Written by Abhijay Patel
Pakistan Daily
Sep 24, 2009
“If they didn’t have an Osama Bin Laden, they would have invented one.”
Milt Bearden – CIA agent, in an interview with anchor Dan Rather of the CBS (September 12, 2001)
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″.
(Rex Tomb, spokesman, FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity)
Now that even Asif Ali Zardari the President of Pakistan & General Musharraf are stating that Bin Laden is dead, it is high time that we in India began to both debate as well as challenge this sheer calumny.
Basically the truth and the fact of the matter is that Bin Laden has been dead since the latter half of December 2001. So then why did Bush-Cheney & now the Obama-Hillary combine, as well as the Neoconservatives & Zionist ideologues, continue to insist & actively propagate the myth of Bin Laden?
First let us address the ‘Politics of Fear’, that is an integral part of the flawed ‘Global War on Terror’, which is part of the Neo-Zioncon doctrine of ‘Controlled Chaos’. The ghost of Bin Laden serves multiple purposes both at the Global and Indian context. In India, Bin Laden is used to generate fear in the mind of the Hindu community, the epitome of “Islamic terror” and thus distrust & hatred for the Muslim is its natural corollary.
For the Muslims he is meant to be the “false hero” and to wrongly inspire youth to follow the flawed path of extremism and terror.
The other primary strategy in propagating the myth of Bin Laden is so that every political struggle against US-Zionist Imperialism is converted into a struggle for the supposed cause of Islam and Muslims and thus reduce every struggle to a narrow religio-sectarian agenda, to the negation of all political, economic & social factors. Every Bin Laden message appeals to “Muslims to wage a jehad against Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists”. The agenda is to communalise, divide, confuse and thus weaken society. The agenda is also to further isolate and marginalize Muslims from the mainstream struggles & spread Islamophobia. For example the Palestinian national freedom struggle against Israeli colonial occupation is reduced to a mere Muslim cause as per Bin Laden’s announcements & thus weaken the global Palestinian solidarity movement which is today striving for the total “Boycott of Israel”.
Now let us come to a few facts that will help us establish that Bin Laden has been dead since the last eight years and more.
During the period 4-14th of July, 2001 (only two months prior to the 9/11-WTC terror attacks), Bin Laden was in the American Hospital in Dubai. According to the United Press International (Oct 31, 2001), Bin Laden underwent kidney surgery and treatment under Dr. Terry Callaway. According to both the French “Le Figaro” & the “Radio France International”, Bin Laden was visited by a top US-CIA agent. This report and the one below are further substantiated by CBS anchor Dan Rather, Peter Bergen, investigative journalist Barry Petersen and Prof. Michel Chussodovsky.
More astonishing is the fact that just a day prior to the September 11 attacks, Bin Laden was undergoing treatment in the Military Hospital in Rawalpindi itself (Le Figaro – Jan 28, 2002). So both the Pakistani Military establishment and the ISI as well as the CIA were more than aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts.
A few days later Dr. Sanjay Gupta (a highly respected Indian-American within the Medical fraternity) gave his assessment that both due to the heavy US bombing of the Taliban areas as well as the fact that kidney dialysis requires a special environment, it is impossible for a patient to survive beyond a week.
According to Pentagon sources, Bin Laden’s voice could not be detected beyond December 14, 2001.
Reports of Bin Laden’s death have been so widespread that it is a wonder as to how the myth of OBL has been kept alive. Now consider the following reports:
Dale Watson, the FBI chief of counter-terrorism said on BBC that he thought that OBL was dead.
In fact the announcement of OBL’s death and the funeral as well, appeared in the Egytian newspaper Al-Wafd on December 26, 2001. Also refer to an article by Robert Burns (26/04/02) on this matter.
Even the Israeli intelligence had announced the death (World Tribune). They also said that the new messages are possibly fabrications.
Reports of his death have appeared in the New York Times (July 11, 2002) as well the Guardian (UK) and the Telegraph (UK).
Both Musharraf and Karzai have been reported saying the same on CNN.
Most recently the most remarkable revelation on this matter was made by none other than the late Benazir Bhutto. In an interview with David Frost on Al-Jazeerah English (November 2, 2007), she made the stunning announcement that Bin Laden was dead and had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. Interestingly Omar Sheikh was an ISI operative and was also responsible for the murder of Daniel Pearl. The most telling part is the deafening silence of the International media.
The BBC did carry this interview but edited this line.
WHY??
If this is not “Breaking News”, then what is?
Does not this statement warrant international attention? Would not have this statement guaranteed higher TRP ratings and increased newspaper circulation? But not a word. The complicity of the corporate media is apparent.
But then people ask me and rightly so that, “what about all these Bin Laden-Al Qaeda tapes?, how do you explain that?”. So lets deal with that issue as well.
Bin Laden tapes have appeared prior to his death in December 2001, but since then the world has been subjected to a barrage of fake tapes. Prof. Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, is the world’s leading expert on these tapes and has studied every tape since then and it is his analysis and that of Diana Lee, Wayne Madsen as well as others that I put before you.
The first fake Bin laden tape was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001 and found in a deserted house in Jalalabad. It shows a stout and healthy man posing as Laden and making the claims of the destruction of the WTC. The most glaring error in the video is that the Laden duplicate is signing the confession letter with his right hand. Bin Laden used his left!
Another Laden video appeared just prior to the US presidential election on October 29, 2004, a few days after Bush had lost the first Presidential debate to John Kerry the Democratic nominee. The calls for a jehad against America helped to boost Bush’s ratings and was a factor in his ultimate victory.
The Bin laden audio tapes began to arrive in 2002. These tapes were also meant to achieve and create a climate of fear at the global level. However the experts at the IDIAP, the world’s premier voice identification institute based in Switzerland, have clearly stated that the voice on the tapes was not that of Bin Laden.
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda tapes have also appeared in India and the political agenda is the same. Last year (June 8, 2007) an Al Qaeda tape surfaced in Kashmir claiming that Al Qaeda had established a base in India. It appeared only a day after an Israeli Military delegation arrived in India to advice the government to combat “Islamic terror in Kashmir”. Even certain Indian intelligence and military sources rejected the tape as a fake.
But now the pattern at the global level of releasing the Bin Laden-Al Qaeda tapes has undergone a remarkable change. Earlier there would be a direct relay of the tapes without any fanfare. But now unbelievably the release is accompanied with a curtain raiser at a global scale. The release of the tapes is announced a few days prior to the final release. The news of the same appears in practically every newspaper and channel of note the world over. The ground is prepared to ensure that as many people as possible see the tape and register its message of fear and hatred. It is basically akin to a curtain raiser for a new movie or a music video.
Consider the following:
It was on the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks that we were subjected to this mirage. The announcement of the new Bin Laden message flooded the airwaves and newspapers. We then saw a Bin Laden, hale and hearty and with a black beard. The reports stated that Bin Laden’s bodyguard (where did he come from and did he have a name?) had “revealed” that Bin Laden was healthy and was living with his four wives (how cliched!), in a compound (where, which country, city, location?). The media did not ask a single question. Worse was to follow. After a few days we had another Bin Laden photograph plastered all over the front pages, but this time with a “white beard”. Did the dye run off or had he lost his virility?. It was all so ridiculous, but they got away with it.
