counterpunch and the right

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

counterpunch and the right

Postby Dreams End » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:46 am

I think we've come to a sort of consensus that Cockburn and Counterpunch are a bit too gatekeeperish for our complete trust. But has anyone noticed how many former Reagan officials they have on there...as well as regular commentaries by "ex" cia and "ex" NSA. <br><br>Here is a VERY scary prediction of two US launched nuclear strikes in the near future...on Iran and North Korea. At my LOWEST point of cynicism I don't envision this coming true as predicted...there's just not enough time left in the Bush administration (if that's who's going to launch it) for all the games they'd have to play to even begin to launch such an unthinkable attack. (I really hope I'm right about that.)<br><br>But here comes former Reagan Asst. Sec. of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts with not one but TWO articles in today's Counterpunch. I'm just going to post the one about the looming attack. I'm assuming this is disinfo (again...maybe wishful thinking...) but if it is...then what is the tactic at work here? Why have Reagan people come on Counterpunch to give scenarios scarier than even most leftists predict about war (Roberts) or possible military coups (Wayne Madsen). And why is Counterpunch printing them.<br><br>Notice also that there is not much in the way of horror or outrage at this alleged nuking plan...but he does consider it a strategic mistake.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble<br>Bush is Cooking Up Two New Wars<br><br>By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS<br><br>Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon document, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order "to ensure success of US and multinational operations."<br><br>In the case of Iran and North Korea, the Bush administration is using diplomacy not for diplomatic purposes of reaching agreements, but in order to set the two countries up for nuclear attack. In the case of Iran, the Bush administration's plan is now obvious. The Bush administration is leveling false charges against Iran, just as it did against Iraq, of conspiring to make nuclear weapons. These charges are known to be false by the Bush administration and by the entire world.<br><br>For the past two years the International Atomic Energy Agency has had unfettered access to inspect Iran for any sign of a nuclear weapons program. The head of the IAEA has announced that there is no sign of a weapons program. The Bush administration nevertheless insists that Iran is making weapons, but can produce no evidence. As in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration substitutes allegations for facts.<br><br>Gordon Prather, an expert on the subject, has reported the straight facts in fine detail. Readers can become familiar with them by consulting his archive at Antiwar.com.<br><br>By bullying the 35 members of the IAEA, the Bush administration last week managed to get 22 votes that could lead to the referral of Iran to the UN Security Council. The Bush administration will now lobby for the referral. Once it has the referral, even if the Security Council does not act on it, the Bush administration can use it as an excuse to attack Iran. The Bush administration knows that few Americans have any knowledge of international law and procedures and will simply believe whatever President Bush says. The highly concentrated US media is a proven walkover for the war-mongering Bush administration.<br><br>As Dr. Prather has shown, Iran has gone beyond compliance to propose that new additional safeguards be established to monitor its nuclear energy program. The bad intentions are on the part of the Bush administration.<br><br>The Bush administration's plan is to create Iranian intransigence in place of cooperation by forcing the Iranian government to stand up to the bullying by reducing its cooperation. The goal of the Bush administration is to attack Iran, not to create cooperative relationships.<br><br>Needless to say, Iranians are angry at the Bush administration's manipulation of the IAEA members. Last Wednesday protesters in Tehran attacked the British embassy, which serves as a proxy for the non-existent US embassy, and legislation was introduced that, if it passes, will scale back Iran's cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has also threatened to cut off oil deliveries to some of the countries that caved in to US pressure, thereby permitting the US to increase tensions and escalate the conflict.<br><br>The Bush administration is betting that it can demonize Iran the way it did Iraq. As both Congress and the American public have failed to hold Bush accountable for deceiving them about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the administration assumes that its tactics will work a second time.<br><br>However, a nuclear attack on Iran would leave the Bush administration isolated. The US would instantly become a pariah nation, loathed and hated everywhere else.<br><br>Moreover, it would leave our battered troops in Iraq in a perilous situation. The only reason our army in Iraq has not been destroyed is that the Shi'ites, who comprise the vast majority of the population, have not taken up arms against us, expecting the US to turn over Iraq to them. As the Iraqi Shi'ites are allied with the Iranians, who also are Shi'ite, the US cannot attack Iran without destroying its position in Iraq.<br><br>The Bush administration, filled with hubris and delusion, is too stupid to know this.<br><br>The American people need to ask themselves why of all the countries in the world, only the US and Israel believe that it is imperative to attack Iran. If Iran is such a threat to the world, why isn't Russia, for example, concerned and ready to invade?<br><br>Americans need to ask themselves the same question about North Korea. Why is the US, half a world away, so concerned about North Korea? If North Korea is such a threat, would not China, sitting on its border, know it? Wouldn't Japan know it? South Korea? Wouldn't some other country besides the US see the problem and take action? According to the Voice of America (August 11, 2005), "Senior South Korean officials on Thursday defended what they say is North Korea's 'natural right' to pursue civilian nuclear power. The move may cause friction with the United States, which has expressed firm opposition to the North having any nuclear facilities whatsoever."<br><br>If the US doesn't want other countries to develop nuclear weapons, the US must stop bombing, invading and threatening invasions and nuclear attacks. How does President Bush serve the cause of peace by making countries paranoid by declaring them to be our enemies.<br><br>For there to be peace, the US must drop its belligerent role. The proper function of diplomacy is to build trust by drawing countries into economic and cultural relationships, not to isolate them for attack. It is past time for the US to give up its quarter century feud with Iran. US interference in Iranian internal affairs was the source of the feud. We need to acknowledge it and get over it.<br><br>The Korean war ended a half century ago. Isn't it time the US acknowledged the war's end and signed a treaty with North Korea? The Korean war was essentially a war between the US and China. It was Chinese troops that prevented American victory. Yet we are getting on with China, a much greater potential threat to the US than North Korea or Iran could ever be.<br><br>By creating instability in the Middle East, the US undermines Israel's security. As a few thousand Iraqi insurgents have proven, American armies are not going to be able to sit over the oil in the Middle East. If we can't produce enough valuable goods or maintain a strong currency, we won't have access to the oil. There is no possibility whatsoever of the US pushing around powers like China, India, or Russia.<br><br>Bush's hubris makes him unrealistic. He greatly overestimates America's power. Congress and the American people must find a way to supply the judgment that is missing in the executive branch.<br><br>There would be no terrorism if the US would stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries and if Israel stopped stealing the West Bank from the Palestinians. The Bush administration knows this, and that is why the administration spreads the propagandistic lie that "they" (Muslims) hate us and our way of life. This lie is the excuse for American aggression.<br><br>Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com<br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09302005.html">www.counterpunch.org/robe...02005.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

