August 13, 2008From

(CNN) — Four years after finding himself the target of a scathing campaign-year book from a conservative author during his own campaign, former Democratic presidential contender John Kerry is launching a Web site to discredit the writer’s latest work, which takes aim at 2008 presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

The move comes amid news “Obama Nation,” the latest book by author Jerome Corsi, has secured a berth atop New York Times best-seller list. Corsi previously co-wrote “Unfit for Command,” a book highly critical of Kerry’s military record during the Vietnam War.

Kerry’s new Web site, “Truth Fights Back” – which will be funded by the Massachusetts senator’s political action committee — resembles the “Fight the Smears” site Obama’s campaign launched earlier this year, and uses similar methods: a list of responses to existing rumors about the presumptive Democratic nominee, a form to report new attacks, and a request for supporters to add their names to an e-mail listserv that will direct activists on rapid response to future attacks on Obama and other Democratic candidates.



“We want people to know that truth, and that doesn't just mean the truth about the candidate being smeared, but also the truth about the smear machine,” says a message on the site. “We don't just want to ‘debunk’ rumors and smears; we want to show people what these smears are all about so they can recognize smears in the future. We want to educate people on why these are used and by whom.”

Kerry has expressed regret over his own response to attacks from Corsi and other critics during his own White House bid, telling reporters that he did not think he had responded swiftly or strongly enough.

"You can't just play defense against smears, pointing out how they aren't true,” said Kerry in a message to supporters Wednesday. “You've got to play offense, too, exposing the whole cynical game for what it is: an attempt to keep us from talking about the real issues and ultimately changing our country for the better.”

A worthy Vietnam Vet...a little late...too bad.
He could have been president. And, his remorse shows.

But the pretender to the throne don't carry the mantle.
I know ya support him John...but he didn't walk the walk...
and those who did can't transfer their's to him.

I advised ya to jump from the boat and attack,
but ya didn't...it's too late now...to try to jump for a
non-vet. He's got to carry his own water...you can't.

Your site will crash because of your prior hesitation.
I wish I could have advised...but alas, you were too
smart...in your northeast, liberal environment.

History is cold...try to revise...revive...but, it's history.

I'll always love you as a brother...but it's too late to play.

IH...why not start a movement to change the Constitutional requirements for the presidency to include miltary service.

Why stop there Amy. Make it a requirement for all basic rights under the Constitution. Making it necessary that before full citizenship is achieved one must have served in the military.

Obviously to IH unless that is the case you aren't accepted as being worthy, period.

That attitude does make me wonder just what he thinks they were fighting for in the war he uses as a yardstick for judging others.

Y'all are so right...those who haven't humped a clic should decide what is service.
Give me a f*ckin' break. Talk about politics...quilting...decoration...new colors can
change the world. But, don't talk about stopping aggression...unless ya have played.
It's ridiculous.

I thought military brass made the "stopping aggression" types of decisions. I think GW was the aggressor in Iraq and McCain was in total agreement with him.

Give it a rest IH. You discount and dismiss most of your past Presidents, a multitude of those who have contributed to the country you love yet never wore a uniform or "humped a clic" to use your terminology, and who don't spend their time stroking their own egos by constantly referring to a brief period of time in the overall scheme of things 40 years ago as if it defined you as a man. It doesn't. You are defined by the sum total of your life experiences, how you react to them, and how you conduct yourself every day of your life.

I agree with this....well said, CO.

One discrepancy in my comments Amy. It should be MANY of your past Presidents. 14 in fact who never saw battle.. 33% is the percentage. Or as close to a third as you can get.

No IH. What some of us are so presumptuous to want is equal respect for all citizens in terms of their rights and weight as citizens. We accord special honor to those who serve in the military, we might even factor that in as something of a plus when they run for public office (among many other factors that a responsible citizen should consider). But in terms of contributing to the political discourse it always should come down to who is offering wisdom and who prattles nonsense. Those who never served deserve credit when they do the first and those who did deserve no pass when they do the second.

Quite honestly I think anything else is what is ridiculous. Call me anti-military and an America-hater if you want (I know my Dad would not, he would agree totally on this point, give major credit to Kerry for this, and groan at reading your little knock on him), because if that is what I am, in the words of a Virginian from a long time ago, "Let us make the most of it."