Then the Mumbai Mirror (29/05/08) reported that a new Laden tape is due in the next 24 hours. What’s more, this time the contents of the tape were also known to the “sources” even prior to the release. So we know then as to who writes all the scripts for these tapes, don’t we?. The report ominously states that the tape “will urge jehadis to use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons against civilians”. It quotes intelligence sources that have spoken to ABC News.
I too was very confused in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks but I began to ask questions and seek answers independent of the corporate media, as the unfolding socio-economic and political scenario did not make rational sense. The incident that made me question and challenge the dominant paradigm was the following.
On the 14th of February 2003, prior to the final US-NATO attack on Iraq, an Al Qaeda tape appeared. It asked the Muslims of the world to unite and wage a jehad against the Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists of the world. I was too stunned because of the simple fact that I was aware that on the next day the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, people of faith and none, were going to march in their millions across the streets of USA, South America, Canada, Europe, Australia along with their Muslim brethren to oppose the impending war on Iraq. Clearly, the Al Qaeda tape had been released with the specific agenda to divide the masses of the world and further serve to demonize the Muslims. From that day I began to maintain a record of the Al Qaeda tapes and I found a design, a clear objective and purpose that was basically serving the cause of the Zionist empire.
Terror is and has always been an instrument of Imperial Zionist foreign policy. It is the politics of terror that is reshaping the geo-strategic and economic map as well as leading to the deepening of the religio-cultural & ethnic fault lines across the world. It is the myths of terror that seek to confuse and weaken the anti-imperialist masses and their struggles against neo-liberal globalization and perpetuate hatred for Muslims and spread Islamophobia, which itself is now a global phenomenon.
Thus it is imperative that we expose these myths and the lies of Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda. It is actually a very simple task and it must be done. By F Mithiborwala
Showing posts with label Hegalian Dialectic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hegalian Dialectic. Show all posts
Friday, September 25, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Silencing the Saber-Rattling: How the American Empire Threatens the Potential Iranian Counter-Revolution
by Paul David Collins, July 4th, 2009
Illuminati Conspiracy Archive
original HERE...
John Loftus proved to be a treasure chest of information over the Middle East during an interview with this writer on March 21, 2009. In little over an hour, the former Justice Department prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer addressed the issues of postwar Nazi activity, the September 11 attacks, and fanaticism in the Arab world. The most fascinating information Loftus shared, however, concerns Iran.
The Central Eurasian Islamic Republic has been a hot topic for many observers of the international political landscape ever since Bush II referred to it as part of an “axis of evil” during his January 29, 2002 State of the Union speech. That speech helped create an absolutely schizophrenic political climate filled with saber-rattling and war-fever that has held sway for the last seven years. During that period of time, rumors of an invasion of Iran have periodically surfaced, causing people in both America and Iran to oscillate between anxiety and sighs of relief. Former CIA case officer Robert Baer has referred to Iran as “the third rail of American foreign policy in the world” (Interview: Robert Baer). It is the country that every administration has dared not touch since 1979. With Iran on the verge of possessing a nuclear power program, however, avoidance may no longer be an option. What will be Iran’s fate? For Loftus, the tide of history will soon make an invasion of Iran completely unnecessary.
“I believe the government will eventually collapse and Iran will return to democracy,” Loftus told this writer. “The clock will turn back to the way things were before the 1953 coup.”
Of course, this statement raised an eyebrow. “Do you mean to say another Mossadegh will rise,” I asked.
“Yes,” Loftus responded. (Loftus)
For many years now, Iran has put up a strong front that made Loftus’ words hard to swallow. The Islamic republic sees itself as a revived Persian Empire, and it has gained a considerable amount of regional influence. A 2008 poll conducted by the University of Maryland found that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the second most admired leader across the Arab world (“Nasrallah most admired Arab leader”). The only leader to outshine Ahmadinejad in the poll was Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iranian proxy Hezbollah (ibid). Needless to say, regional support for Iran is strong.
Underneath the tough exterior, however, hides several serious problems that have begun to boil over. Problems began to appear in the middle of the 1990s when a 1996 census revealed that Iran’s fertility rates “were less than one-half of the figure obtained from the previous census” (Mehryar and Aghajanian). A large-scale survey conducted in 2000 was less promising in its findings. That survey found “that total fertility rates of Iranian couples had dropped to 2.0” (ibid). The survey also found that 14 of the 28 provinces surveyed were well below the 2.1 replacement level (ibid). A 2006 census was probably the most dismal. Of the 30 major provinces in Iran, 27 provinces “would seem to have reached below replacement fertility, with TFR [total fertility rates] values ranging from 1.15 to 1.95” (ibid). The data presented by the 2006 census indicated that “over 80% of the population of Iran belong to provinces with clearly below replacement fertility rate” (ibid).
Can Iran rely on young people of marrying age to rectify the baby dearth? According to writer Azadeh Moaveni, the answer is “no.” In a June 9, 2009 Time magazine article, Moaveni stated:
By official estimates, there are currently 13 million to 15 million Iranians of marrying age; to keep that figure steady, Iran should be registering about 1.65 million marriages each year. The real figure is closer to half of that. (Moaveni)
Why has the number of marriages dropped so drastically? According to Moaveni, economic conditions in Iran do not make marriage feasible. Inflation hit a whopping 25.9 percent in February 2009 (“Iran inflation hits 25.9%: Reports”). While that figure is lower than the September 2008 of 29 percent, it was still high enough to cause concern for Iran’s central bank chief Mahmoud Bahmani, who promised to slash inflation by almost 4 percent before the end of the Iranian year on March 20 (ibid). In early June 2009 there were some signs of improvement, with inflation falling to 23. 6 percent (“Iran inflation falls below 24 percent”). The number is still far too high, however, to accommodate a new couple desiring to start a family.
The inflation drop was also far too little, too late for Ahmedinejad’s political health. The Iranian president’s election rivals, such as reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi, capitalized on the poor economic environment and blamed Ahmedinejad for encouraging inflation (ibid). Was Karroubi and the rest of the opposition way off the mark with their accusation? Again, Iran views itself as a revival of the Persian Empire, and Ahmedinejad certainly holds imperialist aspirations. In the quest for empire, Ahmedinejad has initiated several reckless expansionary economic policies. One of the results of this policy was Ahmedinejad’s proposed budget in January 2009 of 282.7 billion dollars with a deficit forecast of 44 billion dollars (“Iran inflation hits 25.9: Reports”). Can any country long stand such an orgiastic spending spree?
Probably one of the most serious problems currently facing Iran is low crude oil prices. Gholamhossein Nozari, Iran’s current Oil Minister, predicted oil prices “will hover at the $40 mark in 2009” (Avro). This prompted Nozari’s ministry to tell the government “to set the price of oil at that amount in its upcoming 2009-2010 budget” (ibid). According to Samuel R. Avro, these low prices “could eventually bring out the disgust of the Iranian public against the current regime which may then lead to destabilization and perhaps a halt to their nuclear program” (ibid). Bush’s CIA Director Michael Hayden also expressed this opinion, stating that Iran’s low oil prices “removes a buffer that will cause the natural stressors in Iranian society to become more pronounced” (ibid).
