first year.
Why does this smell like Cheney to me? I mean, I can tell you right now, no, I'm probably not going to dig up the smoking gun on this one. but here's some thoughts:
Cheney goes to Yale, gets in close with some of the skull and bones crowd, ie. Time Magazine and co., who are more liberal than conservative and even though they have their guy Bush in the whitehouse, they're wiling to feed us Clinton. Someone is shaking things up.
Who is Bill Clinton? His wife is a former watergate prosecutor, and both of them had some dealings in the 70s with a group called the social democrats, of which many of cheney's associates were members. Cheney himself prefered to remain a 'non-partisan' civil servant. But Wolfowitz and Perle, his closest advisors, were charter members.
The whole thing strikes me as a set-up. A coup.
The problem is, virtually everyone was taken in at some point, and voted for either Bush or Clinton, which makes it hard for them to say "hey, I was duped." But the reality is, a close examination of Clinton policy shows that it is virtually identical to Bush policy. And Bush 43 policy is not Bush policy because Bush 43 is an idiot. It's Cheney policy. One man has been president, Cheney, and one woman VP, Hillary, for 16 years. Bill Clinton spent his presidency chasing tail, and Bush 43 spends his snorting coke.
Warrantless wiretapping outside the law. Check.
Daily bombing of Iraq. Check.
Multiple wars for oil. Check.
Unchecked support for communist China. Check.
Support for monopolistic mergers. Check.
Unchecked support for Israeli aggression. Check.
Support for NAFTA, WTO and the whole NWO. Check.
Eco-cidal environmental policy. Check.
Secret drug deals. Check.
Support for Pharmagod. Check.
Corporate welfare and corruption. Check.
Stole over two trillion dollars from the people. Check.
And the list goes on.
I'ts not that all govt. is corrupt, or that everyone has supported these things, or that they're very similar administrations.
It's the identical corrupt govt.
No and ifs or buts. I recognize the beast, it's the exact same thing.
People think "Oh in 1995 Clinton made a new FISA law."
No, he didn't. It never happened. In 1994, Clinton broke the law repeatedly with unchecked wiretapping of Americans. in 1995, because Clinton got caught, a group of democrats got together and made a catch-up law to make what Clinton was already doing legal, if he later supplied the names. This is exactly wh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll need to look this over in detial, but thanks for getting back to me.
Couple of things right offhand-
First of all, I've noticed that while Cheney is behind a lot of things his fingerprints are hard to detect. Picking thru the PNAC website and doing a little background on the neocons and so forth, their affiliations with JINSA, the Carlyle Group and each other are out in the open... until you get to Cheney, whose "background" affiliations are a little harder to track. So I'm open to the idea of Cheney being the puppet-master, but I doubt he's the only driving force.
And I'm happy to say I didn't vote for either Bush OR Clinton (whew! wipes brow!) so I have no personal stake in either one.
But- to get back to the topic of the thread- the urge to imperialism has been with America for a long time, well before Bush 41 or Cheney or the Civil War. This "unipolar" movement is just the latest expansionist rush- likely it will be the last one since I don't foresee our empire surviving in a world where everyone is pushing back. I think there is something systemic in the USA, above and beyond the individuals involved, that is propelling us in that direciton.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's funny.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Poor Finn. He just can't stop racial profiling no matter what. It's a reflex!
Last I saw on the other thread, it is religious profiling that he endorses.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT- you are a smart guy...but i think you are underestimating the collective knowledge of the ancients. i realize that in your opinion, there is no difference between christianity and occultism(pagan idol worship), because they are both based off of abrahamic theological principles, and you consider them both to be equally distorted, mythological fables. since you dont believe in an all powerful God, you consider this history to be a result of imagination, forced will, and essentially unsubstantiated, right?
i disagree with your premise, because i do believe a creator God exists, above the multi gods that visited early man; only neither of us can prove what the truth behind these stories were..whether they are purely myth(and the ensuing history of man was an effect of these beliefs), or a literal example of events. that it is true is the premise that i work with, because IMO the bible gives the best encompassing explanation. i would sumbit to you just for consideration, that idolatry, occultism and satanism, is the worship of multi-deity gods, or the rebellious fallen angels, such as the Samarians record, with the goal of decieving man to worship them over the Creator.
i only bring this up, because ive heard you say that Yahway is evil, and that is contrary to everything ive learned; i know that Satan and his angles(demons) are the ones with the agenda. this is also why i regard the occult as more insidious and legitimate than yourself, because in my mind this is proof of a religion based on Satan, with the goal of a global government/currency/religion. you dont believe in God, or Satan, so this is just outward expression to you, but their is visible evidence in the real world of such a conspiracy..so i believe this all to be fullfilling prophecy
in christianity, Jesus says "what you hear in secret, make known from the rooftops", in other words implying that the gift of wisdom and knowledge of God belongs to everyone, and is freely given. gnosticism, which is gaining enlightenment through experience, such as freemasonry, the illuminati, or any secret organisation which hides truth and knowledge behind secrecy and diception, is then(by our definition)Satanic. now i can prove to you that masonry is Luciferian, and that the visible exposed portion of freemasonry is a front for the inner core of practioners...but its up to you to read into what you will.