My Dad who had to escape to safety while his ship burned after a Japanese attack would most enthusiastically agree!

From all you have written about your Father Arne, I'd say you lucked out. He sounds like a wise man and one I'd have considered myself honoured to have known. He and my Grandfather would have liked one another. (I admit to prejudice there, My Grandpa was the finest man I have ever known.)

I certainly cannot say he was perfect, but I do think he was a special man, with a very common sense approach to life. I have come to appreciate that more deeply since he died four years ago.

john mccain bumped a chick with his fist according to millions of reports on the internet

wallowing in something 40 years ago reminds me of a child actor who all he has to talk about 60 years later was that he appeared in one episode of leave it to beaver
or that kid who played little ricky in a couple of seasons of i love lucy and goes round the county appearing in shows as Little Ricky

or being Cindy Brady in curls, like her mother, or Danny Bonaduce on the Patridge Family

Lassie...come here lassie yelled Little Timmy (I hear one can can still hear the late Tommy Rettig if one still goes round the hills of Hollywood some nights yelling Lassie, Lassie)

nothing in the til from those days to the present

I do think that military experience is an asset. But it is certainly not the only asset that responsible voters consider when they choose which candidate is most likely to be best for the country. I know my children are entitled to something much better than focusing on that one matter.

But that is my opinion, perhaps some think my concerns to be frivolous, and that the Presidency should be bestowed on someone like a lifetime achievement award, particularly in matters military, no matter what the consequences once that person actually assumes office.

Anyway, John Kerry deserves kudos for doing this, not silly criticism. He has been the personal victim when integrity in politics simply goes out the window, and he does not want to see it happen again with someone else as the victim (with several of the same perpetrators involved!)

I agree it can be an asset but that is predicated on the character and emotional stability of the individual as well. Bravery and service is something worthy of honour and eternal gratitude... it doesn't come with an IOU into perpetuity in all future endeavours. The most psychologically equipped for warfare do not necessarily make the best leaders in peacetime. Those most heroic in battle all too often give diplomacy short shrift and that is a danger to all. McCain opts for confrontation.. first instinct. He considers the "bully" pulpit the answer. That's perilous in today's world. It could well lead to WW3.

A man who certainly knew war well, Dwight David Eisenhower, President of the United States, General of the Army, wrote in 1953: " Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."

Another man..- Rep. Howard Buffet ®, Sen. Robert Taft's Campaign Mgr., 1952: "Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics."

And another .. Benjamin Franklin, at age 77, from a letter to Sir Joseph Banks, written July 27, 1783: " I hope that Mankind will at length, as they call themselves reasonable creatures, have reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats, for in my opinion there never was a good war, or a bad peace."

I could not agree more.

I would add that everyone is free to place whatever "worth" on whatever qualities, character traits, experiences, knowledge and intelligence they wish, and, while I may place some value on military service, I do not see it as a be all and end all for as a matter of determining competency to lead.

God knows that some of our worst leaders had military backgrounds while other great leaders did not. I believe service is what it is... and unless a veteran had very high rank experience that experience is not likely to be very helpful in making the types of decisions faced by a CIC. I view diplomatic skills as being as important, if not more important, than military knowledge and experience. The goal should in all instances to be the avoidance of military conflict and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, but, as we can see with the current administration, the attitudes, agendas and personal philosophies of our leaders have more bearing on our actions and choices than almost anything else... and that would be what should be most closely scrutinized in any candidate.

In McCain I see someone who is willing to bend to the will of others and one who is too readily tied to the neo-cons and their overly aggressive views to make intelligent, wise and unbiased decisions.

His drum beating over the Georgia issue proves that he is more than willing to ignore the truth to pander politically than he is to take a principled position based on the wisest course of action.

We do not need another "shoot first" leader in the WH. McCain is far more likely to lead us into unwise conflict with potentially disastrous consequences.

"Kerry vets say fight back hard — and swiftly"

David Paul Kuhn

Wed Aug 13, 8:44 PM ET

Four years ago this month, the release of a critical book by Jerome R. Corsi undercut the cornerstone of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign narrative, his military service in Vietnam.

