.. sheople® vs. 'leaders' ...
.. pragmatism: clever or corrupt?
-=*=-
Q (serious): Is GWBush a) part of the problem, b) a major part of the problem, c) almost the entire problem (me: no), or d) not much more than a cruel, supremely cynical joke on the sheople/voters?
Q (even more serious): Professor Julius Sumner Miller used to ask: "Why is it so?" I could extend this by adding "Does it have to be like this?" - and finally "Is it wrong?" (me: yes, but if it were not, Q: is there something wrong with me? A: no, therefore ...)
The problem/situation:
a) We live in a supposed democracy, but (1) the voters (sheople) are dumbed-down, partly by their own efforts - and/or lack thereof, (2) the candidates (Lab/Lib, Dummo/Repugs) are as good as clones who offer no real choice and worse - they do not properly represent the voters, rather they favour 'the big end of town,' and (3) the whole show is dominated by a venal MSM; we are deliberately misinformed (i.e. lied to), when not being outright propagandised.
b) The so-called capitalist system works largely to the disadvantage of all except those few who directly profit (the capitalists, investors and *management*); rather than a 'fair price,' they charge 'what the market will bear' - but worse, they 'fiddle' the system with oligopolies, monopolies, "Economic Hit Man" shenanigans including IMF scams and swindles and outright rip-offs, as an example of the last see the obscene 'resource-rents' in the mining-type sectors.
c) The epitome of both (a) and (b) is the US, the so-called leader of the 'free world' (or alternatively 'the West'), but just about the only way they lead is down and into criminality. The prime example of this criminality is the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq, which has now been morphed into a brutal occupation: murder for oil. The US is not alone, it has a poisoned appendix (Israel), a minor associate (UK) and a sycophantic hanger-on (Aus); all together the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag.
-=*=-
Recall my questions: is the above situation a problem (me: obviously), can we pin this problem on specific personalities (me: not so obviously), then finally, can anything be done and if so what? To answer the last: get rid of all the immoralities; no more lies, cheating, theft and murder. Far easier said than done, I know.
Once one realises that we are being lied to, actually being propagandised to 'enable' crimes to be committed (see my from A-bombs to Iraq (then on to Iran?), then one may see the world in an entirely different - and far darker - light.
My current fascination in this respect is the anthrax/bentonite psyop which was perpetrated in the US almost immediately after 9/11 in 2001; a story recently revived by Glenn Greenwald starting here (long story). Several letters containing powdered anthrax spores were received, notably by two Democrat Senator's offices and some other places including some more or less noteworthy MSM reporter's office, the net result being "Five people died, more than a dozen were sickened." It was quickly reported in the MSM that the anthrax was a) 'highly weaponized' and then b) for a period of five looong days, it was reported by the ABC(US), that the anthrax contained bentonite - pointing directly at Saddam/Iraq. At the same time as the ABC(US) bentonite reports, the WH was denying any presence of bentonite. (This is extremely odd, because the WH was otherwise actively seeking any possible reason to go after Saddam/Iraq.) It was later reported that the anthrax had been sourced in the US, and was identical to a batch held in Ft. Detrick - except that the letter-anthrax had been turned into a 'highly weaponized' powder, whereas the Ft. Detrick stock is in liquid form. This is significant because the FBI is now trying to pin the letter-sending on a 2nd Ft. Detrick employee (since suicided), the 1st 'suspect' having successfully sued the FBI for $5mio for 5 years' worth of false accusations. 'Evidence' released by the FBI recently is little more than fervid imaginings; nothing much 'better' than low-level circumstantial.
Note: Someone knows who put up the fake bentonite story; three then four "well-placed," "current and former government scientists" fed the ABC(US) the bentonite bumf - according to ABC(US). It (the psyop) could have been a, if not the key factor in swinging 'public opinion' behind the war; an emotional ground-swell: "Yeah. Let's get the bastard." As such, the ABC(US) played a critical role in a vile, vicious mass-murdering war crime.
I term it a psyop because it fits the definition[5]. There are 'better' sources for 'highly weaponized' anthrax, specifically where the US regime gets such stuff prepared[6]. IMHO, it is *highly unlikely* to have been carried out by any lone disgruntled vaccine worker, far more likely would be some sort'a team of psyop/black-op 'professionals.' It was just too slick - and deadly. One has to ask cui bono, and the answer is only the 'pro Iraq-War Party.' As for pinning the problem on any particular personalities - like GWBush, Cheney, the neoCon cabal - forget it. Could be rogue-CIA or some-such, though. That the ABC(US) 'played along' is far more likely than them having being 'played;' here more likely erring ideologue 'patriots' (aka knowingly criminal) at work, rather than blissfully ignorant incompetents - you get the drift from the sleazy way they've answered (or not) the challenges to their integrity.
