by Loren Adams - January 14, 2009
Did just one man lead us down? Or a
movement?
Is George Bush simply a symptom of a fading empire? Have we
given him too much credit for decimating America?
The "dumbing down of
America" may have been more of a contributor to the fall than George. (Which came first: the chicken or the
egghead?) America's ignorance and the love thereof may have been the number one
factor thrusting the loser into office, and thus fading the empire.
And which is more "evil"? The man or the
movement?
To answer, we can turn back the pages of history to other despots which led empires to decline. Was the decay of the Roman Empire
traceable to one or two diabolic rulers, or was it attributable to the system's
deterioration in general, a process derived from a demoralized, ignorant
populace?
Decadence cannot be embodied in just one person; the process
must be bred from public trends and tastes which place
rulers in power who are, in turn, the embodiment of that decadence. Democratically selected or not, rulers
are representative of their subjects.
In the most recent case, America allowed GWB to seize the
White House, and by the term "allowed," I mean empowered by silence,
capitulated by failing to speak truth to power at the most pivotal moments for
fear of personal loss or future political defeat. Opportunism outweighed
integrity.
Look to Nazi Germany, the 20th century example. Was the rise and fall of the Third
Reich attributable to one man? Or
was it traceable to a movement, the rebirth of destructive nationalism, which
thrust Adolf Hitler onto the world stage and inevitable collapse?
Some say Germany's victorious foes after WWI seeded Hitler's
phenomenal rise to power by assessing insurmountable war reparations on the
defeated fatherland. The Germans thus became resentful and placed a formidable
dictator in control -- didn't matter whether he was Adolf or some other dark
character. The Treaty of Versailles was indeed harsh and was a classic
detrimental cause-and-effect. And
because of its failure, the Marshall Plan was implemented after the second World War.
Is George Bush simply the manifestation of a resentful
movement like German nationalism of the last century? Or is there some other hidden force that thrust him into the
spotlight?
I believe Bush is simply the embodiment of corruption that
began the process several years before he arrived on the scene. He may be the focus of failure now, but
what empowered the man should be more despised, including his father and
grandfather's hegemony.
Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract With America," the
Richard Mellon Scaife / Rupert Murdoch right-wing
alliance, the Project for a New American Century, the Rush Limbaugh movement
& right-wing hogging of the airwaves, the NRA, the Natural Law Movement,
the Heritage Foundation, the Christian fundamentalists, the Christian
Coalition, the Arkansas Project, the WTO and globalism, the International
Monetary System, the Foreign Relations Committee, the free-market philosophy
taken to the extreme by eliminating regulations, checks and balances -- All
these movements have joined hands to form a perfect storm behind the man and
have actually made the man who he is -- and the depression what it is.
And we must not overlook another aspect of this movement: IGNORANCE. The "dumbing down" of
America is not just a sound-bite. Many Americans have put blinders on and
REFUSE to listen to truth, even as their investments, retirement, and savings
vanish. Thus, Bush and his handlers found fertile minds upon which to prey. And they took advantage of this
opportune fertile ground to mislead and circumvent the Constitution at every
step. Dishonest, unprincipled men led a great nation off track for which we
will pay dearly. But it was the Kool-Aid drinkers who made Jim Jones, not Jones
alone. It was the ignorant who made Dubya, not Dubya alone.
In addition, the facilitators of Bush took PRIDE in
ignorance, propelling decay a step further. Do your acquaintances who are
afflicted with this malady exhibit a familiar symptom: PRIDE in not knowing and not wanting to
know? Anyone else who seeks truth, researches and does their homework are
belittled by this folksy, ignorant tribe, aren't they?
Yes, the movement made the man; not
vice-versa. He is simply their
figurehead -- Not ours nor America's.
Looking back over history, it's easier to recognize the
forces that were responsible for change. Hindsight is far clearer than
foresight, they say. Enlightened
foresight may be clear only because of study, but America's is still blurry
since a large segment is still mentally lazy. Their wake up call came and went
(illegal pretexted wars, disaster
"recovery," and looming financial meltdown); yet they still slumber
as if nothing rings a bell to their pre-programmed brains.
And so, the empire fades.
The rise of Barack Obama the 44th, although bringing a
glimmer of hope, comes too late and may prove insufficient to surmount the
mountains of multiple-crises passed down by the 43rd. Not just one neck of the
woods is in flames but the entire forest.
But let us hope, because that's all we have left. The
Inaugural can't come soon enough. 