Now, Corsi has reappeared with another popular book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," attacking yet another Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

And Kerry’s former top advisers, who decided to initially pull their punches in 2004, believe this time Democrats must fight back hard — and fight back now.

“In hindsight, we made a mistake in not responding more forcefully,” said Steve Elmendorf, Kerry’s 2004 deputy campaign manager.

Referring to Corsi’s most recent book, Elmendorf said, “It’s on the front page of The New York Times."

"It's number one on The New York Times best-seller list."

"Right now, I would be very aggressive with reporters and factually going through the book and responding and making it clear that this is a bunch of bullsh-t.”

Kerry himself is already implementing the lessons of 2004.

The Massachusetts senator launched a website Wednesday, Truth Fights Back, challenging the assertions in Corsi’s book.

Kerry sent an e-mail to his former supporters headlined, “Book on Obama Hopes to Repeat Anti-Kerry Feat.”

Former Kerry campaign advisers believe Obama's senior aides must figure out how to effectively and directly respond to the book.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the campaign is speaking to reporters to directly challenge the merits of the book.

He added in an email that “this book is nothing but a series of lies that were long ago discredited, written by an individual who was discredited after he wrote a similar book to help George Bush and Dick Cheney get re-elected four years ago."

“The Obama campaign is going to have to decide if they are going to go after this, who is going to do it, and to what extent they are going to do that, because they have to be careful not to blow it up,” said a former member of Kerry’s inner circle, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity.

The one-time senior adviser added, “Obama’s campaign has to absolutely make sure they can respond to every charge and make sure they have all the research on this because the lack of this [research] was an enormous impediment to responding to the ads and the Swift Boat book.”

Corsi’s coauthored 2004 book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," became the foundation for a small advertising campaign attacking both the merits of Kerry’s service in Vietnam — where he was thrice-decorated with Purple Hearts — as well as Kerry’s stance against the war after returning stateside.

Kerry initially wanted to respond directly to the charges but his top circle of advisers, after heated debate, counseled against it, former senior advisers have said.

In the subsequent weeks that August, as the national media picked up the story and began constantly looping the ads, Kerry’s campaign reversed itself and went on the offensive.

Today, within Kerry’s circle and outside it, the view is that the response was too late.

“Kerry wanted to make sure the charges were rebutted,” the former senior adviser said.

Surrogates including longtime Democratic top operative John Podesta responded instead.

“At a certain point it was not enough,” the adviser explained.

By taking public financing for the general election, the Kerry campaign further limited its ability to respond aggressively on the airwaves, aides said, which affected the decision not to launch a major advertising rebuttal.

Obama does not have Kerry’s financial limitations.

Furthermore, some former Kerry advisers are now well embedded into the Obama campaign.

Jim Margolis, a one-time Kerry media consultant, is now a senior Obama adviser, and Stephanie Cutter, the Kerry campaign’s spokeswoman, is now chief of staff to Michelle Obama.

Other top Kerry advisers, such as former campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, also converse with members of Obama’s inner circle on occasion.

The Obama campaign first must “authoritatively debunk every single assertion, probably in writing,” said Tad Devine, Kerry’s chief strategist in 2004.

He added that Obama’s campaign should also implement an “absolutely frontal attack on the people making the charges” as well as establish “connections between this effort and [John] McCain’s campaign.”

But Devine added that he also believes that Obama should not escalate the issue as long as it remains only in print by responding with, say, television advertising or with a statement by Obama.

“It’s a tricky issue even four years later."

"I think the fundamental dynamic is that when you engage and create conflict in American politics, you also create coverage of that conflict,” Devine added.

Still, he said, the lesson of 2004 is “to be appropriately aggressive.”

Today, many in the Kerry campaign also blame the news media for elevating the Swift Boat book’s profile.

“This gentleman disqualified himself as a source or as an honest person in 2004,” said Joe Lockhart, a former spokesman for Bill Clinton who was brought into the Kerry campaign to help after the Swift Boat ads began.

“[Corsi] proved himself to be a destructive liar."

"Any reporter who doesn’t either have the memory or the good sense to remember the lies he told and the effects that those lies had, should look into their heart and remember why they got into the reporting business,” Lockhart continued, grudgingly adding that he believed the allegations would still be widely covered.

“By the middle of next week, everybody in the country is going to know all the accusations.”

Corsi told Politico he stands by his book.

“I’m not running from anything,” he said.

He added, "I’m an investigative reporter, that’s what I consider myself."

But he also said that "I disclose what my values are," which he has said includes opposing Obama’s bid to be president.

Corsi’s new book will, on Aug. 17, top The New York Times hard-cover nonfiction bestseller list, the newspaper reported on its front page today.

Accompanying the article online, the newspaper also published the preface of Corsi’s book.

By Wednesday afternoon, Corsi’s book was ranked No. 6 on Amazon.com.

Kenneth P. Vogel contributed to this story.

I don't hate the Vietnamese, myself ....

But I sure do not like the word "GOOK" ...

It is a dehumanizing word that made it easier for young Americans back then to kill them like animals ....

They were GOOKS, afterall ....

Not like us ....

Americans are human beings ....

This is a sign of a serious flaw in John McCain in my own estimation, that after all these years, he is still so full of hate for them ....

It is not a redeeming quality in one who would be the leader of our nation, as far as I am concerned ....

I see it as a sign of mental instability ....

And a further sign that John McCain really does lack intelligence, that he would make such a public statement like that ....

Does he think that we will be proud of him because he is such a prodigious HATER?

I wonder who else he hates ....

LIBERALS in America, maybe ....

And so ...

And how do you account for the fact that 40+ % of USAians are ready to make him President?

BTW...

Regardless of whether one likes Obama or not, shouldn't the truth be defended?

Even if the truth has never "humped a clic"?

Isn't the truth pretty important to people?

I have a lot of friends who have served
I have a lot of friends who have not......

IMHO the only ones who should be making a decision about going to war
should be the ones who know what it is like from experience...
George Washington led from the front!

The difference between Vietnam and Iraq?
Mr Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam!

Tom, does serving in a war guarantee that one's judgment is good?

Until you can show that it guarantees good judgment I cannot accept that those making judgments about war and peace must have served.

Here we are, back in 2004, all over again ....

This is where I first entered the scene as a BLOGGER here in America ....

With respect to the prior book by this Corsi, and all of the media coverage it was getting, especially in the Washington Times back then, which I had never heard of up until that time ....

One of the issues I tackled as a veteran was with respect to John Kerry's first wound ....

People were saying that Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart because he had allegedly wounded himself by firing an M-79 grenade launcher essentially into the ground or water right in front of himself, thus allegedly wounding himself with his own exploding round ....

BUT THAT WAS PURE HOOIE!

It was pure HOOIE from a number of perspectives for anyone familiar with that weapon, which I was, since I had been trained on that same weapon as an infantryman in the U.S. Army in 1968 ....

One of the things that had always stuck in my head with respect to the M-79 was something called "arming distance" or "arming range" ....

The Drill Instructers drummed that into our heads ....

The M-79 when armed with an High Explosive (HE) round was not a close-in weapon by design ...

If it was, in the jungle, people would be killing themselves with their own grenade rounds if they hit a tree or something that made the round detonate too close to themselves or another American troop ....

So I methodically researched the matter by going to the technical specifications for the weapon and the HE round, and on the John Kerry site, I published that research on one of the threads in there to demonstrate that John Kerry could not have wounded himself in the side of his arm by firing an M-79 round into the ground in front of him ....

To protect the shooter, the M-79 HE round had to fly so far, and do so many revolutions in order to trigger an arming device inside that was intended to have the grenade not explode if the shooter was still within the burst radius ...

And if that grenade round could have somehow exploded in front of John Kerry, he would have been peppered with lethal bits of shrapnel in the front of his body, not the side of his arm ....

I was wounded in the face by fragments of something that exploded right in front of me in Viet Nam, and a piece of it like a small spear went in just above my eye and got stuck in the bone of the eye socket ...

And it did not bleed because the fragments are red hot or better, and so they melt your skin as if someone had put a lit cigarette tip hard into your arm ...

Shrapnel that hits you close in and sticks into you cauterizes the wound ...

The Navy doctor in the SWUFTBOAT film described John Kerry's first wound as exactly that ...

So the shrapnel that got John Kerry in the arm was still hot when it hit him, which means that it was from close in, i.e. from something that exploded next to him ...

To believe the SWUFTIES version, it would be necessary to have John Kerry firing some kind of CAROM or BANK-SHOT, like in a game of pool, which was patently ridiculous ...

After posting that on the John Kerry site, I went onto another site that allows you to blanket cover all the news media in the United States, state by state by state ( http://capwiz.com/congressorg/pyv/electors/ ), and I e-mailed that research to several hundred different media outlets over the course of a week-end ....

Out of that, I got back several real nasty replies from news outlets telling me that they were going with what the SWUFTIES were putting out, and my efforts to debunk the SWUFTIES were not appreciated ....

I got back two separate replies from news people who told me that they had their own "military experts" who had read my research and who had said that I was full of **** ....

Which was bizarre, since I was quoting official U.S. military specs for a weapon that I had not only trained on, but had seen used in combat many times in Viet Nam ....

So good luck to Obama is all I can say ....

And so ...

Who, rla?

McCain?

Or Obama?

And one thing I learned a long time ago, rla, is that you cannot use rational methods to explain irrational behavior ....

So I don't even bother to try, myself ....

And so ...

Not really, Arneoker ....

Or at least that has been my experience ...

And so ...

I think that any sane person who had been in a war would be less likely to start a war unless there were a compelling reason.
I agree that there are no guarantees but maybe if the person starting the war understood the reality of it better they would be less likely to do so.

An EXCELLENT analysis of the situation, bigtom ...

Well done indeed!

Well let me say that it should be important to people, like doing things likely to preserve one's health. But lots of people don't care about that either...

I was refering to McCain and I

I was refering to McCain and I agree with your explanation for not responding.

Here I have to agree with you again, bigtom, that there are no guarantees ....

I know all too many combat veterans whose judgment is skewed by the type of hatred that apparently still boils and seethes inside of John McCain like the Rider in the Storm dude whose brain was squirming like a toad ....

But then, there are other combat veterans who are quite sane and lucid about war not being a solution for anything at all ....

Eisenhower was one of those, I believe ....

If you have been in combat and have the stink of death in your nostrils, and still want more war, then I don't want that person as my president here in America ....

The problem with McCain is that he did his killing from afar, if he ever did any at all ....

He never got to smell it up close and personal ....

Obama might be inexperienced ....

But I think McCain is unstable ....

Of the two, I have to opt for Obama ....

We don't need another unstable idiot in the White House after eight long, hard years of this last one .....

And so ...

My response to rla about not trying to use rational methods to analyze irrational behavior applies here, as well, Arneoker ....

If people really cared about the truth, George W. Bush would be long since gone from office for having lied to us so many times about IRAQINAM ....

And so ...

There is no way to get from an is to an ought or should, either logically nor empirically. This is not to dismiss the issue. Seeking Truth is one of my highest personal values and seeing the members of my cohort group increase their committment to truth is one of my major goals. The issue is, how to do this and what can communities and the nation do to increase this value?

A "klick" is a kilometer, and I have humped a lot of them myself ...

That does not serve to make me "presidential" ....

It does give me insight ....

But insight alone does not make me presidential, either ...

Humping the boonies does not alone serve to give one good judgment ...

A lot of people who humped the boonies back in Viet Nam are now dead due to too much alcohol consumption or drugs ....

That is not a sign of good judgment according to my "old school" way of looking at things, anyway ...

The fact that somebody served in war and $10.50 buys you a latte at Starbucks, if you are lucky, and that is about it ....

Serving in a war alone does not make a person automatically "presidential" .....

John McCain is proving that BIG TIME, day after day after day, each time he opens his mouth to speak ....

John McCain is proving that being "combat veteran" can leave you looking pretty pathetic, actually ....

And that is about as charitable as I can be towards poor John ....

And so ...

Well I think it was clear that I strongly implied agreement with you that people are often very irrational.

In terms using rational methods to analyze that, well there is a whole subspecialty called "abnormal psychology". But even the vast majority of those of us who have no professional grounding in that should be able to make some useful comments, as we witness irrational behavior all of the time. As long as we are being rational ourselves.

I was thinking more along the lines of the color blue, Arneoker ....

Why some people like blue, and others like green ....

I don't know if that is abnormal ....

But it is not a rational decision ....

It is something else ....

And so ....

It is not often rational to ask anyone (other than one's self) a Why Question. When the Mother
ask the 8 years old, "Why did you leave this yard and go to the store when I've told you a hundred time never to leave this yard without permission," she is not requesting information. Most why questions are actually making statements of one form or another. My original question, "How do you
account for the fact tha 40+ % of USAians are ready to make him President," was a disguized Why
Question. If one really pays attention, it is easy to see that many questions are actually statements.

Like "Why on earth did you ever vote for a lunatic like George W. Bush?"

"What on earth could you ever have possibly been thinking?"

Liking blue or green is neither rational nor irrational. It is nonrational. Color preference does not come from reason, but neither does it defy reason. But people defy reason all of the time, and often with tremendous passion.

And it is that OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA, Arneoker, which I am saying does not lend itself to rational analysis ....

Every reason posited for that OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR by one commentator is as equally valid as every other reason cited by others ...

To try and delve that phenomena in a forum such as this invites a food fight and little more ...

Just the same as it would if we were all participants in an APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY BLOG ...

Although it might be a lot nastier and bloodier over there than here ...

If you want to see a real good fist fight get going, get a couple of psychologists from different schools of psychological thought like the behaviorists and adherents of B.F. Skinner together in the same room ...

The fur will fly and the punches and brickbats will as well ...

I am still with C.G. Jung myself that there just seem to be periods of mass psychoses which grip populations, like when lemmings suddenly throw themselves into the sea en masse ....

To my knowledge, that mass behavior has never been adequately explained, either ....

Nor has the mass hysteria or whatever in America that put the idiot George W. Bush back in office for four more years back in 2004 ...

And so ...

Millennialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an article on sociological Millennialism.

Millennialism (from millennium, Latin for "thousand years"), or chiliasm in Greek, is a belief held by some Christian denominations that there will be a Golden Age or Paradise on Earth in which "Christ will reign" prior to the final judgment and future eternal state (the New Heavens and New Earth).

Millennialism is also a doctrine of medieval Zoroastrianism concerning successive thousand-year periods, each of which will end in a cataclysm of heresy and destruction, until the final destruction of evil and of the spirit of evil by a triumphant king of peace at the end of the final millennial age (supposed by some to be the year 2000).

"Then Saoshyant makes the creatures again pure, and the resurrection and future existence occur" (Zand-i Vohuman Yasht 3:62).

Various other social and political movements, both religious and secular, have also been linked to millennialist metaphors by scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism

Millenarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Millenarianism (sometimes spelled millenarism or millennarism) is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming major transformation of society after which all things will be changed in a positive (or sometimes negative or ambiguous) direction.

Millennialism is a specific form of Millenarianism based on a one thousand year cycle, and this form is especially significant within Christianity.

Millenarian groups typically claim that the current society and its rulers are corrupt, unjust, or otherwise wrong.

They therefore believe they will be destroyed soon by a powerful force.

The harmful nature of the status quo is always considered intractable without the anticipated dramatic change.

In some who held Medieval millenarianism the world was seen as controlled by demons and even up to the nineteenth century Chinese millenarianism used something like this motif, but with "demon" having a slightly different cultural connotation.

In the modern world economic rules or vast conspiracies are seen as generating oppression.

Only dramatic change will change the world and change will be brought about, or survived, by a group of the devout and dedicated.

In most millenarian scenarios, the disaster or battle to come will be followed by a new, purified world in which the true believers will be rewarded.

While many millennial groups are pacifist, millenarian beliefs have been claimed as causes for people to ignore conventional rules of behaviour, which can result in violence directed inwards (such as mass suicides) and/or outwards (such as terrorist acts).

It sometimes includes a belief in supernatural powers or predetermined victory.

In some cases, millenarians withdraw from society to await the intervention of God or another metaphysical force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism

Examples of the millenarian groups, movements and writings:

al-Qaeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism

SO HISTORY SEEMS TO SAY, Arneoker ...

Nazism

The most controversial interpretation of the Three Ages philosophy and of millennialism in general is Hitler's "Third Reich" ("Drittes Reich", "Tausendjähriges Reich"), which, in his vision, would last for a thousand years - but which in reality only lasted for 12 years (1933-1945).

The phrase "Third Reich" was coined by the German thinker Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, who in 1923 published a book entitled Das Dritte Reich, which eventually became a catchphrase that survived the Nazi regime.

Looking back at German history, two periods were distinguished, and identified with the ages of Joachim of Fiore:

the Holy Roman Empire (beginning with Charlemagne in AD 800) -- (the "First Reich"),

--The Age of the Father and the German Empire --

under the Hohenzollern dynasty (1871 - 1918) (the "Second Reich") -- The Age of the Son.

These were now to be followed -- after the interval of the Weimar Republic (1918 - 1933), during which constitutionalism, parliamentarism and even pacifism ruled -- by:

the "Third Reich" -- The Age of the Holy Ghost.

Although van den Bruck was unimpressed by Adolf Hitler when he met him in 1922 and did not join the Nazi Party, nevertheless the phrase was adopted by the Nazis to describe the totalitarian state they wanted to set up when they gained power, which they succeeded in doing in the Brown Revolution of 1933.

During the early part of the Third Reich, many Germans referred to Hitler as being the German Messiah, especially when he conducted the Nuremberg Rallies, which came to be held at a date somewhat before the Autumn Equinox in Nuremberg, Germany.

In a speech held on 27 November 1937, Hitler commented on his plans to have major parts of Berlin torn down and rebuilt:

[...] to build a millennial city adequate [in splendour] to a thousand year old people with a thousand year old historical and cultural past, for its never-ending [glorious] future [...]

It may be of interest to note that after it was clear that Adolph Hitler was not going to successfully implement a thousand year reign, that the Vatican issued a statement that millennial teachings could not be safely taught and that the related scriptures in Revelation (also called the Apocalypse) should be understood spiritually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism

Zoroastrianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zoroastrianism is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra, Zartosht).

Basic beliefs

There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, meaning The Supreme Wisdom, the one Uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed.

The term Ahura Mazda was constructed by Zoroaster as a combination of a masculine and a feminine word as if to underline the lack of a specific gender, making the divinity radically different from pre-Zoroastrian polytheistic deities.

Reflecting Zoroastrianism's geographical and cultural origin between the monotheistic religions of the Middle East and the pantheistic faiths of South Asia, and reflecting the religion's pluralistic literary origins, contemporary Zoroastrianism features interpretations of the concept of Ahura Mazda covering both monotheism, cosmic or mental dualism, Pantheism and Panentheism.

The Pantheist school of Zoroastrianism, as taught by contemporary scholars such as Parviz Varjavand, is in this on-going theological debate strictly referred to as Mazdayasna, meaning "wisdom worship" in contemporary English.

It is here important to stress that despite these radical theological differences, dualist and Pantheist interpretations of Zoroastrianism have always co-existed, both in Iran and India, throughout the millennia within the same organizational framework.

Ahura Mazda's creation — evident as asha, truth and order — is the antithesis of chaos, evident as druj, falsehood and disorder.

The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict.

Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay.

This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.

Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end (cf: Zoroastrian eschatology).

In the final renovation, all of creation — even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to "darkness" — will be reunited in Ahura Mazda.

In Zoroastrian tradition the malevolent is represented by Druj, the "Destructive Principle", while the benevolent is represented through Ahura Mazda's Asha, the instrument or "Bounteous Principle" of the act of creation.

It is through Spenta Mainyu that Ahura Mazda is immanent in humankind, and through which the Creator interacts with the world.

According to Zoroastrian cosmology, in articulating the Ahuna Vairya formula Ahura Mazda made this ultimate triumph evident to Druj.

As expressions and aspects of Creation, Ahura Mazda emanated seven "sparks", the Amesha Spentas ("Bounteous Immortals"), that are each the hypostasis and representative of one aspect of that Creation.

These Amesha Spenta are in turn assisted by a league of lesser principles, the Yazatas, each "Worthy of Worship" and each again a hypostasis of a moral or physical aspect of creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

People ought to check out the website. Right now it is mostly about Obama, but it does deal with smears against other Democrats.

Makes me proud to be a former Kerry supporter (although in terms of Presidential politics I think that his day is probably passed).

http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/splash/

This link should be in everyone's bookmarks.

Its a fantastic site and needs to be promoted.

I'm with you Arne.