The original "Hollywood blacklist" dates back to 1947, when 10 members of the Communist Party, present or former, invoked the Fifth Amendment before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
The party was then a wholly owned subsidiary of the Comintern of Joseph Stalin, whose victims had surpassed in number those of Adolf Hitler.
In a 346-17 vote, the Hollywood Ten were charged with contempt of Congress and suspended or fired.
The blacklist had begun. Directors, producers and writers who had been or were members of the party and refused to recant lost their jobs.
Politically, the blacklist was a victory of the American right.
In those first years of the Cold War, anti-communism and Christianity were mighty social, political and cultural forces. Hollywood acknowledged their power in what it produced.
As shown in HBO's "Game Change," John McCain in 2008 ruled out attacks on Barack Obama's 20-year ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago preacher of "God damn America!" fame.
Why? Wright and Obama were black, and such attacks might agitate the latent racism of white America. The Republican Party censors itself so as not to antagonize a cultural establishment that wants to see it dead.
" Beautiful losers," my late friend Sam Francis called them.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Massacre As Metaphor
The massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a still-to-be-identified American soldier limns the course of American foreign policy in the post-9/11 era. Think of it: he went out in the dead of night, at three in the morning, armed to the teeth, and snuck into a village where sleeping children were cradled in their beds. Taking careful aim, he knelt and started firing: one after another these young girls and boys had their heads blown off. One news account described a bullet hole right between the eyes of one young victim. That’s some pretty good shooting there, soldier: all that training, financed by the US taxpayers, paid off! His work there finished, our serial killer went to another house, where he repeated his grisly work. After it was over, he gathered the bodies together and set them ablaze, in a display of "shock and awe" and cleansing fire, as if to simultaneously wipe out the evidence of his crimes and appease his Wagnerian sense of the dramatic.
If only the television crews had been there to witness this American Götterdämmerung: it would have made an award-winning shockumentary, the story of a square-jawed over-deployed American soldier and straight-as-an-arrow patriot who just wanted to serve his country and wound up becoming a mass murderer.
The Western media is already running this clichéd narrative up the flagpole, and there are no doubt plenty of Americans ready to salute. After all, we’re being told, he had a "breakdown" – a rite of passage for every normal American these days, whether the precipitating incident is a divorce, impending bankruptcy, or the sudden discovery that their tattooed –and-pierced daughter is having a sex change operation right after she aborts her out-of-wedlock baby. Having a breakdown is now a sacred and legally-protected "right," right up there with the "right" to healthcare, cheap gas, and a federally-insured home mortgage, a "Get out of jail free" card every American gets to play at least once in their lives. So, you had a "breakdown" and massacred 16 civilians, most of whom were young children? Don’t worry, my friend – the "safety net" will catch you.
As a good citizen of America’s "therapeutic state," this soldier embodies the idea that every trauma, or major discomfort, gives us permission to commit acts that would normally be frowned upon. If we apply this operating principle to the realm of foreign policy, what we come up with is the exact course of American foreign policy during the last decade.
If only the television crews had been there to witness this American Götterdämmerung: it would have made an award-winning shockumentary, the story of a square-jawed over-deployed American soldier and straight-as-an-arrow patriot who just wanted to serve his country and wound up becoming a mass murderer.
The Western media is already running this clichéd narrative up the flagpole, and there are no doubt plenty of Americans ready to salute. After all, we’re being told, he had a "breakdown" – a rite of passage for every normal American these days, whether the precipitating incident is a divorce, impending bankruptcy, or the sudden discovery that their tattooed –and-pierced daughter is having a sex change operation right after she aborts her out-of-wedlock baby. Having a breakdown is now a sacred and legally-protected "right," right up there with the "right" to healthcare, cheap gas, and a federally-insured home mortgage, a "Get out of jail free" card every American gets to play at least once in their lives. So, you had a "breakdown" and massacred 16 civilians, most of whom were young children? Don’t worry, my friend – the "safety net" will catch you.
As a good citizen of America’s "therapeutic state," this soldier embodies the idea that every trauma, or major discomfort, gives us permission to commit acts that would normally be frowned upon. If we apply this operating principle to the realm of foreign policy, what we come up with is the exact course of American foreign policy during the last decade.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
NSA continues to spy on U.S. citizens
The National Security Agency (NSA) continues to conduct warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens at a frenetic pace, according to informed NSA sources.
Much of the surveillance of American citizens and legal residents, known as “U.S. persons” in the NSA eavesdropping lexicon, is now being conducted under the aegis of the U.S. Cyber Command. NSA director General Keith Alexander doubles as the commander of the Cyber Command. Both agencies’ headquarters are located at Fort Meade, Maryland.
Warrantless wiretapping began during the George W. Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. The program was authorized by Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief counsel David Addington and was never known as the so-called “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” or “TSP.” The Terrorist Surveillance Program moniker was a cover story developed by NSA, Justice Department, and White House officials to mask the true targets of the warrantless eavesdropping operation: U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Primary targets include journalists, their government sources, and political office holders and other government officials. The latter includes members of Congress, state governors, senior military officers, U.S. diplomats, and Cabinet officers. Some of the intercepted communications of Americans was entered into an NSA database known as PINWALE.
WMR has learned that although NSA’s acting general counsel Vito Potenza and NSA Inspector General Joel Brenner claimed they were not given access to “The Program’s” key implementing documents, both individuals had worked with Addington and other members of the Bush White House, including chief of staff Andrew Card, to implement massive NSA spying on U.S. citizens. The two NSA lawyers worked closely with Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo to craft the illegal program. Yoo’s actions were approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
At NSA, the warrantless eavesdropping program is simply known as “The Program.” The classified code word for “The Program” was STELLAR WIND before the code phrase was leaked to the media. The Bush administration used “The Program” to gain intelligence on its political enemies and friends, alike. The Obama administration maintains “The Program” to similarly engage in political surveillance within the United States.
Much of the surveillance of American citizens and legal residents, known as “U.S. persons” in the NSA eavesdropping lexicon, is now being conducted under the aegis of the U.S. Cyber Command. NSA director General Keith Alexander doubles as the commander of the Cyber Command. Both agencies’ headquarters are located at Fort Meade, Maryland.
Warrantless wiretapping began during the George W. Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. The program was authorized by Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief counsel David Addington and was never known as the so-called “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” or “TSP.” The Terrorist Surveillance Program moniker was a cover story developed by NSA, Justice Department, and White House officials to mask the true targets of the warrantless eavesdropping operation: U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Primary targets include journalists, their government sources, and political office holders and other government officials. The latter includes members of Congress, state governors, senior military officers, U.S. diplomats, and Cabinet officers. Some of the intercepted communications of Americans was entered into an NSA database known as PINWALE.
WMR has learned that although NSA’s acting general counsel Vito Potenza and NSA Inspector General Joel Brenner claimed they were not given access to “The Program’s” key implementing documents, both individuals had worked with Addington and other members of the Bush White House, including chief of staff Andrew Card, to implement massive NSA spying on U.S. citizens. The two NSA lawyers worked closely with Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo to craft the illegal program. Yoo’s actions were approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
At NSA, the warrantless eavesdropping program is simply known as “The Program.” The classified code word for “The Program” was STELLAR WIND before the code phrase was leaked to the media. The Bush administration used “The Program” to gain intelligence on its political enemies and friends, alike. The Obama administration maintains “The Program” to similarly engage in political surveillance within the United States.
7 Steps to Dissolve the Matrix and Stop World War Three
Looming up in front of us like some ghoulish malevolent giant, is the prospect of mankind having to endure the devastation of a 'Third World War'.
An event, should it come to pass, would pit brother against brother, sister against sister, 'faith' against 'faith', ideology against ideology, nation against nation and all of it together against the continuation of life on Earth.
The forces covertly operating to bring this Third World War about will not be in the direct line of fire, but a long way off, comfortably ensconced in leather chairs in the plush offices of high-ranking officialdom. They made their plans many years ago and the Third World War is a keystone in bringing these plans to fruition.
These individuals come from countries well practiced in historical and modern empire building and share a 'special relationship' whose vision of the future completely excludes the great majority of us. We do not feature on the planet they see ahead of them, except as slaves to whatever activities they may wish to pursue. To them, we are essentially 'dispensable'.
Those who would perpetrate this plan have already prepared their underground bases to survive the destruction they propose to unleash upon this world. We will not be invited to join them there either, except a few carefully chosen minions to manage the technologies that keep this underworld functioning and those who serve their daily needs. It is a very exclusive 'club'.
An event, should it come to pass, would pit brother against brother, sister against sister, 'faith' against 'faith', ideology against ideology, nation against nation and all of it together against the continuation of life on Earth.
The forces covertly operating to bring this Third World War about will not be in the direct line of fire, but a long way off, comfortably ensconced in leather chairs in the plush offices of high-ranking officialdom. They made their plans many years ago and the Third World War is a keystone in bringing these plans to fruition.
These individuals come from countries well practiced in historical and modern empire building and share a 'special relationship' whose vision of the future completely excludes the great majority of us. We do not feature on the planet they see ahead of them, except as slaves to whatever activities they may wish to pursue. To them, we are essentially 'dispensable'.
Those who would perpetrate this plan have already prepared their underground bases to survive the destruction they propose to unleash upon this world. We will not be invited to join them there either, except a few carefully chosen minions to manage the technologies that keep this underworld functioning and those who serve their daily needs. It is a very exclusive 'club'.
War, Pipelineistan-style
United States Secretary of State Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton's message to Pakistan was stark; try to go ahead with the IP (Iran-Pakistan) gas pipeline, and we're going to take you out financially.
Islamabad, its economy in tatters, living in power-cut land, and desperate for energy, tried to argue. Pakistan's top official in the Petroleum and Natural Resources Ministry, Muhammad Ejaz Chaudhry, stressed that the 2,775-km, $1.5 billion IP was absolutely crucial for Pakistan's energy security.
That fell on deaf ears. Clinton evoked "particularly damaging" sanctions - tied to Washington's push to isolate Iran by all means available and the no-holds-barred campaign to force particularly India, China and Turkey to cut off their imports of Iranian oil and gas.
So as Washington has been impotent to disrupt Pipelineistan moves in Central Asia - by isolating Iran and bypassing Russia - it's now going ballistic to prevent by all means the crucial integration of Southwest Asia and South Asia, from Iran's giant South Pars gas field to Pakistan's Balochistan and Sindh provinces.
To compound Washington's fury, "isolated" Iran, by the way, is about to start exporting an extra 80,000 barrels of oil a day to Pakistan; and has already committed $250 million to the Pakistani stretch of IP.
This has got the potential of becoming much, much uglier. Washington won't be deterred from its intent to smash IP. For an Iran under pressure and a strangled Pakistani economy - as well as China - this is all about the Asian Energy Security Grid.
Islamabad, its economy in tatters, living in power-cut land, and desperate for energy, tried to argue. Pakistan's top official in the Petroleum and Natural Resources Ministry, Muhammad Ejaz Chaudhry, stressed that the 2,775-km, $1.5 billion IP was absolutely crucial for Pakistan's energy security.
That fell on deaf ears. Clinton evoked "particularly damaging" sanctions - tied to Washington's push to isolate Iran by all means available and the no-holds-barred campaign to force particularly India, China and Turkey to cut off their imports of Iranian oil and gas.
So as Washington has been impotent to disrupt Pipelineistan moves in Central Asia - by isolating Iran and bypassing Russia - it's now going ballistic to prevent by all means the crucial integration of Southwest Asia and South Asia, from Iran's giant South Pars gas field to Pakistan's Balochistan and Sindh provinces.
To compound Washington's fury, "isolated" Iran, by the way, is about to start exporting an extra 80,000 barrels of oil a day to Pakistan; and has already committed $250 million to the Pakistani stretch of IP.
This has got the potential of becoming much, much uglier. Washington won't be deterred from its intent to smash IP. For an Iran under pressure and a strangled Pakistani economy - as well as China - this is all about the Asian Energy Security Grid.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
‘Arab Spring’ is Arab socialism’s fall
The fall of autocratic regimes in the Arab Middle East and North Africa, which had more to do with skyrocketing unemployment and inflation than in a desire to “democratize,” gave the circling vultures of Western “pro-democracy” think tanks and foundations the opportunity to put stakes in the hearts of governing pan-Arab socialist political parties long seen as a threat to the goals of “uber-capitalist” globalization.
The Ba’ath socialist party of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was the first victim of a desire by the global forces of extreme capitalism to remake the Middle East’s financial, demographic, political, and social construct.
Because the invasion and occupation of Iraq was such an unmitigated disaster, the neoconservative and neoliberal forces of corporatism decided that other traditional Arab socialist regimes would fall as a result of “soft power.” Soft power involves the use of foreign-funded domestic pressure groups, financed and organized by Western non-governmental organization (NGO) interests, to foment insurrections and “popular revolutions” by using street demonstrations, propagandized media—including social media—and false flag human rights violations intended to generate worldwide sympathy for the manufactured revolutions.
After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq the first action of L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer, the de facto U.S. viceroy of occupied Iraq and close associate of Henry Kissinger, was to abolish the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. In fact, Bremer’s first order, Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 1, totally banned the Ba’ath Party and all of its affiliated structures. Bremer ensured that pan-Arab socialism was dead in Iraq. Bremer’s propaganda against Ba’athism was supported by his press spokesman, Dan Senor, a longtime supporter of Israel and a former investment portfolio manager for the Carlyle Group.
The Ba’ath Party of Iraq was the principal mechanism through which the Iraqi bureaucracy, which ensured payments of salaries to government workers, operated. Without the Ba’ath Party public sector infrastructure, Iraqis in all walks of life saw an end to their paychecks. Popular discontent and rebellion against the Western occupiers ensued. An army of U.S. contractors arrived in Iraq to ensure the “de-Ba’athification” of the country, with right-wing Republicans at the forefront of trying to create a capitalist and privatized wonderland in Iraq that would not even sell to the public in the most conservative U.S. state.
The Ba’ath socialist party of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was the first victim of a desire by the global forces of extreme capitalism to remake the Middle East’s financial, demographic, political, and social construct.
Because the invasion and occupation of Iraq was such an unmitigated disaster, the neoconservative and neoliberal forces of corporatism decided that other traditional Arab socialist regimes would fall as a result of “soft power.” Soft power involves the use of foreign-funded domestic pressure groups, financed and organized by Western non-governmental organization (NGO) interests, to foment insurrections and “popular revolutions” by using street demonstrations, propagandized media—including social media—and false flag human rights violations intended to generate worldwide sympathy for the manufactured revolutions.
After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq the first action of L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer, the de facto U.S. viceroy of occupied Iraq and close associate of Henry Kissinger, was to abolish the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. In fact, Bremer’s first order, Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 1, totally banned the Ba’ath Party and all of its affiliated structures. Bremer ensured that pan-Arab socialism was dead in Iraq. Bremer’s propaganda against Ba’athism was supported by his press spokesman, Dan Senor, a longtime supporter of Israel and a former investment portfolio manager for the Carlyle Group.
The Ba’ath Party of Iraq was the principal mechanism through which the Iraqi bureaucracy, which ensured payments of salaries to government workers, operated. Without the Ba’ath Party public sector infrastructure, Iraqis in all walks of life saw an end to their paychecks. Popular discontent and rebellion against the Western occupiers ensued. An army of U.S. contractors arrived in Iraq to ensure the “de-Ba’athification” of the country, with right-wing Republicans at the forefront of trying to create a capitalist and privatized wonderland in Iraq that would not even sell to the public in the most conservative U.S. state.
Backing into World War III?
According to the doctrine of pre-emptive war, Iran can be attacked based on its alleged desire to develop nuclear weapons, just as Iraq was attacked in 2003. In fact, Congress is currently debating whether a nuclear capability alone (which Brazil, Japan, and other countries enjoy) could justify the 'preventive' attack. I believe it is time to negate this doctrine by postulating that Iran in fact has a right, as a sovereign nation, to a nuclear capability.
Having traveled to Iran recently, I can attest to the Joint Chiefs' General Dempsey's reference to Iran as a 'rational' actor. The Iranians have no interest in destroying America, or Israel, at the expense of one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world, dating back about 2600 years. Iran is currently surrounded by over 40 U.S. military installations, not counting Israel's still-unaccounted nuclear arsenal. To assert that Iran would jeopardize its culture for a one-shot nuclear attack is a complete miscalculation of the Iranian spirit; that spirit gave rise to a revolution in 1979 against what they perceived as Anglo-American imperialism in the form of the Shah, much as our own revolution opposed British imperialism.
I agree with General Dempsey that an attack on Iran would not only be imprudent, it would be 'destabilizing', and for more than just Iran. What is at stake is much larger than Iran's right to become a nuclear power; and based on the attitude of the political figures I spoke with in Iran, they understand this very well -- should Israel, with or without American support, attack Iran's nuclear or military infrastructure, it would be considered an act of war that may prompt World War III.
What I believe is currently being played out is an 'endgame' scenario, by failing West European and American economies, threatening to explode what has historically been referred to by British imperialists as the Heartland of Eurasia: stretching from the Horn of Africa (guarding the shipping lanes of the Gulf) to Afghanistan and Pakistan (in Russia and China's underbelly). The Russians know this 'Great Game' well, having played it with the British since at least the Crimean War of the mid-19th Century. So when Russia says it cannot accept the ongoing destruction of the Syrian government, or an attack on Iran, it is based on the understanding that such destabilization of this 'Heartland' could ignite war between Shia and Sunni Muslims across the region, even affecting the Muslim populations of southern Russia and western China.
Iran is currently accused by the West of being a rogue state involved in spreading amorphous terrorism abroad. In reality, Iran has seen the destruction of the sovereign states in Afghanistan and Iraq, on its borders; and now, the Obama Administration is calling for the downfall of Iran's ally, President Assad's secular Syrian regime. That country is quickly going the way of Lebanon in the 1980s, which could reignite sectarian violence from Lebanon to Iraq, and beyond. The chaos ensuing the overthrow of Assad will not only serve to radicalize the religious factions, as the Iraq war did after the fall of the secular Ba'ath Party, but such a strategy seems to have been predicted; retired General Wesley Clark reported in his 2003 book that the imperialist 'neo-con' faction within the U.S. Defense Department had plans for regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and Iran, dating back to before Sept. 11.
Having traveled to Iran recently, I can attest to the Joint Chiefs' General Dempsey's reference to Iran as a 'rational' actor. The Iranians have no interest in destroying America, or Israel, at the expense of one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world, dating back about 2600 years. Iran is currently surrounded by over 40 U.S. military installations, not counting Israel's still-unaccounted nuclear arsenal. To assert that Iran would jeopardize its culture for a one-shot nuclear attack is a complete miscalculation of the Iranian spirit; that spirit gave rise to a revolution in 1979 against what they perceived as Anglo-American imperialism in the form of the Shah, much as our own revolution opposed British imperialism.
