cj#743> Bob Djurdjevic re: “Who is the enemy?”


Richard Moore

Dear cj,

Here are the editorial comments Bob published in "Truth in Media" along
with my article "cj#733> Who is the enemy?  How do we fight them?".

I'd like to invite cj subscribers to respond to Bob.  I've got some
comments of my own in mind which I can append to your responses.  We may or
may not change Bob's thinking (or he ours), but by this kind of dialog we
can hope to crystallize the root of our differences: the core underlying
beliefs that lead to our different perceptions of the political situation.

Such dialog is not easy to achieve; this is a valuable opportunity.
Usually when I've attempted this in the past, all I got were increasingly
strident statements of conclusions; Bob seems willing to focus on points of
difference and delve into their roots.



We did not want to interrupt your and Mr. Moore's train of thought until
now.  But any careful TiM reader should have realized by now that Mr.
Moore's missive hits the spot as far as the TiM editorials are concerned.
There are some (minor) differences, however, which you may detect in our
response to some of his comments.  But that's life.  In the (so far,
luckily) "free world," anyway.  We've titled each segment as a separate issue.



  >From reading Truth In Media, and from many other current publications as
  >well, I often get the impression that "liberals", especially as represented
  >by Clinton, are being portrayed as THE guilty party which is betraying the
  >Constitution and leading us toward a globalist world government.   I
  >believe this a very serious error - one which ignores the bi-partisan
  >continuity of U.S. policy, and which dangerously divides the opposition to
  >the New World Order (NWO).

We agree that this would be "a very serious error."  Guess Mr. Moore
hasn't read the TiM Bulletins or its editor's columns carefully enough?
Here is, for example, an excerpt from the TiM editor's WASHINGTON TIMES
column, "Dancing 'round the Golden Calf" (8/31/97), also published in the
TiM GW Bulletin 97/8-9, 8/25/97):

    ...The corruption of the American political system by Wall Street's
    and foreign money, and the "liberals" willingness to sell out true
    liberalism for a dictatorship of thought, are making the majority of
    Americans subjects of reverse discrimination.

    The term "liberal" is in apostrophies above because it is another
    NWO (New World Order) oxymoron.  How can anything as dogmatic
    as the "PC" terminology ever be truly liberal, given that "liberal" means
    "freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of
    their own choosing," according to Webster's?)"

For what it's worth, your TiM Editor would be happy to be labeled as a
"liberal" in the 18th century sense.  But it's the "neo-liberals," meaning
the "latter day (reincarnated) communists," that have usurped a good idea
and warped it into the "PC liberalism" for the sake of their own
totalitarian designs.


** re: TNC's

  > TNC's are citizens of the world; their
  >focus is on global opportunities; the very concept of "home nation" is
  >out-dated -- to TNC's, all flags are flags of convenience.

We agree again.  Here is how the TiM editor ended his Dec. 29, 1996
WASHINGTON TIMES column - "The Nothing Philosophy."

(But first, a contextual explanation is necessary.  The name of the main
character, a fictitious Serbian political leader - Levi Desnic - means
Lefty Rightwing in loose translation from Serbian.  This explanation was
provided in the beginning of this short piece, which you can look up in the
"Index of Bob Djurdjevic's Columns"-section of the TiM Web page - the first
LINK below).

    As the Belgrade crowd disperses for the night, after voting for
    with its feet for 29 straight days, the exuberant Serbian
    opposition party officials gather around their leader to congratulate
    him on his speech. 'My, Levi, you really had them going...' one of
    them says, patting Desnic on his back. 'But surely, you must believe
    in something?'

    'I believe in the same thing Clinton believes in,' Levi Desnic replies.

    'Oh, yeah? And what's that?'

    'The Almighty Dollar.'

    'The Almighty Dollar?'