While the problems facing Iran are lamentable, they did set the stage for self-correction to occur in the Islamic Republic. The situation is beginning to right itself as more and more Iranians conclude that the country’s leadership lacks the ability and the desire to solve the problems. People began expressing their dissatisfaction with the current regime shortly after Iran’s tenth presidential election on June 12, 2009. The next day, opponents of Ahmedinejad took to the streets and began protesting, some violently (Johnson and Murphy). As we shall see, some of these protestors may have been part of an organized destabilization campaign. That being said, the number of people in the streets was far too high for everyone to be surrogates of Western intelligence agencies, a contention some of the more extreme conspiracists seem to be pushing. The crowds included many sincere Iranian citizens with legitimate grievances.
It’s important to note that many of the activists made the mistake of elevating Ahmedinejad’s main rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, into a hero from which they derive inspiration. Behind Mousavi’s emergent messianic mystique hides a terrorist and criminal who is no better than Ahmedinejad. During his time as Iran’s prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was the supervisor of a terrorist campaign against the West that included the infamous attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut (Stein). According to former CIA case officer Robert Baer, Mousavi “oversaw an office that ran operatives abroad, from Lebanon to Kuwait to Iraq” (ibid). Baer places Mousavi in direct contact with Imad Mughniyah, the individual responsible for conducting the Beirut attack (ibid). Retired Navy Admiral and “father” of the Navy SEAL’s Red Cell counter-terror unit James “Ace” Lyons has also identified Mousavi as the mastermind behind the 1988 truck bomb attack on the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Center in Naples, Italy (ibid). That terrorist action resulted in the deaths of five people (ibid).
Given his criminal and terrorist background, it’s obvious that Mousavi represents the status quo in Iran, not change. Still it is important to note that Mousavi was able to build an impressive support base by presenting himself as a reformer and running on a reformist platform. These seems to indicate that many Iranians desire positive change and are now willing to express that desire.
A counter-revolution that will reverse the effects of the 1979 Iranian Revolution seems to be in the embryonic stage right now. Only one thing could reverse that trend: interference and intrusion on the part of the American Empire. If an American destabilization campaign were to be detected or exposed, internal contention would disappear and the people would again be galvanized behind Ahmadinejad. This potentiality is very real. Unfortunately, the American Empire’s interventionist spirit is alive and well and evidence suggests that it may be at work in Iran.
In May 2007, intelligence sources revealed to the UK Telegraph that President George W. Bush had given the CIA “approval to launch covert ‘black’ operations to achieve regime change in Iran” (Shipman). This approval, according to the Telegraph, appeared in a “non-lethal presidential finding” and authorized “CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs” (ibid). The presidential directive also endorsed the supply of communications equipment to opposition groups in Iran (ibid). This equipment would allow such groups to network with one another and coordinate destabilization plans more effectively (ibid).
The Telegraph’s revelations carried both negative and positive implications. On the positive, the directive prohibited the CIA from using lethal force (ibid). This can be interpreted to mean that Bush was moving away from the influence of Vice President Richard Cheney and his neoconservative allies who favor a military strike (ibid). However, the revelations had also shown that the President had not abandoned interventionist policies that could instigate hostilities with Iran.
When power traded hands from Bush to Obama, the approach to dealing with Iran seemed to change. Obama’s handlers among the power elite seemed to prefer attempting to recruit Iran to fight the American Empire’s other enemies. Imperial recruitment, euphemistically referred to as “diplomacy,” was heavily promoted in the early days of the Obama Administration. There is evidence, however, that destabilization efforts have continued. Perhaps the current administration believes that destabilization efforts will lead to a weakened Iran that is more willing to deal. Perhaps the administration has just grown frustrated with trying to reach out to a stubborn and skeptical nation. Whatever the case may be, aspects of the 2009 Iranian election fallout suggests the invisible hand of the American Empire at play.
On Saturday, June 20, 2009, Iran’s security apparatus reportedly discovered and arrested a large contingent of rioters in Tehran who were members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq organization, or MEK (“Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots”). Iranian security officials claimed that the MEK members “confessed that they were extensively trained in Iraq’s camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country” (ibid). The MEK members were also allegedly receiving instruction from the dissident group’s command post in Britain (ibid).
On the same day that the MEK rioters were arrested, the group’s leader Maryam Rajavis gave her official endorsement to election protestors and even went so far as to declare the MEK the real election victors (ibid).
Was the MEK acting as a surrogate of the American Empire? In July of 2008, respected journalist Seymour Hersh was told by a Pentagon consultant that the MEK might receive covert funds from the United States in order to help destabilize Iran (Hersh). The Iranian dissident group has received arms and intelligence from Western intelligence groups in recent years and possesses an enduring relationship with the CIA and Special Operations communities in spite of its inclusion on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade (ibid). If MEK participation in the riots and protests prove to be a genuine example of American interference, it could threaten the chance of a successful counter-revolution.
Left to its own devices, Iran’s ruling establishment will commit political suicide. The Iranian people have simply lost too much confidence in the president, the mullahs, and the government’s way of doing things for the last three decades. American interventionism can not contribute one iota to the current regime’s trip on history’s exit ramp. If anything, black ops, destabilization campaigns, and ridiculous cloak and dagger schemes and conspiracies to “liberate” Iran will give the current regime a new lease on life. The American Empire is providing Iran’s ruling establishment with an existential threat that justifies its political survival. Iranians are starting to wake up and see Ahmadinejad for the mentally unstable tyrant he is. American meddling in Iranian affairs, however, would lend itself to a public relations spin that would portray Ahmadinejad as a populist hero doing battle with the “Great Satan.” Interference would destroy the receptivity of the Iranian people to change and lead to more hostility.
Perhaps a perpetually hostile and dangerous Iran is exactly what many among the power elite crave. These oligarchical Hegelian activists need a world full of bogeymen, fanatics, and dictatorial strongmen to maintain history’s march toward a new world order. At least one member of the neoconservative faction of the elite, Daniel Pipes, has expressed such sentiments. During a June 3, 2009 meeting held by the neoconservative Heritage Foundation, Pipes stated that if he were to participate in Iran’s election, he would, “with due hesitance,” vote for Ahmadinejad because the current Iranian president is “an enemy who’s forthright and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements” (“New Thinking for Old Problems: The Challenges of Middle East Peacemaking in the Shadow of the Iranian Threat”).
The dialectical climate proposed by Pipes will not lead to what the neoconservative Francis Fukuyama called “The End of History,” but it may lead to what Jesus Christ called “the beginning of sorrows” (Matthew 24:8). While Iran is certainly not the juggernaut the neoconservatives have portrayed it as, the overstretched American Empire is in no condition to tackle a third war. The Lord has designed the universe to take out its own garbage. It does not require the American Empire acting as its waste management surrogate.
Is there any meaningful contribution America can make to Iran’s nascent counter-revolution? America can aid the Iranians by helping itself. It can dismantle its bloated and overstretched empire and return to its constitutional roots as a democratic republic. Such a move would send a clear message to Iran. In effect, America will be saying, “We tried empire and it bankrupted us economically and morally. It’s weakened our military and left us in a weakened state. For the sake of your own country, don’t explore this imperial road further.” There is a good chance Iran would follow America’s example. Then, and only then, will the saber-rattling finally be silenced.
