A Taste for Evil
The guest on the show was Max Blumenthal, a writer for the Nation and al Akhbar, a Lebanese publication. What followed was one of the most startling conversations I ever heard. Apparently the prime minister of "Israel," Benjamin Netanyahu, is trying to influence the "U.S." presidential election. Through a Las Vegas casino tycoon named Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of Netanyahu, money is being funneled to "Republican" candidates, especially "right wing" Moon colonizer-to-be Newt Gingrich.
I've been hearing for years about how the "Israeli" spy agency Mossad has been all over the country gathering intelligence and doing who knows what else, so it shouldn't have been a surprise that there would be attempts to control "U.S." politics. "Israel" would not be able to oppress the "Palestinians," destroy their houses, cut down their olive trees, or invade its neighbors without "U.S." support, i.e., money. Total aid to "Israel" has been estimated at over $140 billion. "Israel" would have no nuclear weapons without "our" tacit approval. There would be no settlements in "Palestinian" lands without "our" money.
The site where I found the $140 billion estimate is named "If Americans Knew." Good luck with that. "Americans," addicted to TV, cellphones, iPods, iPads, Blackberrys, video games, alcohol, drugs, sex, pornography, sports, gambling, celebrities, guns, violence, junk food and fake religion, are likely the most easily duped people in human history. I could write an outraged screed condemning, imploring, beseeching, pleading and shaming whomever might read this to STOP THE MADNESS. Nothing would change.
What I might be able to do is shed some light, which is all I can do in any of my writing. The question at hand, it seems to me, is what is the likely trajectory of a social system that is such fair game to manipulation, propaganda, the influence of big money, and what I call a taste for evil.
There are now threats coming from "Israel" that they are going to bomb "Iran." The country is the latest boogeyman in the ongoing effort to rid the "Mideast" of threats, real or imagined, to "Israel." It was and is conventional wisdom among "leftists" that "we" invaded "Iraq" for its oil, but I believe the greater motivation was to serve the interests of "Israel." During the first "U.S." invasion of "Iraq" in 1991, Saddam Hussein attacked two "Israeli" cities with his paltry Scud missiles. "Israel" would not forgive or forget this transgression.
"Iran" has been "our" "enemy" since 1979, when the people there overthrew the dictator "we" imposed on them. The dictator, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was not only "our" ally, but a staunch ally of "Israel." He crushed opposition in a similar fashion to what the regime that replaced him does. The difference is that he was "ours." In addition to overthrowing the Shah, militants in "Iran" attacked the "U.S." embassy, and captured 52 "Americans," holding them hostage for 444 days. The hostages were released under curious circumstances, the crisis being a crucial factor in the "election" of Ronald Reagan to the "U.S." presidency. The curiosity is known as the October Surprise.
Supposedly the Obama regime is interested in negotiating with "Iran" about its nuclear program, which may or may not include plans to develop nuclear weapons. Maybe this is the case, maybe not. Glenn Greenwald of Salon is doubtful. Max Blumenthal believes Obama is not in favor of attacking "Iran," but is being pressured by "Israel" and its "American" supporters.
So much about so little. What's the big deal about "Iran?" We should be clear that what is really meant by "Iran" is the Islamic regime that rules "Iran." In a bombing attack, the land and people of "Iran" will be surrogates, stand-ins for the ruling regime. The regime is a nasty one for sure, but that is not the reason for the impending attack. Our own regime of world empire has had no problem whatsoever with nasty regimes in the past, as long as they were "our" nasty regimes. "We" will attack any regime, nasty or benign, if "we" decide it is our "enemy."
For an empire, invading seemingly defenseless countries serves a number of purposes. "Friendly" governments can be imposed. Windfall profits for the armaments industry can be reaped. Other regimes in the region, to say nothing of worldwide, can be intimidated into submission. Great political support at home can be garnered, and opponents can be scapegoated and vilified.
Where this model falls down, in part, is to look at the history of empires. The two best examples are the Roman and British empires, both of which failed the test of time. Ours will too, but in a much shorter span of time.
The difference now is that we have a new context. Our infinite growth economic system is breaking down. It is running up against the resource limits of the planet. More serious, though, is that our economic activities are causing the planet's climate to change in a rapid and increasingly detrimental manner.
Any country that finds itself trying to dominate the planet in a context of limits to growth and climate change is accelerating its own demise. Our own intelligence agencies have to know this. We have learned nothing from our two most recent invasions. If anything, we are poised to keep on invading. If not "Iran," "Pakistan" is a likely candidate for military adventure. For some, "North Korea" would be a fun escapade.
So the real question is do "we," as personified by our "leaders," have the wherewithal to look beyond the immediate gratification of bombing and/or otherwise attacking another country, and see a broader picture of unintended consequences. By focusing attention on short-term political expediency we will likely reap very serious long-term consequences. As we should have learned from our most recent invasions, the costs can, and almost certainly will be enormous.
Also, by indulging in evil, we avoid doing good. Good would be to change our economic system and reverse the effects of climate change. It's double evil. Our ruling structure will likely go ahead with either its own attack on "Iran" or looking the other way while "Israel" attacks. All involved should be ready for the consequences, especially the acceleration of their own loss of power, influence, and, last but not least, MONEY.
You can listen to a podcast of the WORT interview by clicking here. A book about Madison veterans' path to peace is described by its editor here. Esty Dinur's story is among the entries.
I post what I write elsewhere. A commenter supplied this link, adding more depth to the conundrum. For some further intrigue, click here and read the comments. This is a fun place to read the post. I also post here, which tends to get more reads, but didn't this time. It's always hit and miss. Sometimes they feature what I write, sometimes they don't. A lot of it is about timing. At this site no one sees it unless they accidentally happen upon it in a Google search.
For an update on the media campaign for attacking "Iran," click here. Here's another.
Slate analyzes Newt Gingrich's Moon colonizing plan.
For some more info about Sheldon Adelson, click here.
Further complicating the matter, "U.S." politicians are receiving large sums of money from a group that has been designated a terrorist organization under "U.S." law, all because the group is committing terrorist acts against "Iran, our "enemy." Read about it here.
I wrote about the planned attack on "Iran" previously here and here. My proposal for peace in "Palestine/Israel" is here.
For a slide show of who and what we, or our proxy "Israel" will be bombing, click here.
This perspective from Eric Margolis offers great insight.
For a good story about how "Iran" and "Israel" were friendly, click here.
Here's a little tune of encouragement. Here's the chords and lyrics. This is another great version. This too.
And this certainly fits the mood I'm in.
This too, something I love to do. Here's the chords and lyrics.
Here's something we all have to do from time to time.
For good measure, this.
Just tryin' to make it real.
Ben Kingsley, as Gandhi, said "There have been cutthroats and murderers throughout history. They all fall - every one of them." Here's the same idea in a song.
Here's one for Barry the Bomber. For the chords and lyrics, click here. One more. For updates on Barry's bombing, click here, here and here.
Ending with a positive and peaceful message, this video says more than I ever could. Watch it in full screen.
Mini update: This is the best commercial from the "Super Bowl." It has a brief shot of activites at the Wisconsin state Capitol. I didn't watch the game, but heard that generic team A beat generic team B, and that there was a thrilling catch. Almost as thrilling as you could see in the park on any spring or summer day of a dog catching a frisbee. For a lot less money. Salon has a good analysis of the ad's significance. Here's the ad on YouTube. Here's some great and not-so-great Clint Eastwood quotes.
The Onion gets the news right more often than the "real" news.
This video is a must-watch. Maybe if a critical mass of people unite to stop the planned attack on "Iran," it can be stopped.