I agree with General Dempsey that an attack on Iran would not only be imprudent, it would be 'destabilizing', and for more than just Iran. What is at stake is much larger than Iran's right to become a nuclear power; and based on the attitude of the political figures I spoke with in Iran, they understand this very well -- should Israel, with or without American support, attack Iran's nuclear or military infrastructure, it would be considered an act of war that may prompt World War III.
What I believe is currently being played out is an 'endgame' scenario, by failing West European and American economies, threatening to explode what has historically been referred to by British imperialists as the Heartland of Eurasia: stretching from the Horn of Africa (guarding the shipping lanes of the Gulf) to Afghanistan and Pakistan (in Russia and China's underbelly). The Russians know this 'Great Game' well, having played it with the British since at least the Crimean War of the mid-19th Century. So when Russia says it cannot accept the ongoing destruction of the Syrian government, or an attack on Iran, it is based on the understanding that such destabilization of this 'Heartland' could ignite war between Shia and Sunni Muslims across the region, even affecting the Muslim populations of southern Russia and western China.
Iran is currently accused by the West of being a rogue state involved in spreading amorphous terrorism abroad. In reality, Iran has seen the destruction of the sovereign states in Afghanistan and Iraq, on its borders; and now, the Obama Administration is calling for the downfall of Iran's ally, President Assad's secular Syrian regime. That country is quickly going the way of Lebanon in the 1980s, which could reignite sectarian violence from Lebanon to Iraq, and beyond. The chaos ensuing the overthrow of Assad will not only serve to radicalize the religious factions, as the Iraq war did after the fall of the secular Ba'ath Party, but such a strategy seems to have been predicted; retired General Wesley Clark reported in his 2003 book that the imperialist 'neo-con' faction within the U.S. Defense Department had plans for regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and Iran, dating back to before Sept. 11.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Philosopher Prince
To most Americans, the Prince of Wales is best known as a pop-culture icon and tabloid figure, a royal celebrity who married (and divorced) Diana Spencer, fathered Prince William, and gallivanted scandalously with Camilla Parker-Bowles, now his wife. What is less known, at least in this country, is that Prince Charles, 63, has spent much of his life, and indeed his fortune, supporting, sometimes provocatively, traditionalist ideals and causes.
The heir to one of the world’s oldest monarchies, a traditionalist? You don’t say. But Charles’s traditionalism is far from the stuffy, bland, institutional conservatism typical of a man of his rank. Charles, in fact, is a philosophical traditionalist, which is a rather more radical position to hold.
He is an anti-modernist to the marrow, which doesn’t always put him onside with the Conservative Party. Charles’s support for organic agriculture and other green causes, his sympathetic view of Islam, and his disdain for liberal economic thinking have earned him skepticism from some on the British right. (“Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?” the Tory libertarian writer James Delingpole once asked in print.) And some Tories fear that the prince’s unusually forceful advocacy endangers the most traditional British institution of all: the monarchy itself.
Others, though, see in Charles a visionary of the cultural right, one whose worldview is far broader, historically and otherwise, than those of his contemporaries on either side of the political spectrum. In this reading, Charles’s thinking is not determined by post-Enlightenment categories but rather draws on older ways of seeing and understanding that conservatives ought to recover. “All in all, the criticisms of Prince Charles from self-styled ‘Tories’ show just how little they understand about the philosophy they claim to represent,” says the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton.
Scruton’s observation highlights a fault line bisecting latter-day Anglo-American conservatism: the philosophical split between traditionalists and libertarians. In this way, what you think of the Prince of Wales reveals whether you think conservatism, to paraphrase the historian George H. Nash, is essentially about the rights of individuals to be what they want to be or the duties of individuals to be what they ought to be.
The heir to one of the world’s oldest monarchies, a traditionalist? You don’t say. But Charles’s traditionalism is far from the stuffy, bland, institutional conservatism typical of a man of his rank. Charles, in fact, is a philosophical traditionalist, which is a rather more radical position to hold.
He is an anti-modernist to the marrow, which doesn’t always put him onside with the Conservative Party. Charles’s support for organic agriculture and other green causes, his sympathetic view of Islam, and his disdain for liberal economic thinking have earned him skepticism from some on the British right. (“Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?” the Tory libertarian writer James Delingpole once asked in print.) And some Tories fear that the prince’s unusually forceful advocacy endangers the most traditional British institution of all: the monarchy itself.
Others, though, see in Charles a visionary of the cultural right, one whose worldview is far broader, historically and otherwise, than those of his contemporaries on either side of the political spectrum. In this reading, Charles’s thinking is not determined by post-Enlightenment categories but rather draws on older ways of seeing and understanding that conservatives ought to recover. “All in all, the criticisms of Prince Charles from self-styled ‘Tories’ show just how little they understand about the philosophy they claim to represent,” says the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton.
