Richard Nixon saw himself as a great statesman, a giant for the ages, a general who could command the globe, a master of war, not merely the leader of the free world but “the world leader.” Yet he was addicted to the gutter politics that ruined him. He was -- as an English earl once said of the warlord Oliver Cromwell -- “a great, bad man.”
Nixon et al.'s antics were amateur hour because the technology was amateurish compared to that of today. Do we expect less paranoia from our current and future presidents? I don't. They've poisoned the curtain; Toto best not try to pull it back.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
We are all crooks now.
But remember; Richard Nixon was elected by the "overwhelming majority of the American people"
because they did not like those pot smoking, LSD using, free-loving, pacifist, war protesting long haired hippies.
Donald Rumsfeld and D. Cheney were part of the Nixon White House. Nixon ultimately prevailed.
With the help of some very treacherous DINOS who were more than happy to crush the emerging left wing of the Democratic Party. George McGovern had hoped the revealing of such vile people, in high places, would teach the American people a much needed civics lesson. It unfortunately did not. We're very slow learners, it appears.
And Kissinger is still part of the DC scene, so you are right -- Nixon may have lost his dreams, but the country is still being run like tricky dick ran his presidency.
The authoritarian state rests on the assumption that there is ONE norm. This narrowing of human possibility grants privilege and prestige to those persons and behaviors that naturally fall into synch with what The Dominators deem as "normal," "righteous," or "true."
In the same way that some wisely ask, "Who will guard the guards"? Inquisitive minds ask why it is that some get to define the norms for the vast body of humanity.
What do those norms currently portray in the way of feedback?
The major thing that stands out is celebrations of violence. These come through a percentage of the citizenry over-identifying with guns (as unconscious extension of male phallic power), a phenomenal set of military branches and related domestic policing forces, an arsenal of companies daily producing weapons, a legion of soldiers protecting the existing cache of weapons, and infinite monies supplied to war and those who would make it.
One thing that is brutally retained as a taboo amid continuous rites of homage to Mars, god of war, is the realization that as several masters pointed out--there are 12 tribes or archetypal human imprints. In other words, there are alternative norms and archetypes that would better serve humanity... if they were given a chance to express.
In astrology, Mars is said to be exalted--at its peak expression--in the sign of Capricorn. That sign signifies authority, the great father figure (Saturn-Cronus), and top-down systems of governance. Most astrologers tie Capricorn to government, itself since most governmental bodies operate like strict father-oriented systems of hierarchical power. Note how the army serves the State and through this arrangement, unfair systems of governance are held in place.
This is significant because Nixon was a Capricorn and so is Scott Walker. So, by the way, was J. Edgar Hoover who fits this characterization at least as much as Tricky Dick:
"But Richard Nixon was never at peace. A darker spirit animated him -- malevolent and violent, driven by anger and an insatiable appetite for revenge. At his worst he stood on the brink of madness. He thought the world was against him. He saw enemies everywhere. His greatness became an arrogant grandeur."
Karl Rove is another example of this sign and its control-of-other orientation. Rush Limbaugh is another.
While not every Capricorn replicates the paranoid behaviors of the individuals designated, the nature of Saturn (ruling planet for Capricorn) draws its essence from the Old Testament. It is pivoted on punishment, obedience to rules, and the belief in an angry, jealous father god.
These archetypes are very much alive and influence the matters of this world tremendously. One reason why astrology has been maintained as The Great Heresy is because it provides a compelling alternative to the existing paradigm and the political models it generates.
It's like an incorrigible recidivist; you let him out and give him some peace, and he makes more war. Yes, the Great Kissinger is smiling in his wealth as are the other two.
It's impossible to know how much your comment (your specialty is being up first to post and posting trite one-liners which due to their glib nature, downplay the seriousness of the topics under discussion) is based on a naïve understanding of the networks of power today, or how much it's presented as a form of camouflage.
I have pointed this out often, and it's hardly aimed just at you: It's a high school People Magazine level of political analysis.
Why? Because in turning "the leader" into the subject of analysis, the SYSTEM that operates as the real power is kept in the dark. You appear to be implying that it's the paranoia of Presidents rather than the now deeply embedded architecture/infrastructure of the Deep State that drives policies.
The spy technology in Nixon's era certainly WAS amateurish by today's Dark Side standards... but you turn the power apparatus that set up inversions to Democracy into the problem of the one lone wolf/gunman/President.
It's the "bad apples" attempt to maintain a system by targeting the "few" who expose the rot too ostensibly.