*Someone* in the US consciously set out to misuse a deadly attack on US citizens to propagandise for war on Iraq, based on the deliberate bentonite lie. The attack letters themselves were as if from some enemy of the US (and Israel), the composite effect was as above: "Yeah. Let's get that Saddam bastard."
When we talk about erring ideologues, we see the same sort'a behaviour in those who have 'drunk the administration Kool-Aid,' and/or swallowed the Islamo-fascism/caliphate fantasy, and/or the Greater Israel/Zionism fantasy, and/or the main US fantasy, the hideous 'land of the free, home of the brave' jingoistic rubbish.
-=*=-
Fazit: our once jewel-like planet, with its delicately balanced ecosphere, is burning up as it's filling up; we are over-stressing it on the input side (resources, food & water) and on the output side (pollution, greenhouse gasses; CO2). We have neither the time nor the manoeuvring room left to do anything much more than feed our growing multitudes whilst desperately trying to save the planet. The US regime, leading warmonger and war criminal, is 'leading' the world astray as it rapes the planet for resources. Gotta be stopped, deflected, put on the right track. Away with lying, cheating, theft and murder: we all have to help each other now, rather than 'tolerating' outrageous thieves ripping ever more off on behalf of a few already obscenely rich fat-cat élite-types.
-=*end*=-
PS What's about 'pragmatism: clever or corrupt?' - Well, some people say one must be practical, others that one must accept the status quo, i.e. adopt a Realpolitik [3] and/or pragmatic[4] stance. The only people who can 'afford' such a pragmatic stance are either making a (crooked!) quid out of it (i.e. are corrupt), or have fundamentally misunderstood the situation (i.e. are living in a fool's paradise). I believe we can - and should - do better. Wouldn't it be nicer, to live in a world of peace and honour, rather than in this power/crime-dominated mess as now? Especially since the status quo is leading to probable and significant ecosphere destruction?
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] err
verb [no OBJ.] formal be mistaken or incorrect; make a mistake: the judge had erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible.
n [often as ADJ.] (erring) sin; do wrong: he had been as solicitous as an erring husband. [Oxford Pop-up]
[2] ideology n. (pl. -ies) 1 ideas at the basis of an economic or political theory (Marxist ideology). 2 characteristic thinking of a class etc. (bourgeois ideology). ideological adj. ideologically adv. ideologist n. [French: related to *idea, *-logy]
[3] Realpolitik
noun [MASS NOUN] a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
ORIGIN early 20th cent.: from German Realpolitik ‘practical politics’.
[4] pragmatic adj. dealing with matters from a practical point of view. pragmatically adv. [Greek pragma -mat- deed] [POD]
pragmatism n. 1 pragmatic attitude or procedure. 2 philosophy that evaluates assertions solely by their practical consequences and bearing on human interests. pragmatist n. [Greek pragma: related to *pragmatic] [ibid.]
[5] Definitions of psyop on the Web:
psychological operation: military actions designed to influence the perceptions and attitudes of individuals, groups, and foreign governments
[princeton/wordnet]
[6] «The anthrax was military-grade, prepared using a top-secret recipe, most likely at the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, or at the West Jefferson Ohio location, both of which are owned or managed by the large private contractor, Battelle Memorial Institute, that has previously partnered with the CIA and the DIA on biowarfare anthrax research, under the names Project Jefferson and Project Clear Vision, which was a secret program to mimic a Soviet dry powder anthrax bomblet.»
[Glenn Greenwald comments/CargoCult]
2008/08/11
erring ideologues ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
G'day Phil, on the matter of getting it wrong - Andrew Bacevich (courtesy of Tomdispatch) on the US' miilitary illusions.
Recommended.
the headless chicken ...
.. chickens are dinosaurs too
-=*=-
G'day Bob, thanks for the Tomgram citation.
The current bunch 'leading' the US are often referred to as 'chicken-hawks,' because a) they just lurve the idea of fighting wars, but b) when they were personally 'up' for fighting, they chickened out.
The reason I put 'leading' in quotes is that leaders are supposed to a) know where they're going and b) inspire the troops and other hangers-on to follow. Apart from the false hagiography heaped on GWBush by a corrupt and venal MSM, there's not much inspiring about him at all - "...fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."[1]
GWBush is a prime chicken's example of a chicken-hawk, even when he was dodging Vietnam service by joining the Air National Guard, he was going AWOL from there. One could say that he chickened out from war avoidance.