Sources Cited
* Avro, Samuel. "CIA: Low Oil Prices Place Pressure on Iran, Venezuela." Consumer Energy Report 18 January 2009
* Hersh, Seymour. "Preparing the Battlefield." The New Yorker 7 July 2008
* "Interview: Robert Baer." Frontline 22 March 2002
* "Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots" Press TV 21 June 2009
* "Iran inflation falls below 24 percent." Television Washington 7 June 2009
* "Iran inflation hits 25.9%: Reports." The ARY News 8 March 2009
* Johnson, Anna and Brian Murphy. "Election Battle Turns Into Street Fights in Iran." ABC News 13 June 2009
* Loftus, John. Telephone interview. 21 March 2009.
* Mehryar, Amir and Akbar Aghajanian. "Below Replacement Fertility in Iran: A District Level Analysis of 2006 Census." Princeton University 2009
* Moaveni, Azadeh. "Will Iran's 'Marriage Crisis' Bring Down Ahmadinejad?" Time 9 June 2009
* "Nasrallah most admired Arab leader." Press TV 17 April 2008
* "New Thinking for Old Problems: The Challenges of Middle East Peacemaking in the Shadow of the Iranian Threat." The Heritage Foundation 3 June 2009
* Shipman, Tim. "Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran." The London Telegraph 27 May 2007
* Stein, Jeff. "Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, was the Butcher of Beirut." CQ Politics 22 June 2009
Illuminati Conspiracy Archive
original HERE...
John Loftus proved to be a treasure chest of information over the Middle East during an interview with this writer on March 21, 2009. In little over an hour, the former Justice Department prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer addressed the issues of postwar Nazi activity, the September 11 attacks, and fanaticism in the Arab world. The most fascinating information Loftus shared, however, concerns Iran.
The Central Eurasian Islamic Republic has been a hot topic for many observers of the international political landscape ever since Bush II referred to it as part of an “axis of evil” during his January 29, 2002 State of the Union speech. That speech helped create an absolutely schizophrenic political climate filled with saber-rattling and war-fever that has held sway for the last seven years. During that period of time, rumors of an invasion of Iran have periodically surfaced, causing people in both America and Iran to oscillate between anxiety and sighs of relief. Former CIA case officer Robert Baer has referred to Iran as “the third rail of American foreign policy in the world” (Interview: Robert Baer). It is the country that every administration has dared not touch since 1979. With Iran on the verge of possessing a nuclear power program, however, avoidance may no longer be an option. What will be Iran’s fate? For Loftus, the tide of history will soon make an invasion of Iran completely unnecessary.
“I believe the government will eventually collapse and Iran will return to democracy,” Loftus told this writer. “The clock will turn back to the way things were before the 1953 coup.”
Of course, this statement raised an eyebrow. “Do you mean to say another Mossadegh will rise,” I asked.
“Yes,” Loftus responded. (Loftus)
For many years now, Iran has put up a strong front that made Loftus’ words hard to swallow. The Islamic republic sees itself as a revived Persian Empire, and it has gained a considerable amount of regional influence. A 2008 poll conducted by the University of Maryland found that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the second most admired leader across the Arab world (“Nasrallah most admired Arab leader”). The only leader to outshine Ahmadinejad in the poll was Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iranian proxy Hezbollah (ibid). Needless to say, regional support for Iran is strong.
Underneath the tough exterior, however, hides several serious problems that have begun to boil over. Problems began to appear in the middle of the 1990s when a 1996 census revealed that Iran’s fertility rates “were less than one-half of the figure obtained from the previous census” (Mehryar and Aghajanian). A large-scale survey conducted in 2000 was less promising in its findings. That survey found “that total fertility rates of Iranian couples had dropped to 2.0” (ibid). The survey also found that 14 of the 28 provinces surveyed were well below the 2.1 replacement level (ibid). A 2006 census was probably the most dismal. Of the 30 major provinces in Iran, 27 provinces “would seem to have reached below replacement fertility, with TFR [total fertility rates] values ranging from 1.15 to 1.95” (ibid). The data presented by the 2006 census indicated that “over 80% of the population of Iran belong to provinces with clearly below replacement fertility rate” (ibid).
Can Iran rely on young people of marrying age to rectify the baby dearth? According to writer Azadeh Moaveni, the answer is “no.” In a June 9, 2009 Time magazine article, Moaveni stated:
By official estimates, there are currently 13 million to 15 million Iranians of marrying age; to keep that figure steady, Iran should be registering about 1.65 million marriages each year. The real figure is closer to half of that. (Moaveni)
Why has the number of marriages dropped so drastically? According to Moaveni, economic conditions in Iran do not make marriage feasible. Inflation hit a whopping 25.9 percent in February 2009 (“Iran inflation hits 25.9%: Reports”). While that figure is lower than the September 2008 of 29 percent, it was still high enough to cause concern for Iran’s central bank chief Mahmoud Bahmani, who promised to slash inflation by almost 4 percent before the end of the Iranian year on March 20 (ibid). In early June 2009 there were some signs of improvement, with inflation falling to 23. 6 percent (“Iran inflation falls below 24 percent”). The number is still far too high, however, to accommodate a new couple desiring to start a family.
The inflation drop was also far too little, too late for Ahmedinejad’s political health. The Iranian president’s election rivals, such as reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi, capitalized on the poor economic environment and blamed Ahmedinejad for encouraging inflation (ibid). Was Karroubi and the rest of the opposition way off the mark with their accusation? Again, Iran views itself as a revival of the Persian Empire, and Ahmedinejad certainly holds imperialist aspirations. In the quest for empire, Ahmedinejad has initiated several reckless expansionary economic policies. One of the results of this policy was Ahmedinejad’s proposed budget in January 2009 of 282.7 billion dollars with a deficit forecast of 44 billion dollars (“Iran inflation hits 25.9: Reports”). Can any country long stand such an orgiastic spending spree?
Probably one of the most serious problems currently facing Iran is low crude oil prices. Gholamhossein Nozari, Iran’s current Oil Minister, predicted oil prices “will hover at the $40 mark in 2009” (Avro). This prompted Nozari’s ministry to tell the government “to set the price of oil at that amount in its upcoming 2009-2010 budget” (ibid). According to Samuel R. Avro, these low prices “could eventually bring out the disgust of the Iranian public against the current regime which may then lead to destabilization and perhaps a halt to their nuclear program” (ibid). Bush’s CIA Director Michael Hayden also expressed this opinion, stating that Iran’s low oil prices “removes a buffer that will cause the natural stressors in Iranian society to become more pronounced” (ibid).
While the problems facing Iran are lamentable, they did set the stage for self-correction to occur in the Islamic Republic. The situation is beginning to right itself as more and more Iranians conclude that the country’s leadership lacks the ability and the desire to solve the problems. People began expressing their dissatisfaction with the current regime shortly after Iran’s tenth presidential election on June 12, 2009. The next day, opponents of Ahmedinejad took to the streets and began protesting, some violently (Johnson and Murphy). As we shall see, some of these protestors may have been part of an organized destabilization campaign. That being said, the number of people in the streets was far too high for everyone to be surrogates of Western intelligence agencies, a contention some of the more extreme conspiracists seem to be pushing. The crowds included many sincere Iranian citizens with legitimate grievances.