the Nazis werent christians, because they followed none of Jesus' doctrines..plain and simple. they were occultists, as evidenced by their symbology, their motives and their hatefull rhetoric. i dont claim to know the true heirs to Israel, but it is important to remember that Noahs son Ham became the father of the Canaanites, which are documented in ancient egpyt as caucasiodal peoples. in some manner they are related to the Israelites through their father Noah; but were cursed and set apart.
whats interesting is that the moch sacrifice that is performed at bohemian grove, is performed to the god Molech..a canaanite deity. the nature of skull and bones, and the illumaniti..it all goes back to the ancient world, but to the forces opposing yahweh. youll notice Masonic symbolism, such as the pyramids, the all seeing eye etc come out of egypt and babylon, who were well known idolatrous peoples, with canaanite influences, opposed to the will of Yahweh. if God is evil, then occultism is good..therefore the agenda of the elite, which parellels that of Satan, is good...by that logic. i just dont think that is a fair, or accurate interpretation of the bible
**edit**-- im not diverting this discussion towards religion; im saying that i agree wtih Dreamtrove 90%, except that he doesnt believe in God. politically, i am your allie, and you need me to oppose the "Bush" christians, 'God bless them...', but they are falling for the deception of the beast ie. the fullfillment of the NWO agenda
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The International Jew is a conspiracy theory that made its run among intellectuals in the early part of last century. Advocates opined that certain powerful and wealthy, as of yet unnamed, Jews (clearly all bankers) were controlling the governments to do their evil Jew-biding. The term itself is derived from the title of a paper Henry Ford wrote that discussed the evils of international financiers. However, the conspiracy theory was widespread and often employed by the likes of Hitler to explain why Germany was in debt. Today the conspiracy has changed, instead of evil bankers it is now the evil Israeli military machine in cahoots with the Bush Administration via PNAC, an American political think-tank, but the end of story is the same, world domination by Jews.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
International WHO?
And I’ve never read the book to know if it is or isn’t. I was just being facetious.
Knowing something about the Roman Empire, I’m pretty certain that the US isn’t patterned after it, though.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Knowing something about the Roman Empire, I’m pretty certain that the US isn’t patterned after it, though.
I know a fair amount about it as well.
Sure, the differences are obvious. The US isn't an empire of nations, it's not a pure republic, nor is it ruled by a dominant state. But the similarities are also evident. The increase in executive power, the marginalizing of the senate, the constant military agenda being forced by the overbalanced economy of the state.
I think there's a lot of fair comparisons to be made here, and many of the same forces at work. I strongly suspect Rome collapsed not because of outside forces but internal ones, which ultimately come down to a central truth, that being part of the empire had become more of a liability than an asset for the member states. I think things like the patriot act, the war on terror, etc., and esp. the american tax and regulatory structure, federal spending, all help push us to that point, but we may still be a ways away from it. At some point, I'm sure, we'll hit the breaking point. When the vandals finally come, we will open the gates and welcome them in. Understandably, this issue comes up more in NY than other places. Except California, which I suspect will be the first to leave the union. And also, I suspect, when this union finally does crumble, it will do so without a war. It will just more or less peacefully fall apart, like the soviet union.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The executive power would have to increase quite a bit before a president could become equivalent to a Roman Emperor, and I doubt that’s even possible. The Roman Senate had no similarity at all to the US Senate. Roman Senators were senators by birthright, not election. The only senators who were ever elected into the senate were the consuls, and they were simply elected by the senate as consul and then retired into the senate. Though by 14 AD the senate had already become marginalized. The only constant military agenda of the Roman Emperors was stabilizing revolt within the empire, political oppression or staving off attack. The US does not deploy its troops to stabilize revolts within its borders, and every country deploys troops in its defense. They are two completely different things and only at the very broadest level can one draw any kind of similarity.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, the differences are obvious. The US isn't an empire of nations, it's not a pure republic, nor is it ruled by a dominant state. But the similarities are also evident. The increase in executive power, the marginalizing of the senate, the constant military agenda being forced by the overbalanced economy of the state.
But if one were to attempt to draw a conclusion of the fate of the US from the Roman Empire, then since the Roman Empire lasted continuously from the first century AD to the Thirteen century AD, and the US is only slightly over 200 years old, I’d say we have at least another thousand years before that comparison would become relevant.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME