« Home | The Truth about Pat Tillman » | William Rodriguez and the Tower of DOOM! » | DHS rolls out "Hostile Intent" detector » | Author: This is the end of the Bush presidency » | The Cheese Stands Alone » | KARL ROVE RESIGNS! KARL ROVE RESIGNS! KARL ROVE RE... » | Listen. To. John. Schroeder. » | Immortal Technique! » | General says Pat Tillman's killing was ordered » | Anita Thompson interview? »

Conversations on Genocide

It isn't often I am afforded the opportunity to scratch bones with someone who advocates genocide and tyranny ... But, as it so happens, today was such a day!

Phillip Atkinson, writer of "A Theory of Civilization" (found at OurCivilisation.com), recently published a piece of tripe entitled "Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy" on a Website called "Family Security Matters".

Okay, let's back up a bit. I've not previously heard of Mr. Atkinson, but his column, which the Website quickly retracted, made my hair stand on end. Among other things, he calls for "President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead."

But, he says, Bush would never do that because of "his cowardly electorate" which would not only end Bush's term, but his life, for such a gross offense. (Damn skippy.)

Atkinson goes on to cite Julius Caesar as historical precedent for What Must Be Done. He claims that Bush could either fail in his duty to "God" by stepping down at his term's end, or declare himself "President For Life" and bring "salvation" to the Americas by "emptying Iraq of Arabs" and "fill[ing] it with Americans", thus making the nation an "asset" while simultaneously "terrifying American enemies."

Family Security Matters took the column down in quick order. Even they realized that this gentleman was advocating genocide and tyranny on a scale this species has never seen.

Here's where it gets a little more frightening: Family Security Matters is a front group for the right-wing think tank Center for Security Policy, which hosts none other than Vice President Dick Cheney on its advisory board. It has also been host to a laundry-list of right-wing holdovers, and is now currently known as the "National Security Advisory Council".

Let me rephrase that: a group associated with Vice President Cheney published a column advocating a genocidal dictatorship in the United States. In VERY CLEAR LANGUAGE.

You can read Atkinson's genocidal advocacy, cached on Google, here.

After reading and re-reading the piece, still unsure if I was hallucinating, I decided to send Mr. Atkinson a piece of my mind. The letter, sent to rpa@ourcivilisation.com, went a little something like this ...
Mr. Atkinson,

In response to your published-then-retracted piece "Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy", I should rather like to add my statements to those you've certainly amassed.

Sir, you either have an incomprehensible sense of irony and the piece was simply "over my head" ... Or, your sense of loyalty to Bush has transcended your sense of loyalty to this nation.

Should the current war leader feel the need to heed your advice and make such a proclamation, you will be surprised at the number of us who are willing to die in defense of our freedom.

Despite current climate and lack of true debate, there are very clear lines drawn in our Constitution that will trigger revolt if crossed. Your column touches on one of 'em.

I'm sorry you've abandoned America in favor of a despotic plot, but it gives me hope that even a far-right venue such as "Family Security Matters" would see fit to withdraw your fascistic, genocidal polemic.

In spite of your disagreement with our nation's bedrock, I'd lay my life on the line for your right to voice such murderous ideas. That's what we're about.

Stephen Webster
And to my shock, he actually wrote back! Mr. Atkinson says (bolded words are my emphasis) ...
Dear Sir,

Thank you for repeating Voltaire’s stance by supporting my right to express an opinion, alas I fear we are part of a very small, and now irrelevant, minority.

When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon he declared war on the existing order, and he succeeded because it was generally believed by enough Ancient Roman citizens that drastic change was necessary for the good of all ancient Romans, and they were prepared to fight for this good. The ensuing civil war was the only way ancient Rome could change from a divided Republic to a united Monarchy, even though the term Monarchy was never used.

The article published, then dropped, along with its author, by Family Security Matters, was aimed at finding a defence against the awful threat of anonymous nuclear attacks upon the USA. A solution must be found to this catastrophic probability if humanity is not to be plunged into a dreadful dark age, and if that solution is to slaughter whole nations, then it must be better than allowing the destruction of humanity. Further, genocide has been a tool used throughout history; nuclear weapons just make it quicker and easier. Certainly the ancient Roman Civilization, which supplied world peace, was founded upon mass murder. And Ancient Roman civilization was destroyed when it failed to maintain this policy of mass slaughter. Nevertheless, whatever the solution, it can never be achieved by a government at the mercy of a cowardly electorate.

Please note that 911 was predicted by Arnold Toynbee in “A Study Of History” published in 1952, where he claimed that Western Civilization was declining, and as EVERY declining civilization became subject to attack by Barbarian War bands, then so would we. Since the USA incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons in 1945 such arms have become much more refined and widespread, which means they will be used by these war-bands.

Please note that while Toynbee was an astute observer, he was a poor interpreter of his observations, but I have managed to repair his short-comings and extend his claims in my work, freely available on the internet at www.ourcivilisation.com. It allows anyone to understand what a civilization is, and the state of our civilization.

