The current chatter and accusations regarding Iran by the war cabal in Washington are prime examples of the Straussian interpretation of what Plato called the noble lie. The difference between Strauss and Plato's versions of this tactic is that Plato's noble lie was ficticious in details but at the core had a profound truth, whereas Strauss takes this to the nth degree and believes that society of deception is the odd justice of the wise. Justice, Strauss also thought, was only a product of the stronger labeling what was in their best interests as such.
Plato and Strauss were both proponents of the rule of the wise, however Plato came to the conclusion that this ultimately was not attainable. He then arrived at rule of law as the best alternative. The rule of law is imperative to the idea of American Democracy. Strauss did not follow Plato's logic to the rule of law conclusion, and instead postulated that a covert rule of the wise was not only the ideal but also attainable. This is the arrogant philosophy of the Bush Administration. The term Bush adminstration may be misleading since I somehow doubt Bush himself has read much Strauss, Neitzche, et. al. But people like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Murdoch, in all liklihood, have. Their belief that they are the "wise" is borne of nothing more than their belief that they hold what Neitzche called the will to power, certainly not that they are truly wise.
Another tenent they hold is that there are three types of men, the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar many. The wise, who are concerned with the ugly and untainted truth, use the Noble Lie to decieve the gentlemen who will faithfully execute the neccessary actions to achieve the goal of the lie. These persons genuinely believe the lie whereas the "wise" are not only aware of the lie, but are the ones who create it. The lie also serves the second purpose of placating the vulgar many, many of which do not share the desire to know the unadulterated truth. Personally I agree with Patrick Henry when he said: "It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth … For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." Unfortunately it seems Americans are not of that mind.
Irving Kristol, another member of the Strauss camp and the father of neo-conservatism said:"patriotism springs from love of the nation's past; nationalism arises out of hope for the nation's future, distinctive greatness…. Neoconservatives believe… that the goals of American foreign policy must go well beyond a narrow, too literal definition of 'national security'. It is the national interest of a world power, as this is defined by a sense of national destiny … not a myopic national security." Sounds a bit like manifest destiny, which in the rearview mirror of history, was a deplorable policy. The "American foreign policy" referred to by Kristol above is likewise deplorabe. Getting the masses to go along with this foreign policy is where this "noble" lie come into play. This is neccessary because what the so-called wise percieve to be the best interest may or may not actually be so. In addition the means to this supposedly best end may not be justifiable in the minds of the many.
One of the many fallacious assumptions of the Noble Lie is that the target audience would ideally be full of people who are at the best not very independently minded. This is flagrantly false, many individuals are capable of critical thought. When these types of individuals discover they have been decieved they may then distrust any other information from the same source in addition to likley having a negative emotional response to having been treated as if the source considered them idiots. There are a few mechanisms through which the Leo-cons attempt to circumvent these logical pitfalls.
The first of which is known as "poisoning the well," ( a form of argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy that will be explained later) which is basically leaking false information to the press or public that the independent thinkers are likely to initially support, only to be proven false. Example: Donald Rumsfeld's statement that a missile hit the Pentagon on September 11th.
The second method used, like the first, is not new. The Third Reich was well versed in the "Grand Lie." A concept that purports that if a lie is big enough many people will believe it simply because they themselves do not have the audacity to tell a lie that effects events on that grand of a scale and can't concieve of anyone else doing so.
What the Leo-cons believe, as evidenced by Brzenski in American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, is that regime change in several key regions of the mid-east is neccessary to secure the flow of energy resources to the west and away from China and Russia, to clip their political and economic wings before they become legitimate threats to American Supremacy. Brzenski, however, has recently heavily criticised the current administration and warns that war with Iran would be a huge mistake. The accusations against high ranking Iranian officials, particularly Ahamedinijad are suspicously similar to those laid out against Iraq and Saddam, and the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan before that. In any legitimate court of law here these arguments would be quickly dismissed as arguments ad hominem and post hoc (ergo prompter hoc), in addition to being purely circumstancial. This explains why Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc, have never been indicted in U.S. courts.
