Preserving liberty may require the rule of a single leader – a dictator

[seemslikeadream]

How would the neocon think tanks view martial law? Michael Ledeen, a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, and close and trusted White House adviser, has this to say on p. 173 of his book Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules Are As Timely and Important Today As Five Centuries Ago: “Paradoxically, preserving liberty may require the rule of a single leader – a dictator – willing to use those dreaded 'extraordinary measures,' which few know how, or are willing, to employ."




Amerimacka

Miss Liberty turn inna Jezzabelle
All de dreams you go sell, de whole dem turn inna hell
Her bed of roses are filled with thorns
Her righteous robes are tattered and torn

If she had only stood for love
That would have been enough
She wouldn’t have to hide her shame
If she had only stood for love
That would have been enough
But now she’s burnt us all with her flames

Amerimacka
Oh what a beautiful life
Amerimacka
Is like licking honey off a knife

Amerimacka
Oh what a beautiful sight
Amerimacka
Oh what a beautiful life

The land of the free built on slavery
Our consciousness in captivity
The promise land is the liar’s den
Your culture of greed has got to end

Now we’re laying in the mud
Looking up above
Tear water just ah drop from the sky
They try to keep us in the mud
Separating us from love
But me nah go let dem conquer de I

Amerimacka
Oh what a beautiful life
Amerimacka
Is like licking honey off a knife

Amerimacka
Oh what a beautiful sight
Amerimacka
Oh what a beautiful life

Thievery Corporation

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. 10 yrs from now, those horrific words will come back to haunt him

assuming that we manage to survive Bush&Co.

[n2doc]

2. People asked FDR to assume Dictatorial powers in 1933

Dictators, at the time, were seen as the "wave of the future", and having power concentrated in the hands of one person was seen as the best way to fight the severe problems caused by the collapse of the banking system and the Depression. FDR, thankfully, did not try to take these powers and worked with Congress to pass the new deal and other reform laws, end prohibition and restart the banking system. His over-reach of power (i.e. supreme court packing scheme) came much later, in 1936-1937. But back when he could have done it with the blessing of many people, he did not.

A really interesting book on this subject is "The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope " by Jonathan Alter. He points out a number of comparisons with the way Bushco has handled things...not at all flattering to W....

[seemslikeadream]

3. Constitutional Dictatorship: Could It Happen Here?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html

PRESIDENTIAL POWERS IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY:
Could Terrorism Result In A Constitutional Dictator?
By JOHN W. DEAN

....

Recall that FDR took the nation from a "limited" national emergency on September 8, 1939, to an "unlimited" emergency by May 27, 1941, and then to total war by December 7, 1941. Anyone who does not believe the war on terrorism will escalate, as well, is in denial.

....



Marching The Hate Machines

Well let's start by
Making it clear
Who is the enemy, here

And we'll show them
That it's not them
Who is superior

So let's start by
Making it clear
Who is the enemy, here

And we'll show them
That it's not them
Who is superior

It's gonna be bad
It's gonna be wrong
It's gonna feel good

Marching the hate machines into the sun
Marching the hate machines into the sun

We'll let's start by
Making it clear
Who is the enemy, here

And we'll show them
That it's not them
Who is superior

Marching the hate machines into the sun
Marching the hate machines into the sun
Marching the hate machines into the sun
Marching the hate machines into the sun

Thievery Corporation

[undergroundpanther]

4. I hate bullies.

http://www.thisisawar.com/DepressionShame.htm

Normally, an individual has sufficient self-esteem to survive most attacks, and has the ability to change or exit the situation. However, in situations where self-esteem is insufficient, persistent and severe attacks may reach the inner core of the soul, leading to the response of rage and violence.

Concomitant to such situations, is the physical and psychic pain which can be so overwhelming that the mind protects itself by automatically and unconsciously numbing itself, resulting in an individual that cannot feel.

When the assault is extreme and inescapable, as may happen in child abuse, the result can be soul murder, leaving a sociopath, a physical body inhabited by a dead soul, a living machine that can kill or maim without feeling or remorse. Nourishing the soul begins in childhood In order to thrive, children must receive love, attention (lots of it!), understanding and encouragement from others.

Love nourishes self-esteem, and builds the child 's capacity for self-love. With the ability to love, life becomes joyful and full of happiness. Without the ability to love, life becomes hell, full of suffering and pain.

Shame deadens the feelings of being human, and leads to rage.

The sources of love for the self are love from others, and one's own love for oneself. Children who fail to receive sufficient love from others, fail to build up reserves of self-love, and the capacity for self-love, which enable them to survive the inevitable rejections and humiliations which even the most fortunate of people cannot avoid.

Without feelings of love, the self feels numb, empty, and dead.

To be overwhelmed by shame and humiliation causes the destruction of self-esteem. Without a certain amount of self-esteem, the self collapses and the soul dies.

The soul needs love as vitally as the lungs need oxygen; without it, the soul dies, just as the body does without oxygen.

But a joyless life is a synonym for hell. A man who does not love and cannot love, is in effect, condemned to hell. His entire environment, from which - without love - he is cut off, is without enjoyment for him, and thus the world he "lives" in is a source of emptiness and emotional suffocation for him. Both the world and the self are experienced and perceived emotionally as being dead, inanimate, without a soul--without feelings.

...It's empathy that makes us as human as we are, while helping us to manage our most violent feelings.
We don't kill others or ourselves because we still see the human being in others,
and ourselves and feel sympathy or caring.
When our sense of connection is gone, then any kind of violence can be unleashed.



People who torture others have lost touch with their own humanity.
No longer able to care about themselves, they grow to hate others.
Desperate to have any kind of feeling, they torture feelings out of others....And I hate what causes this,child abuse,rape,bullyinmg.. Hierarchy and social death sentances, domination,poverty,have and have nots, elitism NARCISSISM,AUTHORITARIANISM..SOCIOPATHY..Conduct disorders,Somewhere the cycle of abuse of power has to be cut somewhere. Don't pity the sociopath..Don't let it be the hurting ones who suffer AGAIN to recreate the sociopaths hell.Do not seek the esteem of the powerful thugs dominating in every dysfunctional home and running the state..to be kind and love..And do not expect them to love,they can't they torture and call it love,they are a disease.

[Sir Jeffrey]

5. Machiavellians will always lose...

This has been known for centuries but Machiavelli is always taught in colleges. Anti-Machiavel by Frederick the II is not taught but clearly outlines why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Machiavel

snip

"Frederick's argument is essentially moral in nature: he asserts that Machiavelli offered a partial and biased view of statecraft. His own views appear to reflect a largely Enlightenment ideal of rational and benevolent statesmanship: the king, Frederick contends, is charged with maintaining the health and prosperity of his subjects. On the one hand, then, Machiavelli erred by assigning too great a value on princely machinations that, Frederick claims, ended in disaster, as the king's evil actions are taken up by his subjects. On the other hand, and in support of the first idea, Frederick points out the numerous cases in which Machiavelli had ignored or slighted the bad ends of the numerous malefactors he describes and praises."