GWBush is also damned for mismanaging the Iraq war (an illegal invasion then, which has now been morphed into a brutal occupation: murder for oil.) I doubt very much if Bush could mismanage his way out of a wet paper bag; the most likely reason the imperial US against Iraq adventure went wrong is simply because it was the wrong thing to do (not 'just' wrong, of course, but criminal with it, on the scale of Nuremberg. String 'em all up!)
-=*=-
Long story short: If one only has a hammer, then all problems look like nails (or, by a sick mental contortion, can be thought of as nails, if the 'look' doesn't quite make it.) The US has fooled us all, even themselves, by saying one thing ("Truth, justice and the 'Merkin way!") - whilst doing something entirely different (lying, cheating, thieving & mass-murdering for spoil.) They have morphed their own country into a vile military monster; it requires vast resources to build, maintain and to feed, the last a good analogy because its largest dish is oil - essentially, a sort of Jurassic (think: dinosaur) juice. (They, the US regime, do not even look after their own sheople® well - some 40mio people exist without health insurance, in the country with the highest medical costs on the planet.)
GWBush&Co 'gave' us the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, based on lies - 935 having been documented in the one place[2], but see the anthrax/bentonite for one of the absolute all-time bewdies. (It should be obvious to all except possibly the hopelessly moronic, that IF one has a just cause THEN one would hardly need to lie about it ...)
Sooo, the ugly American military monster is let loose on the planet, to rape and pillage. It is no noble eagle, but a headless chicken, raging otherwise aimlessly (mostly after oil) and threatening to plunge our once jewel-like planet over the greedastrophe® precipice.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] «There's a lot of talk about Iraq on our TV screens, and there should be, because we're trying to figure out how best to make the world a peaceful place. There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with. This is a man who has delayed, denied, deceived the world. For the sake of liberty and justice for all, the United Nations Security Council must act, must act in way to hold this regime to account, must not be fooled, must be relevant to keep the peace.»
[WH/GWBush]
[2] False Pretenses
«Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.»
[By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith]
G'day Phil, Tom Engelhardt addresses the anthrax issue. Some interesting questions are posed, such as:
1. Why wasn't the Bush administration's War on Terror modus operandi applied to the anthrax case?
On August 10th, William J. Broad and Scott Shane reported on some of the human costs of the FBI anthrax investigation in a front-page New York Times piece headlined, "For Suspects, Anthrax Case Had Big Costs, Scores of the Innocent in a Wide F.B.I. Net." They did a fine job of establishing that those who serially came under suspicion had a tough time of it: "lost jobs, canceled visas, broken marriages, frayed friendships." According to the Times (and others), under the pressure of FBI surveillance, several had their careers wrecked; most were interviewed and re-interviewed numerous times in a "heavy-handed" manner, as well as polygraphed; some were tailed and trailed, their homes searched, and their workplaces ransacked.
Under the pressure of FBI "interest," anthrax specialist and "biodefense insider" Perry Mikesell evidently turned into an alcoholic and drank himself to death. Steven Hatfill, while his life was being turned inside out, had an agent trailing him in a car run over his foot, for which, Broad and Shane add, he, not the agent, was issued a ticket. And finally, of course, Dr. Ivins, growing ever more distressed and evidently ever less balanced, committed suicide on the day his lawyer was meeting with the FBI about a possible plea bargain that could have left him in jail for life, but would have taken the death penalty off the table.
Still, tough as life was for Mikesell, Hatfill, Ivins, and scores of others, here's an observation that you'll see nowhere else in a media that's had a two-week romp through the case: In search of a confession, none of the suspects of these last years, including Ivins, ever had a lighted cigarette inserted in his ear; none of them were hit, spit on, kicked, and paraded naked; none were beaten to death while imprisoned but uncharged with a crime; none were doused with cold water and left naked in a cell on a freezing night; none were given electric shocks, hooded, shackled in painful "stress positions," or sodomized; none were subjected to loud music, flashing lights, and denied sleep for days on end; none were smothered to death, or made to crawl naked across a jail floor in a dog collar, or menaced by guard dogs. None were ever waterboarded.