So today we are faced with yet another flimsy accusation against the Iranians with a newly discovered cache of weapons in Iraq, supposedly of Iranian origin. Also Vice President Cheney was attacked while at a meeting with with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the former UNOCAL (oil consortium with a contract to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, which conveinently also borders Iran) consultant. Iran is a largely shi'ia nation, many of the "insurgents" in Iraq are of the same Islamic doctrine. It would be strange if these followers of the same religious traditions were not in league with each other. This by no means would require the involvement of high level officials in the Iranian government, as the proponents of regime change in Iran would have you believe.
Covert weapons sales often occur without the knowledge of the highest ranking officials to retain plausible deniability and avoid larger wars. Take the Iran-Contra incident that took place under the Reagan Administration. Military and CIA operatives and assets sold U.S. Military equipment to Iran to raise money to fund a terrorist organization in Nicaragua known as the Contras because they were fighting the elected Communist officials. It was exposed when a U.S. military plane carrying supplies to the Contras was shot down by the Nicaraugan military and one of the occupants on board parachuted to safety. Notably he was disobeying orders by carrying a parachute on that flight. Reagan knew nothing of this, and stated it was untrue in a public address. The evidence then came to light and Reagan denounced it when he found out. Oliver North was mostly to blame and suffered most of the fallout, and even convicted. He now has a show on Fox (Faux) News.
The problem now is that the Defense Contractors, Oil Service Companies, and the Israeli lobby, wield enormous power in the highest echelons of our government, and they want a larger war. Let us not forget the words of Nazi Gestapo founder Hermann Wilhelm Göring at War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg:
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
So how can we spot these "Noble" Lies? Well, for starters words and phrases like "policy," "position," "we do not currently have information on," "the federal government requires that we state," and "some people say," the Faux News people are particularly fond of the latter. Now that Wolfowitz and company have already admitted that the real motivation for the Iraq war lies more in furthering American hegemony in the Mid-East and the securing of the oil and natural gas reserves in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea, the largest untapped reserves of those fuels in the world, why would their motivations for the coming war with Iran be any different?
Iran is currently capable of greatly reducing oil flow to the west, even completely stopping it for short periods. We are unwanted in the region and have done nothing there but promote regional instability. Iran is well aware that they cannot take the U.S. in an all out war, but they can hurt us where it really hurts the Leo-cons, in the pocket book by shutting off the petroleum we are so horribly addicted to in this country. The propoganda ministry for the current administration is gearing up to put the hard sell on the American public that Iran now poses an immenent threat to this nation.
Do not believe this "noble" lie. We are being treated as fools and the more we realize the more we become very, very pissed off. While the Platonic Noble Lie can serve an important purpose in a utilitarian sense, the Straussian notion of the Noble Lie has the intent of creating a culture of deception, which would be a regretable state of affairs.
The neo-conservatives in Washington are excellent at fear mongering. Fear is the Greatest Ally of Tyranny. Be careful what you believe
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2007
The War is Going Great
The successes of the Iraq war have been largely overlooked. What?! Success? Yes, the war has been quite successful, for Houston.
