Well, here we have it: proof positive that at least one wingnut wants President Bush to remain in office indefinitely beyond the expiration of his term in January 2009. Markos, I love ya, and I hope to god you are right when you say it can't happen. But I have to tell you, this article makes my blood freeze in utter horror. This is the craziest thing I've ever read.
Hat-tips to my husband, FlashfyreSP for pointing out to me this ungodly insanity, and to Guerilla News Network for dredging up this vile piece of filth and making the liberal/progressive blogosphere aware of it. You're awesome! More, TheTick and altscott caught this too, but neither of their diaries caught a lot of attention. It's a pity, because this really needs wide exposure. It may get it too, now that it's up on Crooks and Liars. Follow me below the fold, if you have a stout heart and a cast-iron stomach -- this is going to get fugly.
I've had to quote a significant amount of text, in part because this stuff is just too wild -- I'm afraid people won't believe this if I don't lay out some substantial chunks of text. I don't think we're going to have much trouble with the original site that hosted this, because they've yanked it. Thank God for Google cache. That this site even posted such insanity in the first place means we don't dare ignore them. Correct me if I'm wrong, Constitutional scholars, but isn't this idea tantamount to discontinuing the Constitution of the United States?
Into the pig-wallow, folks. Philip Atkinson basically trashes the entire notion of democracy as nothing more than the rule of the stupid:
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
But then he goes on to say that the invasion of Iraq was a sane, credible choice:
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
Atkinson also goes on, as altscott also pointed out, to suggest that nuclear annihilation should have been a viable military option. He also suggests that Israel faces a similar dilemma, nuke 'em all and be safe but vilified, or refrain from thermonuclear warfare and essentially commit national suicide. This view points out a basic Manichean duality that has informed the neoconservative movement and its reaction to 9/11. It is also eerily close to the notion of nuking Iran's nuclear laboratories.
The following paragraph is the lead-in to the section that strikes me as tantamount to inciting a coup:
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government. [emphasis added]
"Overcome democratic government" -- gee, what exactly does he mean by this? Formally turn Congress into a debate club? The federal judiciary into a cheerleading team? Or would he prefer that George and Dick just tear up the Constitution on live national TV? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask these questions, I really want him to just come out and say what he means, clearly and plainly.
Here, he does:
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege [sic] while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
Now we're really getting into the heart of it. I'm in awe of this level of delusional thinking. Who will be the willing colonists? Or should I say, the not-so-willing colonists? The Angry Rakkasan is always ragging, justifiably, on the Republican chickenhawks who won't go fight in Iraq. I really can't see young Republicans going to Iraq to raise their families and establish their careers. And how likely is the military to go along with this madness? Because madness it is. Atkinson is counting on the military, or maybe even the mercenary companies, to forcibly resettle people into a desert on the other side of the world, far away from their families, friends, and every thing dear to them. It is Stalinesque in its tenor and scope, and Absolutely. Barking. Mad.
I have to confess that when I first read this this afternoon, I just about levitated, I was so upset. I. Could. Not. Believe. My. Eyes. And so I started digging, to see who else had noticed it. The Impeachment Project also caught this a few days ago. Lisa wrote in the comments that she felt like a crackpot for blogging about this, but she's right -- this stuff is insanely frightening. We need to stay aware of garbage like this. As I wrote above, apparently the original is off the site, but the news is out, and the gig is up.
The author, Philip Atkinson, is touted at the bottom of the page as a contributing editor to FamilySecurityMatters.org and is supposedly:
a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization.
There's supposed to be more on this guy at this site, but when I used their links, I came up with nothing. They may have decided they can't afford to have this nutcase on their site. Googling gave me more information, in particular this brief bio, which is in itself very revealing. Apparently he grew up in council housing in the UK, and was dissed as a child by the local toughs he idolized. There was also this:
As an adult it is easy to understand why the other boys in the street hated me, I was from a different class. My father was an honest, educated man, who didn't smoke or drink, and would never dream of striking his wife, but he was surrounded by drunks, thieves and wife-beaters. Our family enjoyed money, comfort and stability, unlike many of those around us. Not only were we the only family in the street to have a car, but also we were the only family in the whole suburb to have tea on the lawn. Everything about us was different, and we were naturally resented. While the neighbouring adults never confronted my father, their children were delighted to bully his children. My siblings and myself became social half-castes, accepted by no class and despised by all. The result in my case was an initial bitter resentment of my community, along with the traditional notions that I should pursue university and a career; so I dropped out of school to take a job as a bus conductor. And to escape this dead-end job, I emigrated, arriving in Australia in 1969, aged 22, with a pregnant wife, two small children, 30 pounds sterling, no job and no qualifications other than an incomplete public school education. [emphasis added]
So basically, we have some guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth who couldn't find a sense of self, and is now mad at the entire world for neither living up to his potential nor building upon his parents' legacy. He's bought into the entire right-wing class-warfare meme, without, apparently, realizing that he's not part of their club either. The man has intelligence, but the refusal to channel it into a more productive channel, to form a more constructive critique of the Bush Administration than this piece of tripe is really sad. But it doesn't end there. It is terrifying that anyone in this country would take this guy seriously enough to post his views and make him a contributing editor for even a local mulletwrapper. Atkinson has written material on the clash of civilizations and on the supposedly failed premise of multiculturalism.
We can all agree that the idea of Bush as president-for-life is beyond the pale of civilized ideas. But we also need to watch the right-wing sites, because more subtle, more insidious arguments promoting similar ideas may yet emerge. We need to be prepared to jump on them with both feet and hold them up to public ridicule. Yes, in a democracy we can discuss all sorts of ideas, yet some scream to be jumped on repeatedly with both feet and stomped into oblivion -- like this one.
Addendum 1: KingOneEye suggested that I should correct the references to FSF, Family Security Foundation, to FSM, Family Security Matters. To be honest, I saw both names used interchangeably when I was digging into this story. I'll keep digging on that, and see if I can achieve some clarity as to which name is really accurate.
Addendum 2: According to Source Watch,
The Family Security Foundation is the tax-deductible financial entity behind Family Security Matters.
So I think I can safely stick with FSF. They're ultimately responsible for the website, n'est-ce pas?
Addendum 3: Like shpilk said below, WHERE THE HELL IS THE FBI ON THIS??? This is perilously close to sedition, and deserves federal investigation.