Sand Puppy, you mentioned Bamford's book ' A pretext for war' he gets a lot of the context right but misses the real ramifications of 9/11. one of the better political minds on the neocon likudnik agenda is Patrick J Buchanan, he writes knowledgeably about the players. An article from American Conservative 2003 presciently surmises the unfolding chaos we see now.
I have found the best way to approach an understanding of subjects like the agenda of the Likud Party and the Neo Cons is to study their own publications, statements, and public policy actions. Start with the the foundational original documents "A clean break -strategy for securing the realm" and the subsequent PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Reading Secondary analysis is useful, but only when approached with a keen eye to the inherent bias/world view of the analysts You can find critical analysts on both sides of the political spectrum. Eg Justin Raimondo William Engdahl on the left, Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts on the traditional right.
I say 'approach an understanding' is because that is the best one can hope for to come closer to an elusive objective reality. The inherent complexity of the issues, agendas and actors that embody the subject is daunting. The strategies and philosophies of these guys are all on public display. The real evil is happening behind closed doors in the halls of power. If you look at the policies the actions and the outcomes of the players involved you can see the clear patterns that emerge. Unfortunately that mostly amounts to what the legal system would define as a circumstantial case.
The emergence of these actors and embedding into our foreign/military policy apparatus is simply stunning. The manner in which they coopted other agenda's and elements of the deep state was brilliant. The outcomes are both tragic and disasterous.
Dear Mr Dogs, your contra arguments are both appreciated and valued. Some years ago you offered a cogent criticism of my position on nuclear power that encouraged me to change my world view. I'm offering thanks and a request that you keep swimming against the stream, if only to keep a check on our confirmation biases.
I second Nigel; Dogs, keep swimming against the stream. Contrary views based on deeper understanding of systems grounded in experience or being 'part of' them are invaluable to the ones 'outside' and trying to see the bigger picture. No views are neutral, but all views based on a solid foundation are potentially enlightening. Deductive capacity and common sense only go up to a certain level.
Keep them coming Dogs.
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile society.
Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country -- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
It's important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as revolutionaries are sometimes wont to do. How many people here disagree with this statement?
Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
This is shared common ground for most of us here, I hope, atavists excepted. It certainly expresses my values, whether the justification for Locke's view on the essential value of every human individual is religious or secular.
Higher ideals grafted onto prior ugliness? Since I have been conscious, I have never seen the higher ideals at work in regular society. I see "compromise" to protect the selfish one. Political theater? Dunce Presidents?
Your description of grafting ideals onto more violent roots is a nicely conceived and compelling counter-argument to the ideal of natural rights, Kugs. I'm a big fan of gardening metaphors.
Dogs, thanks for your expertise and input.
Next question, if I may. Was there a simple reason for an evening launch, like making a spectrographic analysis of the contrail for assessment of how completely the propellant was consumed easier, or was it timed for maximum "We've still gottum, and they still work just fine" visibility? It seems to me that if you're going to make a "secret" missile test it would have been better to do it at 03:00 when almost no one would have noticed.
That is a beautiful video, Hugh. Thanks for sharing. However, to think that those that aspire to the halls of power will have the same compassion is, in my opinion, a waste of time. A much different personality type aspires to such places.
Again, thanks for the video. It does give me a ray of hope on the local level.
I don't know if this is wise on my part without doing my own research, but after reading your summary of your sources, I now trust that a summary of your own research and conclusions you came to as a result would be great for those of us with the inclination, but not the time to dig into the sources you cite.
Would you be willing to compile a post or series of posts that summarizes these sources, includes links to the originals, a short reading list of the most important documents to read in your opinion, and your analysis/best guess about the big picture suggested by the documents?
Dogs,
In reviewing prior posts I find that you have already answered my question, though I find it difficult to believe that minimizing the alarm to civilians isn't a larger part of the equation.
I have to smile at the idea that riding around in a nuclear submarine and launching ballistic missiles could be a ho hum house keeping chore. Do you ever have civilians ride along? It sounds like a blast (no pun intended) to me.
It sounds like we have in our midst someone who has done homework on the Likud/Neocon connection and the process by which elements of this group have taken positions of power within our governments. I would very much invite a summary article from mememonkey on this topic with links so that we could confirm or investigate deeper the most pertinent point.
Knowing where a writer is coming from is so important. So a person who is known to us and motivation and framework already familiar is SO helpful.
