American Exceptionalism: Delusions Of Grandeur Born Out Of Blinkered Ignorance And Congenital Racism

“ . . . There are many respects in which America, if it can bring itself to act with the magnanimity and the empathy appropriate to its size and power, can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity to set an example of generous understanding in our relations with China, of practical cooperation for peace in our relations with Russia, of reliable and respectful partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of material helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with the developing nations, of abstention from the temptations of hegemony in our relations with Latin America, and of the all-around advantages of minding one's own business in our relations with everybody. Most of all, we have the opportunity to serve as an example of democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be ‘the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all’ but ‘the champion and vindicator only of her own’ . . . ”

Senator William J. Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power, Random House, 1966.

Some 50 years have lapsed since Senator Fulbright wrote those words of wisdom which the majority of American people have apparently disregarded to the undoubted detriment of their nation. In the meantime Americans have become — as a result of being captivated by emotive media images and hoodwinked by the “Doublespeak” language used by press prostitutes and payola politicians — the most sadly deluded and wilfully ignorant human beings on this planet. (

Despite bestriding the globe like a colossus dominating commerce, communications, and culture with a military might imposed by some 800 military bases in over 70 countries, (, Americans have nonetheless managed to irresponsibly surrender their national sovereignty while betraying the democratic precepts — Worth of the Individual; Equality of all Persons; Majority rule, Minority rights; Necessity of Compromise; and Individual Freedom — of The U.S. Constitution as signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention that was presided over by George Washington in Philadelphia.

“ . . . in America, we have achieved the Orwellian prediction — enslaved, the people have been programmed to love their bondage and are left to clutch only mirage-like images of freedom, its fables and fictions. The new slaves are linked together by vast electronic chains of television that imprison not their bodies but their minds. Their desires are programmed, their tastes manipulated, their values set for them.”

Gerry Spence, From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America.

This raises the question of whether the United States is a democracy or a republic? Strictly speaking a democracy is a form of governance in which the people directly decide policy matters through town hall meetings, registered voter ballot initiatives, or referendums. Alternatively, a republic, is a system wherein the people elect representatives who are given the responsibility of making policy decisions on their behalf. It is also apparent that the The Framers of the Constitution were profoundly suspicious of “democracy” in its purest form with Federalist No. 10 — an essay written by James Madison as the tenth in a series of The Federalist Papers that argued for the ratification of the United States Constitution — stating the following:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths — Theoretic politicians, who have patronised this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalised and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

With constant usage over time, however, the word “democracy” has come to mean a system of governance in which the government’s power is derived from the people to whom it is accountable in the use of that power. On that basis therefore, the United States could be called a democracy . . . A democracy, however, whose concept is at odds with that of the “pure democracy” availed by many states in allowing for policy decisions to be made directly by the people’s vote on ballot initiatives or referendums. The fact that the Constitution does not provide for either national ballot initiatives or referendums confirms the Framers' suspicion of, and opposition to any such truly democratic procedures.

In writing on the merits of a republican or representative system of governance, Madison noted that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic was the main effect of which was to “. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose.” Which is all very well so long as you do not have organisations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) controlling the “representatives of the people.”

Strictly speaking, the system of governance established by the Constitution was never intended to be a “democracy.” This is not only evident from the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance (, but also the Constitution itself which declares that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Furthermore, the system of representation and the procedures for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly designed for producing a “republic,” and not a democracy. Madison was also perceptive and perhaps even prophetic in making the following observation:

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

While the lines may now be blurred between America’s former republican roots and its current facade of democracy, the question nonetheless remains as to whether or not the American people are today sufficiently knowledgeable and suitably equipped with the necessary wisdom and prudence to carry out their responsibilities as citizens of a country that claims to be a beacon of democracy and freedom. The answer unfortunately is an unequivocal and most emphatic “no.” (

It was precisely that form of governance — “the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest” — that enabled Israel through its AIPAC-led Jewish lobby to highjack the U.S. government; to use that government to siphon off billions of American taxpayer dollars in military aid to Israel; and even to inveigle the easily purchased White House and the corruptible bicameral Congress into expending American lives and money on criminal wars —causing both human and infrastructural devastation — against Israel’s neighbouring Islamic “enemies.” (

“In America, the criminally insane rule and the rest of us, or the vast majority of the rest of us, either do not care, do not know, or are distracted and properly brainwashed into acquiescence.”

Kurt Nimmo, writer and editor.

During his campaign for president in 1960, John F. Kennedy had a meeting with some prominent Jews during which he was very insulted when one of them said they knew Kennedy’s campaign was in financial difficulty and that he and his Jewish friends would “help and help significantly” if, as president, Kennedy “would allow them to set the course of Middle East policy over the next four years.” It was after that meeting that JFK became determined to work for a law that would have the U.S. Treasury pay a set and equal amount for all politicians running for president who secured a to be determined percentage of signatures of people supporting their campaign. JFK believed that it was only way to prevent the nightmare scenario where not only the President, but also the overwhelming majority of congresspersons would be bought and paid for by the very powerful Israeli Lobby which to this day has enforced America’s amoral support for Israel’s theft of Palestinian land and the ethnic cleansing of its people . (

Benny Morris was one Israeli historian who wrote definitely about the history of Israel and Palestine in a way that made him an authoritative reference for many scholars and writers, particularly concerning the 1948 Nakba. In his pioneering role as a “new historian,” in the late 1980’s, Morris scrutinised many declassified documents from and around 1948, and reached the conclusion in his book the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem that not only was there a “transfer” — as he quite systematically viewed it — but that this “transfer” was “inevitable and inbuilt in Zionism — because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a Jewish state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population.”