Scruton’s observation highlights a fault line bisecting latter-day Anglo-American conservatism: the philosophical split between traditionalists and libertarians. In this way, what you think of the Prince of Wales reveals whether you think conservatism, to paraphrase the historian George H. Nash, is essentially about the rights of individuals to be what they want to be or the duties of individuals to be what they ought to be.
On Syria: Can Americans’ luck hold? Probably not
For almost a year Syria has been the scene of an increasingly intense civil war between Bashir al-Asaad’s regime and an assortment of its opponents — Islamists, foreign mujahedin, democrats, secularists, etc. Thousands on both sides have been killed, though the paragons of pro-interventionist “truth” like the BBC and CNN still report the war as if the opposition has only bare chests to present against the regime’s weapons. The United Nations, once again, has arrived on the scene as the West’s anti-Muslim hit man to help destroy a regime it deemed to be a UN-member in good standing until Asaad began trying to maintain domestic order. All of this has occurred, and yet …
U.S. military forces have not overtly become involved in Syria and U.S. dollar expenditures there so far appear to be minimal, except for Secretary of State Clinton’s spending on the few score so-called democrats and secularists who are mixed in with the millions of Syrians opposing Asaad, and whatever costs were incurred by the embarrassing, half-mad U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford as he scurried around Syria championing Mrs. Clinton’s now consistent policy of spurring Arab youngsters to get out on the street and get shot down by their regime. Senior Democratic Party officials, of course, cannot see their way clear to defend genuine U.S. national interests — like avoiding war with Iran or winning in Afghanistan — but their taste for spilling the blood of innocents is unquenchable.
U.S. avoidance of direct involvement in Syria is a good example of how non-intervention can benefit America. A year on and thousands of dead Syrians buried and not one American has lost a job, had a house foreclosed, or incurred any other problem here at home. Americans have thus far not been hurt by the Syrian problem, largely because Washington has yet to find a way to fully interfere in the process of Syrian self-determination. And in truthful but callous terms, many thousands of additional Syrian casualties would affect U.S. interests at home a whit.
This is not, of course, to say, that many Americans are not upset, angry, and eager to intervene in Syria and spend tax dollars and the lives of other American parents’ soldier-children to dethrone Asaad. One empathizes with their hurt and outraged feelings, and I for one hope they are principled enough to match words with deeds, quit their jobs and country, buy AK-47s, and go and fight alongside the Syrian “democrats” they so admire. To start the ball rolling, I am willing to donate enough money to buy AK-47s for Mrs. Clinton, Ambassador Ford, and Ambassador Susan Rice.
How long will America’s luck hold? Sadly, probably not much longer. Both parties are dedicated to relentless interventionism, and the calls for the U.S. to “do something” in Syria are steadily increasing among politicians and the media. This past weekend, for example, FOX allowed Charles Krauthammer and Senator John McCain to propagandize the network’s viewers in favor of U.S. intervention. Mr. Krauthammer earnestly called for Washington to arm the Syrian opposition as President Reagan armed the Afghan and Angolan insurgents, and Senator McCain demanded that the might of the U.S. military be used to stop “the massacres” in Syria. If this is not done, McCain added, it would mean that the $700 billion spent each year on U.S. defense capabilities would have been wasted.
U.S. military forces have not overtly become involved in Syria and U.S. dollar expenditures there so far appear to be minimal, except for Secretary of State Clinton’s spending on the few score so-called democrats and secularists who are mixed in with the millions of Syrians opposing Asaad, and whatever costs were incurred by the embarrassing, half-mad U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford as he scurried around Syria championing Mrs. Clinton’s now consistent policy of spurring Arab youngsters to get out on the street and get shot down by their regime. Senior Democratic Party officials, of course, cannot see their way clear to defend genuine U.S. national interests — like avoiding war with Iran or winning in Afghanistan — but their taste for spilling the blood of innocents is unquenchable.
U.S. avoidance of direct involvement in Syria is a good example of how non-intervention can benefit America. A year on and thousands of dead Syrians buried and not one American has lost a job, had a house foreclosed, or incurred any other problem here at home. Americans have thus far not been hurt by the Syrian problem, largely because Washington has yet to find a way to fully interfere in the process of Syrian self-determination. And in truthful but callous terms, many thousands of additional Syrian casualties would affect U.S. interests at home a whit.
This is not, of course, to say, that many Americans are not upset, angry, and eager to intervene in Syria and spend tax dollars and the lives of other American parents’ soldier-children to dethrone Asaad. One empathizes with their hurt and outraged feelings, and I for one hope they are principled enough to match words with deeds, quit their jobs and country, buy AK-47s, and go and fight alongside the Syrian “democrats” they so admire. To start the ball rolling, I am willing to donate enough money to buy AK-47s for Mrs. Clinton, Ambassador Ford, and Ambassador Susan Rice.