hey dreams end...

Postby nashvillebrook » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:54 pm

i've never been a huge fan of CP. my reason is thin: it's only been personally recommended to me by people who consider themselves above left/right politics -- which makes me wonder, "are you paying attention?" <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>having said that, I think there's a self-organizing principle at work with the ex-Reaganites fuming about bush jr.'s hubris. they aren't in lock step with the bushies, b/c the bushies are a different animal that many Reaganites. they're conservative, they're not crazy. <br><br>these ex-Nixonites, pnac'ers and christo-fascists in the bush pentagon HAVE an endgame. they've been waiting 30 years for this. they have an end-game. the scariest thing about Rumsfeld is the he DOESN'T support a traditional military. personnel? pah! irrelevant to our purposes. <br><br>us regular folk who lived thru the cold war with its attendant childhood nightmares, have a different take on nuclear war. we saw Threads and had our brains scrambled seeing The Day After on network TV. we think nuclear war is unimaginable. to them it's just an underused resource. even the way this guy talks about -- a nuclear war would be detrimental to the troops in Iraq. yeah, them and every other living thing. <br><br>the bushies are psychopaths. i just hope i live long enough to read (or write) their place in the history books. i mean...they came to power thru a stolen election...they let 9-11 happen...took us to war on a pack of lies...with a coked-up monkey at the "helm." <br><br>wow. who'd believe this? <p></p><i></i>
nashvillebrook
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Cockburn

Postby proldic » Sat Oct 01, 2005 2:10 pm

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The McMartin Case: Indict the Children, Jail the Parents</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>by Alexander Cockburn<br><br>The Wall Street Journal 2/8/90 <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: hey dreams end...