Kind Regards,

Philip Atkinson
To which I could not resist responding with zeal ...
Mr. Atkinson,

With all due respect, this civilization which you envision is not a civilization I would be a part of. I am fully aware of our true histories, much hidden from the masses, especially in the system of public education. I know full well that our plains were paved by the blood of natives and European pioneers. Even this majestic civilization was built upon wholesale slaughter, and the first practices of biological warfare ... And much like Rome, we suffer most wounds from within.

However, the civilization -- and indeed, the world -- which you have proposed, is not a world in which I would live. I should rather die a symbol of revolution than submit to a despot who would commit genocide in my name, and the good names of my family and closest friends, to whom human rights are foremost.

Toynbee was not the only one to predict a catastrophe such as 9/11. Interestingly, another modern day prophet predicted the attack down to the week, even citing the model of airplane to be used and the targets to be attacked. That gentleman's name is Alex Jones; reviled by many, feared by few, and loved by the paranoid. I find it remarkable that he knew what was coming more than a month ahead of time, though I have developed a distaste for his demagoguery.

Nevertheless, before pronouncing our Constitutional government over-and-done-with and bowing down to our new Emperor, one should look inward and ask the question: have we been told the truth about 9/11? The answer is, 'Most Certainly Not', and you don't have to be a theorist to determine that many important questions remain unanswered. Aside from the obvious questions of liberty and security, why would anyone wish to cede their freedom to a man incapable of and intolerant to Truth?

You may regard me as idyllic, uninformed or misguided by liberal ideologies that allow growth and expression of the individual over the execution of a Greater Good (through any means necessary). Rest assured sir, I regard you, via your writing, as arrogant, deceived, and, at best, uncaring of the human condition.

Your pronunciation and articulation of this Straussian nightmare would make a man like Adolph Hitler blush. Certainly you realize you have advocated nothing less than worldwide genocide. No possible future is worth such bloodshed.

Our condition is a far cry from what you perceive. We have no such choices to make. Your ultimatums of annihilation simply do not exist.

What you fail to take into consideration is the power of ideas other than those you espouse. Your idea has power stripped across its blood-soaked face, aggressive and unfeeling. Ours is less aggressive, but pervasive, and without end.

When we say "Live Free or Die", we fucking mean it. I take comfort in the knowledge that the peoples of the world are fiercely aligned against you and your shrinking band of Imperialists.

Stephen C. Webster
If our our friendly neighborhood fascist writes back this 'eve or tomorrow, rest assured that I'll be posting it here. After all, it isn't every day one gets to converse with a friend to tyrants.


A reply! And much more interesting than most ...

It is clear you are uninterested in understanding the subjects you do not hesitate to make judgements about. We are both part of a declining civilization, a subject that Professor Toynbee dedicated his life to understanding because he knew that the history of civilizations was the history of humanity and by understanding civilizations you would understand humanity.

You neither know nor care what a civilization is, why it declines, or why you should be concerned. This means that you are driven not by knowledge but by feelings fuelled by ignorance. Only a lunatic would dare to presume to speak with authority on subjects he does not know or understand.

Please note that a lunatic is someone who recognises right from wrong by his feelings, the same way every beast does. What separates humanity from beasts is the ability to recognise right from wrong independently of our feelings: by use of a moral code. You tell me what moral code you use to understand right from wrong or stand condemned as just another madman.

Kind Regards,
Philip Atkinson
While I haven't quite yet penned a reply to this letter, I think it might sound something like this ...
If standing for the equality and value of human life, international human rights, prevention of preemptive wars, enforcement of the common law against leaders who abuse it and the continued sounding of freedom's clarion call are the traits of "just another madman", you can call me Randle Patrick McMurphy.

But, with all due respect sir, it is not I who has flown over the Cuckoo's Nest.

If you have children or grandchildren, I suggest you look into their eyes and voice aloud your advocacy of genocide in their presence. Should your voice not falter, sir, you can rest assured that it is not I suffering a loss of sanity.
More to come? We'll see!

More indeed! Mr. Atkinson responds (after midnight CST, mind you) ...

Your failure to reveal how you recognise right from wrong - a regular, repeated, daily choice – confirms you are a slave to your feelings and thus irrational.

Kind Regards,

Philip Atkinson
And my parting words, not likely to be the last in this back-and-forth methinks, fell as such:
I will forever hold our conversation close to my heart.

It isn't every day one such as myself -- a common, irrational madman, no different from a beast (and thus easy to dismiss, I'm certain) -- is allowed the enlightenment of dictators and tyrants the world over.
Amen and Mahalo. I think I've made a new friend.


Links to this post

Create a Link

The Weird, Turned Pro.

Created by The Gonzo Muckraker
Based in Dallas, Texas
More about the author.

Stories I'm Digging today ...