Since the Iraq invasion of 2003, the price of oil, and therefore the gas we all buy at the pump has been increasing and setting new record highs. With the price of crude rising, it would stand to reason that the fuel companies, as well as consumers, would feel this price spike. However, this is simply not true at all. While the average American has been paying more and more at the pump, the net profits of the oil companies have soared to unprecedented levels. Not just unprecedented levels for oil companies, but for any corporation. The third highest recorded quarterly profit for any U.S. based corporation was posted by Exxon-Mobil during the second quarter of 2006 at a staggering $10,360,000,000. The highest quarterly profit ever, $10.7 billion, was recorded by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2005. The 2nd & 4th highest quarterly profits are also Exxon, at 10.5 billion in the 3rd quarter of 2006, and 9.9 billion in the third quarter of 2005. Exxon also holds the top three spots for highest yearly profits ever, all after the start of the Iraq war, $39.5 billion in 2006, $36.1 billion in 2005, and $25.3 billion in 2004. Its not all Exxon though, the reserve value of the 5 largest oil companies has doubled during the war to a mind boggling $2.36 trillion. The profits of these companies since the beginning of the war has also blasted somewhere up into the stratosphere, its broken up like this:
Rank Gas Company Profit
1 Exxon $101,730,000,000
2 Shell $62,771,000,000
3 BP $70,349,000,000
4 Total S.A. $44,770,000,000
5 Chevron $42,999,000,000
In March of 2002 the average price of a gallon of unleaded fuel was about $1.20. Just days after the invasion, in March of 2003, the average price was already at $1.72, at the time that was less than one cent below the all time high. The trend of record setting prices, and profits, has continued ever since. While this puts a serious dent in the pocketbooks of most Americans, it is fattening the wallets of a few. Today gas is about 6 cents more expensive than it was a year ago, and about 60 cents higher than it was 6 months ago, most likely due to the election cycle we were experiencing at the time. The Washington-Houston cartel has now has an uncontested deathgrip on the paychecks of most Americans. The federal government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on the war in Iraq, which is the key factor in the ever-rising oil costs.
We were originally told that oil was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq, as the State Department's Iraq study group stated "does not have oil on its list of issues." This has become more and more difficult to believe, if you choose to try, as more information surfaces.
Firstly there was W's statement to the Iraqi people upon the commencement of military action in their country, "I want to talk to the Iraqi people.... Do not destroy oil wells." That is pretty cut & dry.
Then there is Condi's secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. To quote journalist Greg Palast: "It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne." But I digress... This was clearly an attempt to make Iraq a subjugated member of OPEC, thereby raising prices and revenue for the Houston crowd, through decreased production.
So, as it turns out, we weren't fraudulently led into a war to get Iraq's oil, but to limit Iraq's oil production. Before the war Iraq's oil production was around 4 million barrels a day, since the war, its held steady at around 2.1 million barrels per day. Everyone knows what happens to price when supply is cut by half.
Notably, Fadhil did not take the job as Oil Minister, however Ahmed Chalabi did. A convicted embezzler and neo-con "go-to guy," has quite the resume. From fleeing Jordan after a banking scandal in the 80s to organizing a failed kurdish resistance in the 90s and fleeing Iraq, then becoming a lobbyist for the Iraqi National Congress and recieving $97 mil, and allegedly misappropriating a significant amount thereof, and later being very involved in passing the fraudulent intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq, he was just the type of shady character the neo-cons were looking for. He has also been investigated in Iraq for fraud involving the exchange of Iraqi currency, grand theft of both national and private assets, and many other criminal charges, as well as being accused of passing sensitive U.S. information to Iran. Needless to say, he is not very well regarded in Iraq, or by Iraqis. It was only after all this that he was appointed as acting Oil Minister. When the permanent Oil Minister protested IMF austerity, Chalabi was reappointed. More on the IMF at a later date...
By appointing a Houston-friendly Oil Minister the Washington-Houston thugs were able to implement the State & Defense Department's plan titled "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." You may be wondering what our gov't is doing writing up plans for another nation's oil, but don't worry, it wasn't written by government officials. The 323 page document was revealed (in 2005 by BBC NewsNight)to have been written by oil company executives and consultants in Houston well before "Mission Accomplished" was declared in grand fashion.
Shop Citgo.
Author's Note: These figures are from April of this year but the amounts have only increased.