Postby Qutb » Sat Oct 01, 2005 2:25 pm

The Reagan coalition was a very broad one, comprising everyone from traditional conservatives to neo-conservatives, libertarians, John Birch-type Cold Warriors, Southern racists and the newly politicized Christian Right. Bush, on the other hand, basically appeal to only three types of people: the rich; the Rush Limbaugh-listening Bush Cult; and the neo-conservative foreign policy hawks. <br><br>The libertarian faction has left the GOP altogether and are fiercly anti-Bush. And I don't think there are many traditional conservatives left who still support him. Southern racists are disillusioned by Bush's immigration policy, and the Pat Buchanan conservatives dislike what they see as a faux Republican administration pursuing a Zionist and "interventionist" agenda.<br><br>My guess is that the ex-Reaganites writing for Counterpunch are libertarians, traditional conservatives and even Pat Buchanan-style "isolationists". <p><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="color:black;font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;"><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

left/right politics

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 01, 2005 2:31 pm

Rigidly partisan political thinking is the equivalent of suffering a bilateral stroke to the brain. <br><br>I read Counterpunch. I consider it to be a Left publication. I make that judgement based on the overall tone of the content. I think the fact that they link an occasional viewpoint from people who don't share their ideological bent is a plus, not a minus. It indicates to me that the editors think that people are capable of thinking for themselves and winnowing truth, rather than having every last bit of information placed before them pre-screened for ideological conformity.<br><br>And I consider the attitude of pre-emptively convicting anyone with a history of employment by the US government of being an agent provocateur is simply McCarthyite witch-hunting, turned inside out. <br><br>I think the aspersions cast on Alex Cockburn by some commentators may have as much to do with the fact that he wrote a particularly trenchant expose of the government of Israel- <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Dangerous Liasons</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->- as with his disinterest in joining the crowd of people who have made having the proper attitude toward the Kennedy assassination into a litmus test of their sincerity on all other political topics. <br><br><br>I think the particular story by Paul Craig Roberts- with whom I don't always agree- is simply a rational speculation, based on what Roberts believes about reckless, high-rolling sociopathic regimes like the Bush administration. When they're down, they've been known to double up. <br><br>To them, it's a matter of practicality: there's no way they have the forces to mount invasions of either of those countries. That leaves nukes- and the tactic would be so spectacular that it would push all of the indictments to the back pages, wouldn't it? <br><br>Considering all of the speculative articles that comprise daily fodder on RI, I'm curious as to how the Roberts article is different. <br><br>Presumably, if Bush did nuke North Korea or Iran by surprise, people like Roberts would be under suspicion of knowing in advance, and covering it up, or something. I don't get it. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/1/05 12:36 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: left/right politics

Postby Gouda » Sat Oct 01, 2005 2:56 pm

I've liked a lot of the essays on counterpunch, though I do cherry pick - there are certainly some writers worth the download: Petras, Avnery, Frank, Bageant (though he seems to have been replaced by PCR), and the occasional Goff (but he has not been seen on counterpunch for a long time). <br><br>I agree in part with your assessment of this P. C. Roberts piece, which reminds me of the Scott Ritter noise about an attack on Iran last July. Last July. I think he has had other valuable pieces in the past, however. If this pattern continues on the down in the future, then we can better assess him. <br><br>Funny, today Cockburn and St. Clair headline the page with another attempt at the "big tent" by scolding democrats and praising Republicans like Ron Paul. Oh, and they cite Wayne Madsen vis-à-vis AIPAC threats to democrats who might have shown up at the ANSWER rally. <br><br>The site overall? One, I do not like their 911 denial (see my letter below). Two, either there is a disreputable attempt to hoodwink the dissident Left into a coalition with the cleverly disguised fascist right, at worst - or they are just (naively?) desperate to forge a coalition with disaffected conservatives/libertarians in order to take down the two-party system, which is not really a bad thing, is it? Or they are being used, one as a means to the other. More gymnastics, who knows for sure, but worth keeping an eye on. <br><br>So I wrote a letter a few months back to counterpunch regarding an (overall) good piece St. Clair had written on Bechtel - problem was the little disinfo slip-in regarding 911 and the Pentagon. Here is part of what I wrote to them: <br><br>"Dear Counterpunch, <br><br>Jeffrey St. Clair's May 9 article, "More Powerful Than the US Army - Straight to Bechtel" was invaluable, an excellent piece. However, I spot one teeny tiny bit of misleading assumption. Mr. St Clair writes: <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>After the 9/11 attacks, Bechtel executives sensed an opportunity to return to its old haunts in Iraq, unfettered by sanctions or the nitpicking of Saddam. Along with its old emissary Donald Rumsfeld-who, only hours after witnessing the walls of the Pentagon crumple from an attack by a passenger jet commandeered by a Saudi, called for the bombing of Iraq-Bechtel geared up for war on Saddam.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>...<br><br>Now, are we still to believe that with all the nasty, formidable scheming and inter-linkages between the corporate war industry, the intelligence apparatus, and our government, which is set out so well in this article, are we still to believe the official 911 story peddled by the Kean commission and reinforced by the media?<br><br>I am left wondering why we are supporting the corporate government's version of the story (you know the resumes of the Kean Commission members), which seems to have made it a lot easier for the Bechtels of the world to operate with impunity in this post-911 myth world we buy into. <br><br>I may be missing something, but the utter lack of naiveté evident in the Bechtel piece by St. Clair (re: how the world really works) is dissonant with assumptions about the machinations behind 911. Why would one trust and accept the premises of the corporate security state regarding the official 911 story, while at the same time exposing its nefarious, conspiratorial doings elsewhere? Why the unwillingness to investigate the 911 crime as doggedly as the crimes of Bechtel et al? One might not be too surprised to find similar actors popping up behind the scenes of 911. If only we’d peek behind that curtain...." <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: left/right politics

