"The sovereign is he who decides on the exception,” said conservative thinker Carl Schmitt in 1922, meaning that a nation’s leader can defy the law to serve the greater good. Though Schmitt’s service as Nazi Germany’s chief jurist and his unwavering support for Hitler from the night of the long knives to Kristallnacht and beyond damaged his reputation for decades, today his ideas have achieved unimagined influence. They have, in fact, shaped the neo-conservative view of presidential power that has become broadly bipartisan since 9/11.
From the article:
" A sovereign ruler should, said Schmitt, discard laws in times of national emergency. So the United States, as the planet’s last superpower or, in Schmitt’s terms, its global sovereign, has in these years repeatedly ignored international law, following instead its own unwritten rules of the road for the exercise of world power."
In keeping with The Shock Doctrine, I would go so far as to say that the national emergency itself was fabricated; but then the use of False Flags proved useful to both German and American elites.
I have only begun reading, however, I wonder if the author will tie these congruencies in with the facts of Project Paperclip: that if enough Nazis are taken into CIA and other organizations, eventually THEIR philosophy will permeate those entities. In my view, this allegation explains everything from unitary executive power, to the ubiquitous presence of a Stasi/spy state, to immense funding for an airtight border wall (with Mexico), to the blatant militarization of U.S. police departments. Also, just as using the Jew as the target of collective wrath worked well for the objectives of the Nazi/Mars-ruled state, American elites' have elaborated on that same scapegoat theme this time using an alternative Semitic people.
It's the blue print for how military empires advance their narrow objectives.
(Now, back to the article.)
A powerful article that makes a good case. I did find no mention of Hoover's FBI and the type of witch-hunt utilized to stun dissent (and/or spoken views of Leftist and Progressive thinkers, writers, actors, and activists) a bit odd.
In response to this quote:
"Can there be any question that, in the decades to come, Washington will continue to violate national sovereignty through old-style covert as well as open interventions, even as it insists on rejecting any international conventions that restrain its use of aerospace or cyberspace for unchecked force projection, anywhere, anytime?"
Mortifying is the way that Obama lectures ISIS on violence while owning a Kill Rate that exceeds ISIS by orders of magnitude.
Typical to the sports-caster imprint that has so many now viewing the world through the team sport prism, pointing out Obama's sociopathic hypocrisy is not intended to give "the other team a pass."
Isis's use of beheadings IS horrific; but perhaps more terrifying is that the leader of the "free world" that is committed to a repugnant and ongoing sale of WMDs to unstable authoritarian regimes, when not using drones to target human beings, and has laid several countries to waste (including leaving behind the genetically lethal detritus of Depleted Uranium and other horrors) has the audacity to lecture Isis on its use of violence.
Repugnant does not begin to define it.
Mr. McCoy certainly didn't intend to write a book, but I think greater emphasis on both Project Paperclip (and/or the new book--The Nazis Next Door) and the chill effect (still reverberating) of Hoover's FBI play into this topic substantially. After all, in the same way that the CIA toppled leaders who resisted marching lockstep with Washington's Wall Street policies; here, inside the evolving Homeland, the FBI and its covert operatives (or their plants) likely gunned down Medgar Evans, Malcolm X, Dr. King. JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and others who had plans for Washington that didn't put Wall ST and the MIC first.
To the advocates of "Might Makes Right" (a/k/a Mars rules), power does not need to explain itself. Only the top dog gets to call the shots and too bad for everyone else.
The real reason U.S. military agents invited ranking Nazi scientists and engineers into their ranks was due to a tribal affinity stronger than national borders. Lifelong career soldiers and assorted arms-carrying uniform-bearing employees identify with allegiance to war, might, militarism, and soldiering. They share a blood oath as old as time; and it is THIS contingent that is and always has been the greater enemy to a peaceful humanity than its demonizing of a long list of exotic tribes, and the millions of persons born to them.
I found this article very educational; I'll save it for future reference.
It left me wanting to see an alternate presentation of American Exceptionalism (AE), as conventionally understood. I need to prepare a discussion on precisely this subject (AE), and should start the process of gathering a literature.
Great article. I agree with your extension Sioux Rose. I have studied JFK for years and the similarities between the sixties assassinations is remarkable. Too similar to be incidental; in my opinion.
Can I reply to my own comment? I realize that I have also read McCoy's "Politics of Heroin" and it is certainly credible...
Very good stuff.
Fort Belvoir is in Virginia, Fort Meade (NSA) is in Maryland. They have it surrounded with big rocks I kid you not.
Thank you for the head's up. There is an interesting researcher by the name of Ole Dammegard who's
made it his life mission to study critical assassinations, particularly those that disfigured American history. His theory is fascinating and I think, right-on and one element of it involves the assassins setting up a patsy (with evidence planted to point at said individual) in advance of the operation. Reading his book (the title escapes me at the moment) is on my to-do list. I think you'd find the material compelling.
Just curious: What qualifies the US as a "super-power," much less the leading super-power? In this era of nukes, several countries can wipe out the planet. Economically, we've taken a deep downhill plunge since the 1980s. Culturally, the "masses" are profoundly divided and subdivided by race, class and ideology. I don't see what justifies this notion of "super-power," beyond the international power of several US corporations. We've fallen far behind the modern nations in everything from quality of life to education to our dismissal of the civil and human rights of the poor. Our military is spent and exhausted from the longest war in US history.
Yes, it is unsustainable in terms of "America as we knew it." We see this in the deterioration of the quality of life in the US (from #1 when Reagan was elected, down to #43 by the time Obama was elected). The US has steadily, quietly, been transitioning to a third world country since the 1980s. Increasingly, the sole purpose of Americans is that of working, producing products to be sold in the more affluent countries, enabling corporations to "maximize profits." The middle class is a little surly now that the rich are doing to them what they did to the poor, and it takes time to adjust. Brilliant work has been done to (in simplest terms) divide and conquer the "masses," middle class vs. poor, ensuring that this time, the people can't push back. The US has been in the process of rolling out this agenda since the 1980s, one step at a time, from the bottom up. We have been transitioning from sustaining America to empowering our international corporations.
OK, we know this. Taking us up to today, what are we going to do about it? I think the answer is evident. Even today's "left" is deeply divided by class. Consider today's liberal motto: "Stand in Solidarity to protect the advantages of the bourgeoisie, the middle class alone." Our middle class have consistently supported the "might makes right" answer to any conflict, whether it concerns this generation's war on the poor or our international crises.
Thanks Siouxrose, I got the book, "Coup D'Etat, In Slow Motion" yesterday as an e-book; my first. It seems
Europeans know more about contemporary American history than we do?
an excellent summary of the current state of Empire