Since the Iraq invasion of 2003, the price of oil, and therefore the gas we all buy at the pump has been increasing and setting new record highs. With the price of crude rising, it would stand to reason that the fuel companies, as well as consumers, would feel this price spike. However, this is simply not true at all. While the average American has been paying more and more at the pump, the net profits of the oil companies have soared to unprecedented levels. Not just unprecedented levels for oil companies, but for any corporation. The third highest recorded quarterly profit for any U.S. based corporation was posted by Exxon-Mobil during the second quarter of 2006 at a staggering $10,360,000,000. The highest quarterly profit ever, $10.7 billion, was recorded by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2005. The 2nd & 4th highest quarterly profits are also Exxon, at 10.5 billion in the 3rd quarter of 2006, and 9.9 billion in the third quarter of 2005. Exxon also holds the top three spots for highest yearly profits ever, all after the start of the Iraq war, $39.5 billion in 2006, $36.1 billion in 2005, and $25.3 billion in 2004. Its not all Exxon though, the reserve value of the 5 largest oil companies has doubled during the war to a mind boggling $2.36 trillion. The profits of these companies since the beginning of the war has also blasted somewhere up into the stratosphere, its broken up like this:
Rank Gas Company Profit
1 Exxon $101,730,000,000
2 Shell $62,771,000,000
3 BP $70,349,000,000
4 Total S.A. $44,770,000,000
5 Chevron $42,999,000,000
In March of 2002 the average price of a gallon of unleaded fuel was about $1.20. Just days after the invasion, in March of 2003, the average price was already at $1.72, at the time that was less than one cent below the all time high. The trend of record setting prices, and profits, has continued ever since. While this puts a serious dent in the pocketbooks of most Americans, it is fattening the wallets of a few. Today gas is about 6 cents more expensive than it was a year ago, and about 60 cents higher than it was 6 months ago, most likely due to the election cycle we were experiencing at the time. The Washington-Houston cartel has now has an uncontested deathgrip on the paychecks of most Americans. The federal government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on the war in Iraq, which is the key factor in the ever-rising oil costs.
We were originally told that oil was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq, as the State Department's Iraq study group stated "does not have oil on its list of issues." This has become more and more difficult to believe, if you choose to try, as more information surfaces.
Firstly there was W's statement to the Iraqi people upon the commencement of military action in their country, "I want to talk to the Iraqi people.... Do not destroy oil wells." That is pretty cut & dry.
Then there is Condi's secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. To quote journalist Greg Palast: "It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne." But I digress... This was clearly an attempt to make Iraq a subjugated member of OPEC, thereby raising prices and revenue for the Houston crowd, through decreased production.
So, as it turns out, we weren't fraudulently led into a war to get Iraq's oil, but to limit Iraq's oil production. Before the war Iraq's oil production was around 4 million barrels a day, since the war, its held steady at around 2.1 million barrels per day. Everyone knows what happens to price when supply is cut by half.
Notably, Fadhil did not take the job as Oil Minister, however Ahmed Chalabi did. A convicted embezzler and neo-con "go-to guy," has quite the resume. From fleeing Jordan after a banking scandal in the 80s to organizing a failed kurdish resistance in the 90s and fleeing Iraq, then becoming a lobbyist for the Iraqi National Congress and recieving $97 mil, and allegedly misappropriating a significant amount thereof, and later being very involved in passing the fraudulent intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq, he was just the type of shady character the neo-cons were looking for. He has also been investigated in Iraq for fraud involving the exchange of Iraqi currency, grand theft of both national and private assets, and many other criminal charges, as well as being accused of passing sensitive U.S. information to Iran. Needless to say, he is not very well regarded in Iraq, or by Iraqis. It was only after all this that he was appointed as acting Oil Minister. When the permanent Oil Minister protested IMF austerity, Chalabi was reappointed. More on the IMF at a later date...
By appointing a Houston-friendly Oil Minister the Washington-Houston thugs were able to implement the State & Defense Department's plan titled "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." You may be wondering what our gov't is doing writing up plans for another nation's oil, but don't worry, it wasn't written by government officials. The 323 page document was revealed (in 2005 by BBC NewsNight)to have been written by oil company executives and consultants in Houston well before "Mission Accomplished" was declared in grand fashion.
Shop Citgo.
Author's Note: These figures are from April of this year but the amounts have only increased.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Hillary said what?!
A lot of people who are fairly progressive are in support of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. I fear many of her supporters are unaware of some of her more radical positions. In some respects she seems to embody some of the neoconservative foreign policies. Here is an interesting quote from an interview from the Jewish Press in October of 2006.
Sen. Clinton: First, I don't think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake.
If we were going to push for an election, we should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win instead of signing off on an electoral system that advantaged Hamas.