    'Or a Deutsch Mark... Or a Yen... We are not that particular. We'll
    take anything Wall Street gives us. It's the money that makes the world
    go around, man! Crosses, crescents, flags, anthems... these are all
    archaic symbols for the backward masses. In our New World, we'll
    do away with all of them.'

    'The masses or the symbols?'



  > Bankrupting the nation and selling out sovereignty have
  >been bi-partisan affairs. Politicians pretend to have differences -- giving
  >us a dramatic show debate at election time -- to keep us choosing between
  >them rather than voting in some real people with guts and integrity.

Mr. Moore is spot on!  Here is, for example, an excerpt from the
WASHINGTON TIMES column "'Demo Farce' and the American Century," published
on Nov. 17, 1996:

    The Presidential Election 96 had all the excitement of a one-horse race,
    a big yawn! Ever since the globalist-controlled U.S. media - electronic
    or print, left or right, green or rusty - massacred Pat Buchanan last
    February (1996 - after he had beaten the pants off Bob Dole in New
    Hampshire's primary), the country's electorate faced a choice between
    a "Stiff" (the "Dull Man Walking"-Bob Dole) and a "Slick" (the
    "Anything Goes"-Bill Clinton).

    The outcome was predictable.  The Stiff is no longer walking.  And the
    Slick is still running the country.

    Fielding two horses from the same stable evidently suited the U.S.
    Establishment just fine.  Election 96 was a "demo farce!"  The U.S.
    democracy is turning into a New World Order plutocracy.

Or consider the following excerpts from the TiM editor's recent letters to
the WSJ and the NYT re. the "fast track" legislation:

To the WALL STREET JOURNAL (ostensibly a "conservative" paper), we wrote
on Nov. 11:

    Will the real Wall Street Journal stand up?  For almost five years
    now, you've been beating up on Bill Clinton (justifiably).  Suddenly,
    on the issue of the "fast track" legislation, he is your fair-haired boy,
    though not tough enough to brow beat the Big Bad Labor ("America's
    Labor Party," 11/11/97).

To the NEW YORK TIMES (ostensibly a "liberal" paper), we wrote the same
day (Nov. 11):

    Will the real New York Times stand up?  For almost four years now,
    you've been beating up on the Republicans and Newt Gingrich.
    Suddenly, on the issue of the "fast track" legislation, he is your
    fair-haired boy, along with Bill Clinton, while the Democrats are the
    bad wolves whose "narrow political interest has carried the day" ("Fast
    Track Is Derailed," 11/11/97).

To BOTH of these papers, we wrote the same day (Nov. 11):

    Capitol Hill's three-ring circus during the weekend of Nov. 7-9 was
    one of the best examples of the "demo farce" which our democracy
    has become -  a plutocratic system in which all political front runners
    race for the same stable owner - Big Business.

    Gingrich, Dick Armey, for example, ostensibly Republican
    congressional leaders pulled out all stops trying to help Clinton,
    ostensibly their political adversary, push the legislation through
    which would take away some of the power from them (Congress)
    and give it to the President.  Marxist dialecticians would have
    marveled at Gingrich's twisted logic - that a pro-"fast track" vote
    would mean a defeat for Clinton.

    ...During the 1980s, the Fortune 500 companies shed three millions jobs.
    In the 1990s, they will eliminate another two million (the Wall Street
    Journal, 9/20/96).  But while corporate America was downsizing
    and shipping these U.S. jobs to Latin America, China or Southeast
    Asia, etc., the "upsizing of America" was taking place - from the
    bottom of our economic pyramid.  Some 21 million new jobs were
    created by SMALL entrepreneurs.  They are the reason our economy
    is prospering, not the Big Business, as the New York Times would have
    us believe.

    That is why so many Congressmen who don't work out of Big Business's
    pockets have turned against the globalist puppets, like the President and
    the House Speaker.  They did not all do it necessarily for the sake of the
    Big Labor (though some did).  They did it for the sake of the Main Street
    America - evidently an alien territory for your elitist editors.