It’s important to note that many of the activists made the mistake of elevating Ahmedinejad’s main rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, into a hero from which they derive inspiration. Behind Mousavi’s emergent messianic mystique hides a terrorist and criminal who is no better than Ahmedinejad. During his time as Iran’s prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was the supervisor of a terrorist campaign against the West that included the infamous attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut (Stein). According to former CIA case officer Robert Baer, Mousavi “oversaw an office that ran operatives abroad, from Lebanon to Kuwait to Iraq” (ibid). Baer places Mousavi in direct contact with Imad Mughniyah, the individual responsible for conducting the Beirut attack (ibid). Retired Navy Admiral and “father” of the Navy SEAL’s Red Cell counter-terror unit James “Ace” Lyons has also identified Mousavi as the mastermind behind the 1988 truck bomb attack on the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Center in Naples, Italy (ibid). That terrorist action resulted in the deaths of five people (ibid).
Given his criminal and terrorist background, it’s obvious that Mousavi represents the status quo in Iran, not change. Still it is important to note that Mousavi was able to build an impressive support base by presenting himself as a reformer and running on a reformist platform. These seems to indicate that many Iranians desire positive change and are now willing to express that desire.
A counter-revolution that will reverse the effects of the 1979 Iranian Revolution seems to be in the embryonic stage right now. Only one thing could reverse that trend: interference and intrusion on the part of the American Empire. If an American destabilization campaign were to be detected or exposed, internal contention would disappear and the people would again be galvanized behind Ahmadinejad. This potentiality is very real. Unfortunately, the American Empire’s interventionist spirit is alive and well and evidence suggests that it may be at work in Iran.
In May 2007, intelligence sources revealed to the UK Telegraph that President George W. Bush had given the CIA “approval to launch covert ‘black’ operations to achieve regime change in Iran” (Shipman). This approval, according to the Telegraph, appeared in a “non-lethal presidential finding” and authorized “CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs” (ibid). The presidential directive also endorsed the supply of communications equipment to opposition groups in Iran (ibid). This equipment would allow such groups to network with one another and coordinate destabilization plans more effectively (ibid).
The Telegraph’s revelations carried both negative and positive implications. On the positive, the directive prohibited the CIA from using lethal force (ibid). This can be interpreted to mean that Bush was moving away from the influence of Vice President Richard Cheney and his neoconservative allies who favor a military strike (ibid). However, the revelations had also shown that the President had not abandoned interventionist policies that could instigate hostilities with Iran.
When power traded hands from Bush to Obama, the approach to dealing with Iran seemed to change. Obama’s handlers among the power elite seemed to prefer attempting to recruit Iran to fight the American Empire’s other enemies. Imperial recruitment, euphemistically referred to as “diplomacy,” was heavily promoted in the early days of the Obama Administration. There is evidence, however, that destabilization efforts have continued. Perhaps the current administration believes that destabilization efforts will lead to a weakened Iran that is more willing to deal. Perhaps the administration has just grown frustrated with trying to reach out to a stubborn and skeptical nation. Whatever the case may be, aspects of the 2009 Iranian election fallout suggests the invisible hand of the American Empire at play.
On Saturday, June 20, 2009, Iran’s security apparatus reportedly discovered and arrested a large contingent of rioters in Tehran who were members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq organization, or MEK (“Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots”). Iranian security officials claimed that the MEK members “confessed that they were extensively trained in Iraq’s camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country” (ibid). The MEK members were also allegedly receiving instruction from the dissident group’s command post in Britain (ibid).
On the same day that the MEK rioters were arrested, the group’s leader Maryam Rajavis gave her official endorsement to election protestors and even went so far as to declare the MEK the real election victors (ibid).
Was the MEK acting as a surrogate of the American Empire? In July of 2008, respected journalist Seymour Hersh was told by a Pentagon consultant that the MEK might receive covert funds from the United States in order to help destabilize Iran (Hersh). The Iranian dissident group has received arms and intelligence from Western intelligence groups in recent years and possesses an enduring relationship with the CIA and Special Operations communities in spite of its inclusion on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade (ibid). If MEK participation in the riots and protests prove to be a genuine example of American interference, it could threaten the chance of a successful counter-revolution.
Left to its own devices, Iran’s ruling establishment will commit political suicide. The Iranian people have simply lost too much confidence in the president, the mullahs, and the government’s way of doing things for the last three decades. American interventionism can not contribute one iota to the current regime’s trip on history’s exit ramp. If anything, black ops, destabilization campaigns, and ridiculous cloak and dagger schemes and conspiracies to “liberate” Iran will give the current regime a new lease on life. The American Empire is providing Iran’s ruling establishment with an existential threat that justifies its political survival. Iranians are starting to wake up and see Ahmadinejad for the mentally unstable tyrant he is. American meddling in Iranian affairs, however, would lend itself to a public relations spin that would portray Ahmadinejad as a populist hero doing battle with the “Great Satan.” Interference would destroy the receptivity of the Iranian people to change and lead to more hostility.
Perhaps a perpetually hostile and dangerous Iran is exactly what many among the power elite crave. These oligarchical Hegelian activists need a world full of bogeymen, fanatics, and dictatorial strongmen to maintain history’s march toward a new world order. At least one member of the neoconservative faction of the elite, Daniel Pipes, has expressed such sentiments. During a June 3, 2009 meeting held by the neoconservative Heritage Foundation, Pipes stated that if he were to participate in Iran’s election, he would, “with due hesitance,” vote for Ahmadinejad because the current Iranian president is “an enemy who’s forthright and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements” (“New Thinking for Old Problems: The Challenges of Middle East Peacemaking in the Shadow of the Iranian Threat”).
The dialectical climate proposed by Pipes will not lead to what the neoconservative Francis Fukuyama called “The End of History,” but it may lead to what Jesus Christ called “the beginning of sorrows” (Matthew 24:8). While Iran is certainly not the juggernaut the neoconservatives have portrayed it as, the overstretched American Empire is in no condition to tackle a third war. The Lord has designed the universe to take out its own garbage. It does not require the American Empire acting as its waste management surrogate.
Is there any meaningful contribution America can make to Iran’s nascent counter-revolution? America can aid the Iranians by helping itself. It can dismantle its bloated and overstretched empire and return to its constitutional roots as a democratic republic. Such a move would send a clear message to Iran. In effect, America will be saying, “We tried empire and it bankrupted us economically and morally. It’s weakened our military and left us in a weakened state. For the sake of your own country, don’t explore this imperial road further.” There is a good chance Iran would follow America’s example. Then, and only then, will the saber-rattling finally be silenced.
Sources Cited
* Avro, Samuel. "CIA: Low Oil Prices Place Pressure on Iran, Venezuela." Consumer Energy Report 18 January 2009
* Hersh, Seymour. "Preparing the Battlefield." The New Yorker 7 July 2008
* "Interview: Robert Baer." Frontline 22 March 2002
* "Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots" Press TV 21 June 2009
* "Iran inflation falls below 24 percent." Television Washington 7 June 2009
* "Iran inflation hits 25.9%: Reports." The ARY News 8 March 2009
* Johnson, Anna and Brian Murphy. "Election Battle Turns Into Street Fights in Iran." ABC News 13 June 2009
* Loftus, John. Telephone interview. 21 March 2009.