So is all about democracy as long as we support who wins, right? This type of nation building is not what America needs to restore its credibility in the rest of the world.
And from the same interview:
In this new type of war, we have several big tasks ahead of us. First, we must do everything possible to prevent any of them – Iran, Al Qaeda and the like – from getting nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction. That's the ballgame.
This "by any means necessary" attitude is also harmful to diplomacy and peaceful solutions.
Then earlier this month she refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against "terrorists," such as Osama Bin Ladin and others in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but i imagine this group also includes Iran.
What a great way to discourage other countries from developing nukes, using them for intimidation when dealing with other countries. Sorry, only the U.S. can use this as leverage in diplomacy, no one else...
And as for the bogus "War on Terror" (War of Error, War of Terror, etc) she disagrees with John Edwards' contention that the war on terror is simply a political slogan and said in the June 2007 Democratic debate that she believes Americans are now "safer than we were."
I couldn't disagree more (as does the Senate Intelligence Report). Does anyone really think the War on Terror will be any more effective than the War on Drugs? If anything its easier to stop a boat full of cocaine from entering the country than to prevent a fanatic from blowing up himself and some others anywhere in the world. Read the docket from almost any court in the country and you'll most likely see at least one person, usually more, there for possession of some type of cocaine. Interesting side note, the war in afghanistan has resulted in the 95% cut in opium production under the Taliban to a whopping 1500% increase. In 2006 Afghanistan broke its own world record for opium production... but i digress.
Then there is also the refusal of Clinton Library archivists to provide documents regarding Hillary's time as first lady, more than 1,000 pages of which relate to healthcare. Has executive privilege been expanded to the First Lady? I suppose if she were to claim to not have been part of the executive branch, it would be more believable than Cheney's similar claim.
Suffice it to say I won't be supporting Hillary, and I think electing her would further our country's twisted amalgamation of McCarthyism, Eckbom Syndrome and Munchausen by proxy disorder in our foreign policy.
Sen. Clinton: First, I don't think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake.
If we were going to push for an election, we should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win instead of signing off on an electoral system that advantaged Hamas.
So is all about democracy as long as we support who wins, right? This type of nation building is not what America needs to restore its credibility in the rest of the world.
And from the same interview:
In this new type of war, we have several big tasks ahead of us. First, we must do everything possible to prevent any of them – Iran, Al Qaeda and the like – from getting nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction. That's the ballgame.
This "by any means necessary" attitude is also harmful to diplomacy and peaceful solutions.
Then earlier this month she refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against "terrorists," such as Osama Bin Ladin and others in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but i imagine this group also includes Iran.
What a great way to discourage other countries from developing nukes, using them for intimidation when dealing with other countries. Sorry, only the U.S. can use this as leverage in diplomacy, no one else...
And as for the bogus "War on Terror" (War of Error, War of Terror, etc) she disagrees with John Edwards' contention that the war on terror is simply a political slogan and said in the June 2007 Democratic debate that she believes Americans are now "safer than we were."
I couldn't disagree more (as does the Senate Intelligence Report). Does anyone really think the War on Terror will be any more effective than the War on Drugs? If anything its easier to stop a boat full of cocaine from entering the country than to prevent a fanatic from blowing up himself and some others anywhere in the world. Read the docket from almost any court in the country and you'll most likely see at least one person, usually more, there for possession of some type of cocaine. Interesting side note, the war in afghanistan has resulted in the 95% cut in opium production under the Taliban to a whopping 1500% increase. In 2006 Afghanistan broke its own world record for opium production... but i digress.
Then there is also the refusal of Clinton Library archivists to provide documents regarding Hillary's time as first lady, more than 1,000 pages of which relate to healthcare. Has executive privilege been expanded to the First Lady? I suppose if she were to claim to not have been part of the executive branch, it would be more believable than Cheney's similar claim.
Suffice it to say I won't be supporting Hillary, and I think electing her would further our country's twisted amalgamation of McCarthyism, Eckbom Syndrome and Munchausen by proxy disorder in our foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