Whatever the pressure on Ivins or Hatfill, neither was kidnapped off a street near his house, stripped of his clothes, diapered, blindfolded, shackled, drugged, and "rendered" to the prisons of another country, possibly to be subjected to electric shocks or cut by scalpel by the torturers of a foreign regime. Even though each of the suspects in the anthrax murders was, at some point, believed to have been a terrorist who had committed a heinous crime with a weapon of mass destruction, none were ever declared "enemy combatants." None were ever imprisoned without charges, or much hope of trial or release, in off-shore, secret, CIA-run "black sites."
Why not?
Good question. As are the others.
a single 'mad scientist' was the culprit ...
.. so they tell us - propagandise us, actually ...
.. but Q: What can one do? A: We do what we can.
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
and thanks for another great link[1].
The anthrax attacks were carried out by Murkins against Murkins, that's a perfect 100% certainty. That it was a single 'mad scientist' is, however, in perfect doubt; the exquisite timing, content and targeting would tend to indicate well coordinated, premeditated teamwork. We strongly suspect any putative 'coincidence;' we must ask Q: cui bono? - In this case A: GWBush&Co, the US M/I-plex and Israel; 1st consequence the PATRIOT Act, 2nd consequence the illegal invasion of an 'enemy' of Israel, that invasion now morphed into a brutal occupation: murder for oil.
As a 'publicity stunt' it was a perfect 100% success - if just one of the actual outcomes, namely scaring the sheople® s**tless, was desired.
And 'publicity stunt' brings up the subject of PR: «The PR industry today prefers to be invisible, ...» thanks, but "No, thanks!" - to Bernays[2].
I was in a discussion last night, wherein it was proposed: "That the sheople are stupid." My argument was "No, they've 'merely' been misinformed."
Fazit: Stop the lies; require the AusBC & SBS, for example (publicly financed 'news' organizations both), to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. After all, that'd only be fair, as in "Fair go, ya mugs!"
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] «In these same years, according to the New York Times, "almost $50 billion in federal money has been spent to build new laboratories, develop vaccines and stockpile drugs." Some of this money was pulled out of basic public health funds which once ensured that large numbers of people wouldn't die of treatable diseases like tuberculosis and redirected into work on the Ebola virus, anthrax, and other exotic pathogens.»
[Tomgram: Six Questions about the Anthrax Case]
[2] «Bernays was among the first to make a profession out of what he called the "conscious and intelligent manipulation" of the beliefs and behaviour of the public. Those who "manipulate this unseen mechanism" of society were, he wrote in his book Propaganda, an "invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country".»
[NS (subs req.) David Miller/I hear 'reason', I see lies]
My comment, actually a Q: Why do we hear about this now - 80 years or so down the track? A: Because it was supposed to stay secret - but we were tipped off, thanks to a video by Adam Curtis via this alert at ICH. Thanks, pro-justice via truth team.
Misinformed ... and some so wrapped up in their prejudices that they refuse to accept that"we" could do such things. Nut "we" can.
More from Glenn Greenwald - particularly the MSM .. aka government stenography service.
Doesn't help the process of informing the public if those whose job it is to do so refuse to do so.
G'day Phil, as if any more evidence was needed ... but ... an analysis on how to make (up) a case. Raw Story summary introduces GWU National Security Archive full analysis of the fixing the case for the Iraq war.
• The Phase II report on Bush administration public statements, in conjunction with the SSCI’s original July 2004 report on Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, indicates that political manipulation extended beyond the intelligence itself to affect investigation of the intelligence failures on Iraq as well as the Bush administration’s use of that information.
• In conjunction with other recently declassified materials, the Phase II report shows that the Bush administration solicited intelligence then used to “substantiate” its public claims.
• A recently declassified draft of the CIA’s October 2002 white paper on Iraqi WMD programs demonstrates that that paper long pre-dated the compilation of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi capabilities.
• The timing of the CIA’s draft white paper coincides with a previously available draft of the British Government’s white paper on Iraqi WMD, demonstrating that the Bush administration and the Tony Blair government began acting in concert to build support for an invasion of Iraq two to three months earlier than previously understood.
• A comparison of the CIA draft white paper with its publicly released edition shows that all the changes made were in the nature of strengthening its charges against Iraq by inserting additional alarming claims, in the manner of an advocacy, or public relations document. The draft and final papers show no evidence of intelligence analysis applied to the information contained. Similar comparison of the British white paper shows the same phenomenon at work.
• Declassified Pentagon documents demonstrate that the CIA white paper was modified in ways that conformed to the desires of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and his office, in much the same way that British documents indicate that country’s white paper was changed to conform to the desires of the Blair government.
There's more.
Post a Comment