* Mehryar, Amir and Akbar Aghajanian. "Below Replacement Fertility in Iran: A District Level Analysis of 2006 Census." Princeton University 2009
* Moaveni, Azadeh. "Will Iran's 'Marriage Crisis' Bring Down Ahmadinejad?" Time 9 June 2009
* "Nasrallah most admired Arab leader." Press TV 17 April 2008
* "New Thinking for Old Problems: The Challenges of Middle East Peacemaking in the Shadow of the Iranian Threat." The Heritage Foundation 3 June 2009
* Shipman, Tim. "Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran." The London Telegraph 27 May 2007
* Stein, Jeff. "Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, was the Butcher of Beirut." CQ Politics 22 June 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
The New Bipolar "Bread and Circus" World
Editorial Opinion by: Dr. J. P. Hubert
A strange but remarkable phenomenon now exists in the realm of social discourse. Virtually all concepts which bear upon public policy are presented to the masses as essentially, a choice between two polar opposites. For example, there is the liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left, Republican vs. Democratic views, etc., as if there are no other frames of reference by which one might consider important issues of the day. This needless to say establishes a completely contrived and false dichotomy. It is as if a very attenuated/ distorting prism or lens has been placed before our collective minds eye.
Increasingly, society seems to have embraced the binary gestalt writ-large. For example, the only format which seems to be universally embraced by the corporate (especially television and radio) media when airing debate with respect to an issue of public policy is to arbitrarily select two individuals from opposite sides of the intellectual/political spectrum. Each is then allowed to spew forth their respective “talking points” in an exchange where rhetorical flourish and rank sophistry is allowed to pass for meaningful elucidation of opinion/position(s). Sober analysis and rational discussion through thoughtful and respectful interchange of ideas is simply never forthcoming.
Rather than a situation where so-called experts are asked to come reason together, what one routinely witnesses is largely impolite jousting between two individuals each of whom function as either paid or unpaid advocates for their respective positions—presumably neither would be invited back again were they to attempt anything else. It is inconceivable that one could arrive at the truth through the employment of this commonly utilized (largely entertainment oriented) vehicle/tactic. What it resembles is something akin to a sporting event where two teams compete in a game/contest until one prevails. The viewing public is expected to enthusiastically support one or the other of the two opponents since their positions are not only (presumably) mutually exclusive but supposedly representative of the entire universe of possibilities rather than artificially truncated ones. The entire situation would be laughable if it were not so serious.
Enter Hegel (As Always)
The above enumerated phenomenon has helped create a permanent societal split or division that--while varying to a minor degree on a percentage basis from time to time--never really comes to grip with the essence or nature of any issue/problem. Perhaps an explanation for this unfortunate dilemma is that an apparent Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) has become the chosen mechanism by which our oligarchical elites attempt to program/mold mass opinion. Not only does this technique seriously limit the bounds of acceptable public discourse, it implies that all issues of social import are ultimately to be resolved on the basis of a “rough and tumble” contest of wills and sophistic verbiage rather than any real sense of absolute truth(s) which might serve as guiding principles. This no doubt is a legacy of the Enlightenment. The crucial point is that the acceptable boundary for public discussion is artificially circumscribed by the ruling elites in such a way as to control outcomes both at the level of topic selection and subsequent debate parameters and verbal/written interaction. A good example of this phenomenon is the charade which transpires every four years in which the public is treated to the spectacle of appearing to select from a large field of candidates—two individuals to vie for President of the United States. In reality, the most interesting and controversial candidates are eliminated fairly early such that the two final candidates actually differ quite minimally in terms of domestic and foreign policy preferences. Judging by the evidence, this is by design of the ruling class. In the most recent presidential election, U.S. citizens were given the choice between two seemingly different individuals, one apparently traditional (Mc Cain) the other more exotic representing “change” (Obama)--who Americans presumably preferred. Yet, both were clearly funded by and beholden to the elite power brokers whose interests would be served irrespective of which one prevailed.
It is noteworthy that after only 4 months in office, President Obama has largely followed the Bush/Cheney foreign and domestic (especially economic) policies despite campaigning vociferously against them. There is no evidence that Mr. Obama intends to dismantle the American empire or significantly reduce US militarism. There is nothing to establish that he has repudiated the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. In fact he has authorized offensive US military (armed drones) attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have killed innocent non-combatants and most disturbingly announced a policy of preventive detention of “terrorists.” The latter immoral and illegal policy is more aggressive than what the Bush/Cheney administration attempted in that regard.
Abandonment of Reality, Reason
In reality, there are very few issues of public policy which can be adequately considered through the prism of a binary lens--even though doing so has become the new norm. Similarly the related notion that all social/political questions must have either a yes or no answer flies in the face of reality—if true all “what” questions or those having to do with the nature or being of things would be eliminated— an unfortunate but foreseeable effect of the post-Enlightenment abandonment of metaphysics. The result is an artificial oversimplification which does not mirror reality but instead serves as a rhetorical devise by which a proponent of one particular view attempts to dis-intellectually “score points” or in contemporary parlance “spin” the target audience.
Integral to construction of the bipolar worldview is the need to carefully narrow the formulation of any potential issue or premise. For example, one is either for or against gay “marriage” for or against enhanced interrogation (torture), in favor of or against “pre-emptive” war (when what is really meant is preventive war). All are vacuous notions without a careful articulation of what is actually meant by these terms. Once adequately defined that is, with precision, it is sometimes but not always possible to take a pro or con position with respect to some of the so-called issues of the day. The Western legal system now steeped in legal positivism and based as it is in a binary adversarial process clearly contributes to this phenomenon as well.
Constant "Evolution"
A related trend is the completely ad-hoc division that has occurred over what is considered a liberal vs.: conservative view with respect to a given issue. For example, strict literal interpretations of each term (liberal/conservative) yield entirely different conclusions than can be had from a review of commonly understood usages of the terms. In other words, the monikers liberal and conservative have no fixed or foundational meaning and are constantly subject to alteration based on the changing nature of various interest groups that comprise their political bases from time to time. This leads to incompatible contradictions with regard to the policies of self-described members of each group.
It is noteworthy that traditional Paleoconservatives eschew foreign wars of conquest and oppose so-called pre-emptive (preventive) wars. Neoconservatives enthusiastically support both. Which view should be thought to characterize the conservative position? In reality it is a >matter of opinion only. Historically, Neoconservatism is clearly the aberration. The change presumably reflects the result of an internal political power struggle rather than a natural (ideological) evolution among adherents of conservatism.
Theoretically, conservatives (in the sense of preserving the status quo) should favor the continuation of whatever has gone before. If historically the United States engaged in defensive war only--than preventive war would be incompatible with conservatism and vice-versa. By analogy if abortion has become the legal norm, after decades, the conservative view should be pro-abortion. Obviously, the terms are not meant to be taken literally yet it becomes clear that there really is an ad-hoc and arbitrary nature to what is considered liberal and conservative from time to time. Neither term is based on a stable worldview (epistemology, metaphysics and moral philosophy).