    But the fact that Big Business happens to be the New York Times' "bread
    and butter" advertiser - and thus the one thing that binds the liberal and
    the conservative media - further diminishes the credibility of your



  >The agenda of BIG MONEY is neither
  >liberal nor conservative, it is corporate.  And the political battle of the
  >day is not between liberals and conservatives, it is between corporations
  >and the people.

We agree with Mr. Moore's first point.  But aren't corporations also owned
and run by PEOPLE?  The INDIVIDUALS who run the TNC's are the PEOPLE to
whom we referred as "The Princes of the 20th Century" in several of our
pieces which dealt with globalization and the role which the multinational
companies play in the world today.  These PEOPLE - from George Soros to
David Rockefeller to the various Rothschilds..., etc. - are the "financial
elite" who are the would-be NWO masters.


    (Whatever the term of preference, Main Street is the loser as the
     "Perfidious Uncle Sam" replaces the "Perfidious Albion")

  >This power grab by TNC's -- and the transfer of sovereignty to their
  >centralized bureaucracy -- is what GLOBALIZATION is all about.  It amounts
  >to the replacement of democracy by a modern corporate variety of feudalism.

We agree again, though we'd prefer to call it "neo-colonialism," rather
than "corporate feudalism."  Here is a comment we sent to a TiM reader, an
economics professor, re. "The Great Asian Banking Crisis" recent TiM GW

    "...(US Treasury Secretary Rubin's letter warning Japan not to export
    its way out of trouble) merely exposed the contradictions inherent in
    Washington's 'free trade' arguments on the one hand, and in its
    protectionism of the American industry, on the other hand.

    Remember the auto quotas of the 1980s? (which the Japanese
    supposedly voluntarily imposed on themselves [(ho, ho!], but
    only after some heavy arm-twisting by Washington).  Wasn't
    that also a direct contradiction with our government's alleged
    'pro free trade' stance?

    Of course, our trading partners know duplicity when they see one.
    Just as your students or talk show audiences do.  Which is why they
    regard the U.S. as a neo-colonial power - kind of like the 'Perfidious
    Uncle Sam' replacing the 'Perfidious Albion' (the British Empire)."



  >The consequence of globalization is that ALL countries (in the First
  >World as well) are to be treated by TNC's as colonial plantations.

True.  But not all TNC's are created equal, as you can see from the above
Japanese example.



  >We need a revolution of a new and different kind, a revolution that
  >responds to this unprecedented state of emergency.  We don't have much
  >time, because the chips of power are being transferred rapidly to the NWO
  >bureaucracies, and the game is for keeps.

True, again.  But cracks are showing up in the NWO armor.  The looming
global banking  crisis is proving that the NWO is not a monolithic
organism.  So why not let them taste some of their own ("divide and
conquer") medicine?  And let them fight greed with greed?  It will be
easier that way for "all the little people" to clean up the mess afterward.

  >But we have to understand that we -- all the little people -- are in this
  >alone, we don't have big business as a natural partner in nationhood any
  >more.  They've left home and taken the bank account with them, and we must
  >call them to account.

And so we shall!

But patience, is a virtue.  As is the stalking an intended target before a
deadly strike.  Just ask a tiger... [Hopefully not an "Asian (business)
tiger"... :-) ]


Bob Djurdjevic
Phoenix, Arizona
e-mail: •••@••.•••

LINKS:  http://www.beograd.com/truth/
        (Truth in Media home page)

        (Djurdjevic's Oct 1997 FORBES column, "Bet on Asian Large Caps")
        (Djurdjevic's Nov 1997 IM column, "Welcome to Asia/Pacific...
        and Buckle Up" - IM is a WASHINGTON POST publication)

        (Annex Research home page)


Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• -  PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland
         www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal                   (USA Citizen)
  * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *

To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're
        To: •••@••.•••
        Subject: (ignored)
        unsub cyberjournal