The strategy of the Obama Administration regarding Russia and foreign affairs has been a total disaster. They have achieved quite remarkably in bringing back the Cold War and placing the world at risk all for their power-plays that American citizens are ignorant about. This issue in Syria illustrates how once politicians make a mistake, they will never admit it nor will they reverse their policy. The entire Syria strategy was to overthrow the government their to get a pipeline through to Europe to compete with Russia and reduce its economy with regard to natural gas it sells to Europe. This policy has led to ISIS, the refugee invasion of Europe, and a continual support with now troops advising on the ground how to overthrow the Syrian government.. This will lead to war because this is now totally insane and Saudi Arabia is beginning to issue bonds for the government’s budget counted on higher oil prices.
Putin has now announced that he will counter the US-NATO’s missile shield defense program by deploying new strike weapons which are capable of piercing the shield that the Democrats objected to initiated by Ronald Reagan, Putin stated publicly that that he was now developing defenses against ballistic missiles to prevent Obama from attempting to “neutralize” Russia’s nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately, Obama has one year left and that is too much time to screw the world up even more.
Thank the Lord we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner at the helm!
What we need is a non-politician with brains and guts. Someone who will stop the bureaucrats in the military establishment from creating World War III. Project Northwoods reveals how these people would even kill American citizens and blame it on someone else just to get their military goals.
The revelation of Northwoods after the Oliver Stone Movie has shed some light on the entire assassination of JFK. The problem with electing an outsider to Washington will be that he indeed would become a target for assassination by the insiders who see themselves as the defender of the faith, which is their agenda. This is like a policeman today. They are trained to look for the bad guys. Thus, everyone they look at they suspect is a criminal. Those in the military establishment are the same. Everything they see is a threat to their power. Presidents have become puppets.
Sure makes it easier to believe that some in an inner circle/deep state had advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks and took evil steps to use them/enhance them to further the warmongers' agenda.
But again "we the people" aren't paying attention and deserve whatever we "let" them do.
"Welcome to the Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in your favor."
I say let's rip the scab off of this festering sore right now. It has always bothered me how many dual citizens are in a position of influence in our government and financial organizations. Call me bigoted if you like, but it is a valid discussion IMHO. Does this not lead to divided loyalties? Can one country's best interest ALWAYS align perfectly with another?
We are familiar with the story of General Wesley Clark telling Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow that in the weeks after 9/11 the US already had plans to take out 7 countries in 5 years. (transcript, video) (Chris mentioned this, as have others.)
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
Pat Buchanan's article (suggested by mememonkey above) certainly addresses where the list of "countries to be destroyed" comes from. This was very eye opening for me.
Fascinating thread. It occurs to me there are 3 layers (at least) to the consensus trance.
Level 1 is the BAU mindset we're all familiar with. Growth and progress and our consumer lifestyles will continue into the forseeable future. Technology will solve all our problems…
Level 2 is a major theme in this discussion - Seeing through this level of the trance involves more clearly understanding the corruption of power.
Level 3 involves the nature of personal reality. The conventional view of separate small self slowly begins to dissolve as open spacious states are experienced directly.
I'm no expert on the last two levels though I'm increasingly aware of them. And perhaps it would be more accurate to call them facets or strands of the consensus trance rather than levels as they can be worked on separately and in no particular order.
I found a some cool data earlier today that identifies the military capabilities of 125 countries or so. Chris mentioned earlier that the Chinese clone of the Russian hypersonic missile could pose a threat to US ships. Certainly true, but I think an analysis of the entire naval power of the US and her allies against the Chinese-Russian alliance would be good perspective to understand what the military differences are.
China has like 5 subs that can launch that kind of missile where we have 18. On top of that, the combination of all the Pacific fleets together against China's fleet at present could probably make quick work.
I would appreciate anybody's thoughts on what the alliances would be if another global conflict were to happen. Basically the blue is NATO and other countries likely to join the blue team and the red is the Chinese/Russian alliance. Everybody else is neutral.
Rolling the mouse over a country will reveal the military potential of each country.
Hey, it could be a useful data-driven exercise to understand the situation better unlike some of your rants about this and that. Sorry for trying to spice things up!
Not a dig at you Wildlife. Just noted how close we've slipped to George Orwell's vision. Gotta have a common enemy.
And we've always been at war with Eastasia.