How long will America’s luck hold? Sadly, probably not much longer. Both parties are dedicated to relentless interventionism, and the calls for the U.S. to “do something” in Syria are steadily increasing among politicians and the media. This past weekend, for example, FOX allowed Charles Krauthammer and Senator John McCain to propagandize the network’s viewers in favor of U.S. intervention. Mr. Krauthammer earnestly called for Washington to arm the Syrian opposition as President Reagan armed the Afghan and Angolan insurgents, and Senator McCain demanded that the might of the U.S. military be used to stop “the massacres” in Syria. If this is not done, McCain added, it would mean that the $700 billion spent each year on U.S. defense capabilities would have been wasted.
WAR PROPAGANDA: Staged Media Reporting from Syria: Fabricating the News
Even the best laid plans of mice and men turn sour sometimes. This is never more true than in the cointelro corporate mainstream media sphere.
Dayem was caught conducting what appears to be staged media reports from Syria. Although the seasoned spin doctor Cooper is able to coolly direct their conversation, Syrian Danny cannot hide the obvious panic which had already set in as a result of being exposed as a stage actor manufacturing news in his alleged home country. The video below shows CNN’s point man Anderson Cooper conducting damage control with the mainstream media’s public face of the Syrian opposition, Danny Dayem who can be seen pleading on air, “Why would we have to manipulate anything?”.
Even amongst the externally engineered violence taking place within their own borders, Syrians turned out in droves to vote in favor of their own new constitutional reforms, boasting voting numbers that dwarf western democratic turn-outs in countries like the US and Great Britain. Still, the western voices led by Hillary Clinton in Washington and William Hague in Britain are relentlessly clamouring for a violent overthrow of President Assad’s ruling secular government.
One of Danny’s main jobs for CNN seems to be helping to inflate the death toll of alleged peaceful protesters in the city of Homs. Western proponents of regime change are looking for that irrefutable, magic casualty announcement of “10,000 innocents dead from Assad government crack-downs”. This number of 10,000 will be used by the UN security council’s new humanitarian bully pulpit, accompanied by the ever popular strap line “genocide” – all designed to ram through a resolution or international ‘no fly zone’ in Syria.
Danny is clearly playing both sides of the fence – not quite the activist and all the while appearing to be playing the reluctant journalist hack for CNN. Critics of Syrian Danny are currently split between those who think he is merely a naive ‘useful idiot’, and those who believe he is a British intelligence operative of Syrian descent who was planted in Syria in order to give the sell the existence of a bonafide Syrian opposition – something the Western axis powers and its media outlets have had considerable difficulty doing since the Syrian uprising began in 2011. Judging by the level of obvious panic and confusion Danny displayed in his last CNN in studio interview with Anderson Cooper, one might guess that he is not a seasoned operative, rather a young, naive opportunist who volunteered to become a western media tool to further some personal or political ambition. Danny Dayem is simply playing his role in Syrian Spring fable, helping to sway western public opinion towards regime change in Damascus.
Dayem was caught conducting what appears to be staged media reports from Syria. Although the seasoned spin doctor Cooper is able to coolly direct their conversation, Syrian Danny cannot hide the obvious panic which had already set in as a result of being exposed as a stage actor manufacturing news in his alleged home country. The video below shows CNN’s point man Anderson Cooper conducting damage control with the mainstream media’s public face of the Syrian opposition, Danny Dayem who can be seen pleading on air, “Why would we have to manipulate anything?”.
Even amongst the externally engineered violence taking place within their own borders, Syrians turned out in droves to vote in favor of their own new constitutional reforms, boasting voting numbers that dwarf western democratic turn-outs in countries like the US and Great Britain. Still, the western voices led by Hillary Clinton in Washington and William Hague in Britain are relentlessly clamouring for a violent overthrow of President Assad’s ruling secular government.
One of Danny’s main jobs for CNN seems to be helping to inflate the death toll of alleged peaceful protesters in the city of Homs. Western proponents of regime change are looking for that irrefutable, magic casualty announcement of “10,000 innocents dead from Assad government crack-downs”. This number of 10,000 will be used by the UN security council’s new humanitarian bully pulpit, accompanied by the ever popular strap line “genocide” – all designed to ram through a resolution or international ‘no fly zone’ in Syria.
Danny is clearly playing both sides of the fence – not quite the activist and all the while appearing to be playing the reluctant journalist hack for CNN. Critics of Syrian Danny are currently split between those who think he is merely a naive ‘useful idiot’, and those who believe he is a British intelligence operative of Syrian descent who was planted in Syria in order to give the sell the existence of a bonafide Syrian opposition – something the Western axis powers and its media outlets have had considerable difficulty doing since the Syrian uprising began in 2011. Judging by the level of obvious panic and confusion Danny displayed in his last CNN in studio interview with Anderson Cooper, one might guess that he is not a seasoned operative, rather a young, naive opportunist who volunteered to become a western media tool to further some personal or political ambition. Danny Dayem is simply playing his role in Syrian Spring fable, helping to sway western public opinion towards regime change in Damascus.