MSM talking point.... I've noticed that the majority of articles that come through TomDispatch focus on critiquing the STYLE of war and sharing the SCORES (in the form of which battles were lost and at what financial or human--at least on the "American Team" cost) but do NOTHING to challenge the make-war state up to, and including endless regurgitations of the false narrative that operated as a basis for these faux wars.
That, too, is disinformation and its insistence this late in the game is suspect when SO MUCH compelling evidence challenges the Liars-in-Chief whose MANY pro-war trigger lies HAVE been exposed. Meanwhile, the real enchilada goes without challenge by these same guardians of the status quo who appear to play the role of "left guards," i.e. gatekeepers to the would-be Left.
They tell us you may challenge the idiot war in that it is not "solving" terrorism and that it's not being "won." But no analysis is permitted to go beyond this level of critique. It's the political equivalent of reforming the military, rather than ridding the world of this deadly parasitic force that insists that it exists for the defense of this nation (if not, humanity), while doing NOTHING BUT SPREADING HARM and HORROR and the sorts of destabilization that ENSURE more war, horror, and harm.
Always this B.S. I guess with Tom Carberry missing from the forum's daily "first up position," a post he held for at least a year, someone "else" has to push a pro-Nixon talking point.
You leave out the mood of time.
You leave out that after the Church Committee, government officials were being scrutinized.
You leave out how liberal that era was as anti-war protests were frequent, and academics wrote and spoke openly against the war. Radio stations featured anti-war music, too; and it served as a powerful force in terms of rallying the opposition of youth to the Imperial Cause of All War, All The Time. (Now, in case you didn't know... both the press and radio are controlled by a handful of conservative corporate owners.)
It's ridiculous that this argument has to be laid out yet again as if it was never offered. And I'm talking about the sweep of Conservatism that took over this nation's former regulatory systems--like the EPA and FDA. That Big Money, i.e. conservatives made their way into academia by funding "generous grants." These, of course, are contingent upon certain favors or allowances.
Essentially, big donors and private funding to universities work the same way that lobbyist "contributions" work in purchasing policy from candidates who end up beholden to that dark money.
You leave out the use of a false flag that immediately shut down any questions to state power... all of this--in the way of rolling back decades of hard won Civil Liberties--as if Nixon had it THAT good.
You leave out the deregulation of media making it possible for only ONE side of any narrative to be heard.
You leave out how quickly (as direct result of the Shock Doctrine's use of the 2007-2008 bank collapse/Wall ST collapse trigger) wealth returned to the top 1%'s "hands" while wages, jobs, and home equity fell for just about everyone else.
It's ridiculous to compare a politician in one era where LOTS of opposition to his authoritarian inclinations were still in place with one operating in today's law-free zone where no significant voices in mainstream media, academe, or the legal field are heard. And where thanks to Bush's "unitary executive" precedent, the President now makes war without any congressional debate or meaningful opposition. And what wouldn't this Supreme Court not grant its imprimatur to... if it involved military, corporate, or state (as in patriarchal/paternalistic) power?
In short, son, the TIMES make the man (or woman) and these times are all about locked down civil liberties and unchecked state-corporate-military-media powers! It is an era that suits LOTS of Nixons and that's why imbeciles like Scott Walker are actually taken seriously... at least by their chief funders, the Koch Brothers and in a culture habituated to mass media advertising, Koch money buys a lot in the way of PR, packaging, and media time for lies to be told often.
Nixon was a pathetically paranoid and deviously power-hungry person. I wish I could understand what drives a person to be this way. Was he born like this? Did some trauma early in life alter him abnormally? I think a part of me actually doesn't want to know-it's probably too much to try and understand. But I don't pity Nixon, for whatever he went through due to his doings. May he rot in the Hell he created for himself.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Plus, even then, the MSM did not give McGovern the respect he deserved.
I was trying to stay on the surveillance theme of the article. There are plenty of books about and by Nixon.
At least Oliver Cromwell was a good general who objected to such as Richard Nixon (Charles 1st at that time) claiming the divine right of kings to be above the law of the land. Nor did Cromwell try to found his dynasty; his son wasn't interested. There will be those who will remind me of Cromwell's dealings with the Irish; well, he didn't invade neutral Cambodia, bomb Laos back to the stone-age and kill around 3 million Vietnamese though it must be confessed that, besides Nixon, Kennedy had a hand in that, early on.
Cromwell is one of the people who can be credited with the USA's revolutionaries being able to come up with a bicameral or tricameral system of government in the late 1700s as he recognised "Nixons" for what they are, even though he too gained dictatorial power.