In 1961 Zionism/AIPAC suffered a setback with the inauguration as President of JFK— who being determined to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East — was consequently at loggerheads with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion who was of the opinion that possession of nuclear weapons was essential for Israel’s survival. On realising that JFK would not budge on the issue, Israel joined forces with the Communist Chinese who were also desirous of nuclear weapons. Both countries then began secretly developing nuclear capabilities through intermediary “and richest Jew in the world” Shaul Eisenberg who was a close friend of the duplicitous Henry Kissinger and a partner of Mossad gun-runner Tibor Rosenbaum who was destined to be pivotal in the forthcoming assassination of JFK. In his book Seeds of Fire: China and the Story Behind the Attack on America, author Gordon Thomas exposed how Mossad and the CSIS (Chinese secret service) frequently conspired to not only steal American military secrets, but to also doctor U.S. intelligence programs. A key player in in Israel’s quest for nuclear weapons was Shimon Peres. ( whose recent death and funeral was attended by the usual suspects — mostly grovelling Western leaders — who obsequiously mourned him as “a man of peace.” (

The probability of Mossad’s involvement in JFK’s assassination was in 1994 clearly substantiated by author Michael Collins Piper who in his incisive book, Final Judgment: The Missing link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, asserted that Israel’s motive for the assassination was JFK’s opposition to Israel’s nuclear ambitions which outraged Ben-Gurion who commanded the Mossad to become involved. Piper concluded that “Israel’s Mossad was a primary (and critical) behind the scenes player in the conspiracy that ended the life of JFK. Through its own vast resources and through its international contacts in the intelligence community and in organised crime, Israel had the means, it had the opportunity, and it had the motive to play a major frontline role in the crime of the century — and it did.” (

During 1962-63 Senator William J. Fulbright, the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, convened hearings which uncovered evidence that the Jewish Agency — the predecessor to the state of Israel — had operated a massive network of financial “conduits” that funnelled funds to Zionist Israeli lobby groups whose increasing influence over U.S. policy decisions had become a cause for alarm. In April 1973, on CBS Face the Nation, Fulbright stated that “Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. — somewhere around 80% — is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our Government.” Needless to say, in 1974 Fulbright left the Senate after being defeated in the Democratic primary by then-Governor Dale Bumpers who was heavily backed by the Jewish lobby. (

Despite espousing high-principled commitments to democracy, the U.S is itself undeniably a plutocracy — a government run by the rich, for the rich — where a monied, oligarchic elite calls the shots in Washington and the mainstream media, while the militarised police and surveillance sector keep the blinkered and hapless masses under control. More recently, in a constitutional law case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the corporate role in politics to be increased by ending 100 years of law protecting citizen democracy from the influence of large corporate donations. By removing all limits on the amount of money that corporations and multi-millionaires could donate in order to unfairly influence elections and buy political power, the U.S Supreme Court effectively hammered another nail into the coffin of democracy in the U.S. where breathtaking “superpower” hypocrisy reigns supreme — especially with regards to the legal and human rights of the Palestinian people — in the service of Apartheid Israel. (

As the world’s second largest democracy — with the largest being India where a discriminatory caste system still persists and women are often treated with barbaric inequality — the U.S. has just undergone a rancorously divisive presidential election where the intellectual level of the debate on important issues — such as universal human rights, civil liberties, and environmental damage — amongst the candidates left much to be desired. So after an estimated spend of some $5 billion, (, the American electorate preferred a crazy clown ( to a corrupt Clinton ( as their next president, thereby perpetuating the iniquity of a profit-impelled, hierarchically-based system of governance whereby the ultra-rich will continue increasing their wealth and influence, while the majority of citizens remain impoverished and disenfranchised.

“We have the best government that money can buy.”

Mark Twain (1835 - 1910), American writer, entrepreneur, publisher and lecturer.

“Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half.”

Gore Vidal, celebrated author, satirist and political commentator.

It can only be hoped that as the presidential election dust settles, and responsible Americans contemplate the forthcoming calamitous consequences of having Donald Trump as S.S. President in the White House, that they will also honestly recognise the reality of what their “superpower” nation actually represents — the greatest threat to peace for all humanity ( — and perhaps set aside the grossly mistaken perception of their own exceptionality and instead humbly heed the following warning about the tendency for great nations to assume that their power is tantamount to omnipotence:

“ . . . America is now at that historical point at which a great nation is in danger of losing its perspective on what exactly is within the realm of its power and what is beyond it. Other great nations, reaching this critical juncture, have aspired to too much, and by overextension of effort have declined and then fallen. The causes of the malady are not entirely clear but its recurrence is one of the uniformities of history: power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favour, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations — to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image. Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence. Once imbued with the idea of a mission, a great nation easily assumes that it has the means as well as the duty to do God's work. The Lord, after all, surely would not choose you as His agent and then deny you the sword with which to work His will. German soldiers in the First World War wore belt buckles imprinted with the words ‘Gott mit uns’. It was approximately under this kind of infatuation — an exaggerated sense of power and an imaginary sense of mission — that the Athenians attacked Syracuse, and Napoleon and then Hitler invaded Russia. In plain words, they overextended their commitments and they came to grief . . . “

Senator William J. Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power, Random House, 1966.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Blogger App Icon
  • Twitter Basic Square