Tags
Capitalism, Corporate State, Corporatocracy, Criminalizing Dissent, Empire, Financial Elite, Gross Inequality, Homeland Security, Inverted Totalitarianism, Military Industrial Complex, Neoliberal Capitalism, Poverty, Resource Wars, Security and Surveillance State, Social Unrest, The Elite 1%, War on Terror, War on Whistleblowers, Zbigniew Brzezinski
Connecting the ‘War on Terror’ with the control of resources abroad and the crushing of dissent both here and overseas:
In order to overtake and dominate, sometimes you have to draw your opponent in close to you. Knowing that the oil and gas reserves of the Middle East make it an area of vital geopolitical and national security importance, an empire would use all available opportunities to insert itself there, even if it meant invasion under some false pretense. With the trumped-up claims of terrorist ties to Iraq and WMD, 9-11 gave the empire the pretense to invade. Today we can see the results here and here and here.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who worked for the NSA, laid out this general strategy in his book ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives‘.
A few quotes:
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” (p. 211)
“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (p.35)
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected(!), and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)
Now we get to today’s video from Journeyman pictures which gives further evidence from a whistleblower that all the stops were pulled in order to make this ‘War on Terror’ fly. No more Geneva Convention, no more questioning of the efficacy or, for that matter, morality of the brutal torture done by countries we once condemned as barbaric:
And the War on Terror is being used to suppress dissent not just in the Middle East, but also here in the US and all other ‘developed countries’ where militarized local police departments have been given the latest armory and weapons to be unleashed on a growing population falling deeper and deeper into joblessness and destitution, the levels of which have not been seen in half a century.
The War on Terror was the perfect existential threat needed to prop up neoliberal capitalism and its resultant world of an opulently rich class ruling over the teeming masses of serfs. In a civilization dominated globally by such an economic system which is designed to funnel the shrinking wealth (i.e. energy) of society into the hands of a tiny elite, there can be no other future to look forward to for those at the bottom but despair and poverty:
Collapse of Industrial Civilization 
Mike,
here is a stream of thought that leaked out of the grey matter this morning that I wanted to share with you.
You’re welcome to delete it, remove it to turn it into a private conversation, or turn it into a post; which ever of these three choices suits you best:
Albert Camus once wrote:
“If a philosophy followed from [..] revolt, it would be a philosophy of limits, of calculated ignorance and recognised risk.
In the conflict between freedom and justice, absolute freedom becomes the right of the strongest to dominate; absolute justice on the other hand suppresses every contradiction, and thus destroys freedom.”
Absolute justice, therefore, requires rigor in its opposition to form sound judgement, yet sadly, human nature is formed with an unfortunate limit:
Human choice isn’t always rational in groups larger than 5, who – if you think about it – believe that it is sound to presume a truth built upon a factor of:
70% of how a person looks
20% of how a person sounds
10% of what a person says
As of the 20th and early 21st century – through a supposed public choice – our representing representitives have been given tools that present facts selectively (thus the possibility of lying by omission), in encouraging a particular synthesis using messages to produce an emotional, rather than a rational response to information presented.
Public relations – so its name denotes – is a means to fabricate a subtlety within a dialogue, making it appear orderly and without objection by the public. Those that object are more often marginalized, particularly as there is so much invested toward a greater profit.
Part of the structure of subtlety within the meme would be, for example:
“You are either for or against guns”
“You are either for or against training in combat with guns”
As we have found in explaining to people the subtlety of the Crash Course for example, we’ve used the mid-ground to express a reasoning to a series of subjects more complex than can be simplified into yes/no and right/wrong answers. If the public cannot either make a choice in a group above 5 – or be allowed the right to complex debate of the subtleties of a subject through an unlocked media – and its previously compounded series of messages – the outcome is nolonger democratic, but formulated to appear so.
LikeLike
LOL! Great comment… should have been a post. As we know, the mainstream media has simply become an instrument of the elite to dumb down public discourse and keep the populace confused about the facts. No informed decisions can ever be made by a population that is kept completely in the dark and entertained with bread and circus.
This reminded me of an essay by Manuel Garcia:
LikeLike