Similar contradictions have occurred with respect to the policy positions held by proponents of liberalism (now referred to as adherents of progressive politics—one assumes the change in name was made ostensibly for perceived commercial advantage). Prior to 1973, liberals as defined by the Democratic Party held--along with conservatives as put forth by the Republican Party--that abortion on demand was immoral (the prevailing moral philosophy at the time was still heavily influenced by the ...Christian Ethic) and should be kept illegal as a matter of public policy or at least left to the states to regulate. As a significant percentage of the Democratic Party base became composed of individuals with an interest in liberalizing the existing laws with respect to abortion, the party became “pro-choice” meaning in favor of either federal legislation or judicial action legalizing abortion on demand. In this case, the term liberal from a literal perspective appears to be more in-keeping with the moniker. The change however was made because of the demands of an active, large and growing interest group within the Democratic Party and the liberal establishment. Does that mean that pre-1973 the Democratic Party was conservative not liberal? Yes and no, the point here is that these terms are completely fluid and ultimately without lasting/foundational meaning. What is favored today may be shunned tomorrow by either. To say that one is either liberal or conservative without clarification/amplification is really to reveal almost nothing other than the affiliation of one’s current power-base.
Will to Power
Perhaps more astoundingly, the terms liberal and conservative have no cohesive/conceptual underpinnings which might unify the various disparate strains which make up each. In some respects, liberals appear to espouse conservative policies, in others, conservatives embrace liberal ones. Neoconservatives as has already been mentioned embrace aggressive foreign policy including preventive wars of aggression. This in reality is a very liberal not conservative view. Analogously, most liberals currently oppose foreign wars of aggression and excessive U.S. militarism (in the maintenance of American hegemony) despite the fact that to do so is really a traditionally conservative position. Thoughtful persons find that neither political party has a consistent underlying conceptually unified organizing principle. What then attracts the vast majority of people to one or the other belief system? In the absence of any core worldview orientation it appears that the choice of one or the other is based solely on the need to posses a power-base from which to operate. Since third parties (political) have not been successful in the United States, the choices available are either liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican irrespective of the fact that these terms are constantly changing and without ultimate meaning.
The media (talk-radio and cable especially) essentially mirror this artificial division. For example, Fox News represents the Neoconservative position; MSNBC largely reflects the Liberal or Progressive viewpoint. Similar divisions characterize talk-radio. Traditional or Paleoconservative views are left largely unrepresented by the corporate media with a few exceptions (e.g. Patrick J. Buchanan).
Part of the current bi-polar split involves a separation between Secularism and Traditionalism as the United States progressively abandons all semblance of tradition in favor of Secular Humanism. While liberalism/progressivism almost entirely ascribes to Secularism, there remain parts of the “conservative” coalition which attempt to adhere to more traditionalist views—primarily those Paleoconservatives from whom the Neoconservatives have rested control of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, even here, there is a great deal of overlap. For example, the so-called Libertarian wing of conservatism favors the liberalization of controlled substance laws e.g. Marijuana which most Paleoconservatives oppose. In that sense, Libertarians are much more like liberals (progressives) than traditional conservatives. They are more inclined to accept gay “marriage” than are Paleoconservatives on the grounds of individual liberty or on the basis of civil or personal “rights” criteria. These rights however are fictitious in that they are ungrounded in any fixed or foundational human anthropology (nature or essence). That is to say since the Enlightenment and in the wake of Darwinism (Darwinian philosophy or metaphysical naturalism), human nature is assumed to be fluid. Modern "rights" simply refer to the constantly changing desires/choices which various individuals and groups wish to see codified in the law from time to time.
It becomes apparent that the artificial bi-polar split articulated here is completely without ideological foundation. Evidence seems to indicate that it has become a favored mechanism by which the ruling elites exercise control over the masses. In reality this amounts to a kind of not so subtle Hegelian “brain-washing” which is utilized to change public opinion by making it appear that issues are being fairly debated and democratically resolved. One feels forced to conclude that the binary worldview is nothing but a ruse--a kind of “bread and circus” extravaganza which functions to keep the proletariat pacified while the oligarchical elites proceed with advancing their goals.
A strange but remarkable phenomenon now exists in the realm of social discourse. Virtually all concepts which bear upon public policy are presented to the masses as essentially, a choice between two polar opposites. For example, there is the liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left, Republican vs. Democratic views, etc., as if there are no other frames of reference by which one might consider important issues of the day. This needless to say establishes a completely contrived and false dichotomy. It is as if a very attenuated/ distorting prism or lens has been placed before our collective minds eye.
Increasingly, society seems to have embraced the binary gestalt writ-large. For example, the only format which seems to be universally embraced by the corporate (especially television and radio) media when airing debate with respect to an issue of public policy is to arbitrarily select two individuals from opposite sides of the intellectual/political spectrum. Each is then allowed to spew forth their respective “talking points” in an exchange where rhetorical flourish and rank sophistry is allowed to pass for meaningful elucidation of opinion/position(s). Sober analysis and rational discussion through thoughtful and respectful interchange of ideas is simply never forthcoming.
Rather than a situation where so-called experts are asked to come reason together, what one routinely witnesses is largely impolite jousting between two individuals each of whom function as either paid or unpaid advocates for their respective positions—presumably neither would be invited back again were they to attempt anything else. It is inconceivable that one could arrive at the truth through the employment of this commonly utilized (largely entertainment oriented) vehicle/tactic. What it resembles is something akin to a sporting event where two teams compete in a game/contest until one prevails. The viewing public is expected to enthusiastically support one or the other of the two opponents since their positions are not only (presumably) mutually exclusive but supposedly representative of the entire universe of possibilities rather than artificially truncated ones. The entire situation would be laughable if it were not so serious.
Enter Hegel (As Always)
The above enumerated phenomenon has helped create a permanent societal split or division that--while varying to a minor degree on a percentage basis from time to time--never really comes to grip with the essence or nature of any issue/problem. Perhaps an explanation for this unfortunate dilemma is that an apparent Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) has become the chosen mechanism by which our oligarchical elites attempt to program/mold mass opinion. Not only does this technique seriously limit the bounds of acceptable public discourse, it implies that all issues of social import are ultimately to be resolved on the basis of a “rough and tumble” contest of wills and sophistic verbiage rather than any real sense of absolute truth(s) which might serve as guiding principles. This no doubt is a legacy of the Enlightenment. The crucial point is that the acceptable boundary for public discussion is artificially circumscribed by the ruling elites in such a way as to control outcomes both at the level of topic selection and subsequent debate parameters and verbal/written interaction. A good example of this phenomenon is the charade which transpires every four years in which the public is treated to the spectacle of appearing to select from a large field of candidates—two individuals to vie for President of the United States. In reality, the most interesting and controversial candidates are eliminated fairly early such that the two final candidates actually differ quite minimally in terms of domestic and foreign policy preferences. Judging by the evidence, this is by design of the ruling class. In the most recent presidential election, U.S. citizens were given the choice between two seemingly different individuals, one apparently traditional (Mc Cain) the other more exotic representing “change” (Obama)--who Americans presumably preferred. Yet, both were clearly funded by and beholden to the elite power brokers whose interests would be served irrespective of which one prevailed.