Monday, March 12, 2012
PsyWarfare: "The Battle for the Mind"
Boneau defines Psychological Warfare (PsyWar) as a number of actions ranging from radio propaganda to torture, that require comprehensive information on targeted populations. In a document written in 1948, American ground forces defined “psychological warfare” as follows:
“It is based on moral and physical means different from those upon which orthodox military techniques are based on. Its purpose is: (a) To destroy the will and the fighting spirit of the enemy and avoid its allies’ support and, (b) To encourage our troops and our allies’ will of being victorious.”
PsyWar uses every possible weapon and tool to influence and impact the will of the enemy. Such “weapons” are labelled “psychological” because of their effect and not because of their own nature. This is the reason why, open propaganda (“white”), secret (“black”) or “grey” propaganda – subversion, sabotage, murders, special operations, guerrilla, espionage, political, economic and racial and ethnic pressures – are all considered useful PsyWar weapons.
To implement such programs, the intelligence services recruited specialists on behavioural sciences capable of inventing the “simple, clear and repetitive” white propaganda and black propaganda aimed at provoking “disorder, confusion and... terror” within the enemy forces.
We thus begin to fathom that the so-called “Arab Spring” of today did not just suddenly and spontaneously explode in 2011, but was rather hatched from an “egg” laid decades ago and brooded by the secret intelligence agencies.
“It is based on moral and physical means different from those upon which orthodox military techniques are based on. Its purpose is: (a) To destroy the will and the fighting spirit of the enemy and avoid its allies’ support and, (b) To encourage our troops and our allies’ will of being victorious.”
PsyWar uses every possible weapon and tool to influence and impact the will of the enemy. Such “weapons” are labelled “psychological” because of their effect and not because of their own nature. This is the reason why, open propaganda (“white”), secret (“black”) or “grey” propaganda – subversion, sabotage, murders, special operations, guerrilla, espionage, political, economic and racial and ethnic pressures – are all considered useful PsyWar weapons.
To implement such programs, the intelligence services recruited specialists on behavioural sciences capable of inventing the “simple, clear and repetitive” white propaganda and black propaganda aimed at provoking “disorder, confusion and... terror” within the enemy forces.
We thus begin to fathom that the so-called “Arab Spring” of today did not just suddenly and spontaneously explode in 2011, but was rather hatched from an “egg” laid decades ago and brooded by the secret intelligence agencies.
Who Are the ‘Terrorists’?
In the early morning hours of March 11, a US soldier assigned to “special ops” in Afghanistan, stationed near Kandahar, went into a local village and gunned down 16 people – including nine women and three children. At least three others were wounded. He went from house to house, in the predawn darkness, systematically murdering people while they slept in their beds: he then doused them with a flammable liquid and set them ablaze.
What is it about American troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan? From Abu Ghraib [.pdf] to the Mahmudiyah killings to the Hamdania murder of a crippled old man to the horrors of the Haditha massacre, it’s been one atrocity after another (see here, here, and here). More recently it was the “rogue” team of killers that murdered Afghan civilians in the Maywand district for sport. Then it was US troops urinating on corpses, followed shortly afterward by the Koran-burning incident, the second such example of American contempt for the people they are supposed to be “liberating.” Now we have this, which – we’re told – is the result of a US soldier having a “breakdown.”
Was it a breakdown, or merely the logical extension of the soldier’s training and inclination, that caused him to go on a murderous rampage? That hardly a month goes by without some kind of atrocity being committed should tell us something.
What it tells me is that America is a depraved nation, a country where the very worst-of-the-worst flock to join the military, free to kill and maim and rape to their heart’s content.
And Rachel Maddow wants to give these guys a “welcome home” “victory” parade?
What is it about American troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan? From Abu Ghraib [.pdf] to the Mahmudiyah killings to the Hamdania murder of a crippled old man to the horrors of the Haditha massacre, it’s been one atrocity after another (see here, here, and here). More recently it was the “rogue” team of killers that murdered Afghan civilians in the Maywand district for sport. Then it was US troops urinating on corpses, followed shortly afterward by the Koran-burning incident, the second such example of American contempt for the people they are supposed to be “liberating.” Now we have this, which – we’re told – is the result of a US soldier having a “breakdown.”
Was it a breakdown, or merely the logical extension of the soldier’s training and inclination, that caused him to go on a murderous rampage? That hardly a month goes by without some kind of atrocity being committed should tell us something.
What it tells me is that America is a depraved nation, a country where the very worst-of-the-worst flock to join the military, free to kill and maim and rape to their heart’s content.
And Rachel Maddow wants to give these guys a “welcome home” “victory” parade?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)