It is noteworthy that after only 4 months in office, President Obama has largely followed the Bush/Cheney foreign and domestic (especially economic) policies despite campaigning vociferously against them. There is no evidence that Mr. Obama intends to dismantle the American empire or significantly reduce US militarism. There is nothing to establish that he has repudiated the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. In fact he has authorized offensive US military (armed drones) attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have killed innocent non-combatants and most disturbingly announced a policy of preventive detention of “terrorists.” The latter immoral and illegal policy is more aggressive than what the Bush/Cheney administration attempted in that regard.
Abandonment of Reality, Reason
In reality, there are very few issues of public policy which can be adequately considered through the prism of a binary lens--even though doing so has become the new norm. Similarly the related notion that all social/political questions must have either a yes or no answer flies in the face of reality—if true all “what” questions or those having to do with the nature or being of things would be eliminated— an unfortunate but foreseeable effect of the post-Enlightenment abandonment of metaphysics. The result is an artificial oversimplification which does not mirror reality but instead serves as a rhetorical devise by which a proponent of one particular view attempts to dis-intellectually “score points” or in contemporary parlance “spin” the target audience.
Integral to construction of the bipolar worldview is the need to carefully narrow the formulation of any potential issue or premise. For example, one is either for or against gay “marriage” for or against enhanced interrogation (torture), in favor of or against “pre-emptive” war (when what is really meant is preventive war). All are vacuous notions without a careful articulation of what is actually meant by these terms. Once adequately defined that is, with precision, it is sometimes but not always possible to take a pro or con position with respect to some of the so-called issues of the day. The Western legal system now steeped in legal positivism and based as it is in a binary adversarial process clearly contributes to this phenomenon as well.
Constant "Evolution"
A related trend is the completely ad-hoc division that has occurred over what is considered a liberal vs.: conservative view with respect to a given issue. For example, strict literal interpretations of each term (liberal/conservative) yield entirely different conclusions than can be had from a review of commonly understood usages of the terms. In other words, the monikers liberal and conservative have no fixed or foundational meaning and are constantly subject to alteration based on the changing nature of various interest groups that comprise their political bases from time to time. This leads to incompatible contradictions with regard to the policies of self-described members of each group.
It is noteworthy that traditional Paleoconservatives eschew foreign wars of conquest and oppose so-called pre-emptive (preventive) wars. Neoconservatives enthusiastically support both. Which view should be thought to characterize the conservative position? In reality it is a >matter of opinion only. Historically, Neoconservatism is clearly the aberration. The change presumably reflects the result of an internal political power struggle rather than a natural (ideological) evolution among adherents of conservatism.
Theoretically, conservatives (in the sense of preserving the status quo) should favor the continuation of whatever has gone before. If historically the United States engaged in defensive war only--than preventive war would be incompatible with conservatism and vice-versa. By analogy if abortion has become the legal norm, after decades, the conservative view should be pro-abortion. Obviously, the terms are not meant to be taken literally yet it becomes clear that there really is an ad-hoc and arbitrary nature to what is considered liberal and conservative from time to time. Neither term is based on a stable worldview (epistemology, metaphysics and moral philosophy).
Similar contradictions have occurred with respect to the policy positions held by proponents of liberalism (now referred to as adherents of progressive politics—one assumes the change in name was made ostensibly for perceived commercial advantage). Prior to 1973, liberals as defined by the Democratic Party held--along with conservatives as put forth by the Republican Party--that abortion on demand was immoral (the prevailing moral philosophy at the time was still heavily influenced by the ...Christian Ethic) and should be kept illegal as a matter of public policy or at least left to the states to regulate. As a significant percentage of the Democratic Party base became composed of individuals with an interest in liberalizing the existing laws with respect to abortion, the party became “pro-choice” meaning in favor of either federal legislation or judicial action legalizing abortion on demand. In this case, the term liberal from a literal perspective appears to be more in-keeping with the moniker. The change however was made because of the demands of an active, large and growing interest group within the Democratic Party and the liberal establishment. Does that mean that pre-1973 the Democratic Party was conservative not liberal? Yes and no, the point here is that these terms are completely fluid and ultimately without lasting/foundational meaning. What is favored today may be shunned tomorrow by either. To say that one is either liberal or conservative without clarification/amplification is really to reveal almost nothing other than the affiliation of one’s current power-base.
Will to Power
Perhaps more astoundingly, the terms liberal and conservative have no cohesive/conceptual underpinnings which might unify the various disparate strains which make up each. In some respects, liberals appear to espouse conservative policies, in others, conservatives embrace liberal ones. Neoconservatives as has already been mentioned embrace aggressive foreign policy including preventive wars of aggression. This in reality is a very liberal not conservative view. Analogously, most liberals currently oppose foreign wars of aggression and excessive U.S. militarism (in the maintenance of American hegemony) despite the fact that to do so is really a traditionally conservative position. Thoughtful persons find that neither political party has a consistent underlying conceptually unified organizing principle. What then attracts the vast majority of people to one or the other belief system? In the absence of any core worldview orientation it appears that the choice of one or the other is based solely on the need to posses a power-base from which to operate. Since third parties (political) have not been successful in the United States, the choices available are either liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican irrespective of the fact that these terms are constantly changing and without ultimate meaning.
The media (talk-radio and cable especially) essentially mirror this artificial division. For example, Fox News represents the Neoconservative position; MSNBC largely reflects the Liberal or Progressive viewpoint. Similar divisions characterize talk-radio. Traditional or Paleoconservative views are left largely unrepresented by the corporate media with a few exceptions (e.g. Patrick J. Buchanan).
Part of the current bi-polar split involves a separation between Secularism and Traditionalism as the United States progressively abandons all semblance of tradition in favor of Secular Humanism. While liberalism/progressivism almost entirely ascribes to Secularism, there remain parts of the “conservative” coalition which attempt to adhere to more traditionalist views—primarily those Paleoconservatives from whom the Neoconservatives have rested control of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, even here, there is a great deal of overlap. For example, the so-called Libertarian wing of conservatism favors the liberalization of controlled substance laws e.g. Marijuana which most Paleoconservatives oppose. In that sense, Libertarians are much more like liberals (progressives) than traditional conservatives. They are more inclined to accept gay “marriage” than are Paleoconservatives on the grounds of individual liberty or on the basis of civil or personal “rights” criteria. These rights however are fictitious in that they are ungrounded in any fixed or foundational human anthropology (nature or essence). That is to say since the Enlightenment and in the wake of Darwinism (Darwinian philosophy or metaphysical naturalism), human nature is assumed to be fluid. Modern "rights" simply refer to the constantly changing desires/choices which various individuals and groups wish to see codified in the law from time to time.
It becomes apparent that the artificial bi-polar split articulated here is completely without ideological foundation. Evidence seems to indicate that it has become a favored mechanism by which the ruling elites exercise control over the masses. In reality this amounts to a kind of not so subtle Hegelian “brain-washing” which is utilized to change public opinion by making it appear that issues are being fairly debated and democratically resolved. One feels forced to conclude that the binary worldview is nothing but a ruse--a kind of “bread and circus” extravaganza which functions to keep the proletariat pacified while the oligarchical elites proceed with advancing their goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)