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:18 pm

Have you ever actually <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>read</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> Ron Paul, Gouda?<br><br>Maybe I should link some of his columns, so RI denizens can comment on them. Full and complete, to make it easiest. <br><br>I think nationalism ought to be well on the way to being obsolete. As long as it's needed, though, I think Ron Paul has the most rational take on it. <br><br>And whatever one thinks of his other ideas, exactly where does the Left differ with him on his attitudes toaward militarism and imperialism? He recognizes that imperialism is the downfall of "nationalism", in the sense that the citizens of the country are robbed by the imperialists (a very special category of capitalists, indeed- one that seeks to get everyone else into their game.) <br> <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Counterpunch

Postby Felix » Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:31 pm

I stopped my subscriptions to Counterpunch and The Nation within the last two years. Yes, they often do have very good journalists writing for them and Cockburn in particular has written powerful books and columns, BUT (and this has become very, very important to me and yes I do use it as a litmus test): they both deny that anything like ritual abuse occurs and often trot out the false memory crowd to either write the articles for them or heavily quote from them. And yes anything "conspiritorial" is cast as false (especially if it involves the family or government). Now, the questions remains for me. Do they really believe what they print in regard to these matters or.................................... <p></p><i></i>
Felix
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: left/right politics

Postby Gouda » Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:34 pm

rd, to be honest i have not read him - i've only seen him speak in interviews. you should post some of his stuff - it might spark an interesting debate (not that that ever happens on the RI board. Ha!) <br><br>I thought it was timely ("funny") of Cockburn and St.Clair to post that today, as if to spark further suspicions in what dreams end had posted. Which came first? <br><br>But what do you think about the rest of what I said? I hope Ron Paul is not your only beef. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: left/right politics

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:56 pm

I think that sometimes speculations that are eventually proved not to have merit can be useful.<br> <br>The hunt for a motive for writing the piece is secondary- especially given that the article in question isn't stage-whispering about some secret inside knowledge. It's simply one person's opinion, their educated guess.<br><br>I hope Roberts is wrong. Presumably, he hopes so, too. I don't read any cheerleading in there, that isn't Tom Tancredo, broaching the possibility of "nuking Mecca" as if it were a good idea. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: left/right politics

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 01, 2005 4:01 pm

<br>Here's an archive of Ron Paul's writings- at least a few of which should throw a spanner in your hermeneutics. <br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://antiwar.com/paul/">antiwar.com/paul/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Note his consistent anti-interventionism. I note that some of you are wary of "humanitarian" gambits and ruses as justification for outside intervention in sovereignty- so is Rep. Ron Paul. And he's willing to take the rap for being "cold-hearted"- or even "racist"- to keep his consistency. <br><br>Mind you, I'm not even necessarily in convinced agreement with him about that unvarying stance. But, it seems that Ron Paul shares the other frustration of some of us RI posters, who are wary of campaigns of armed intervention- whether by the USA unilaterally, or by the present- and future- UN "world opinion." (Precedent, precedent...) The UN is subject to reconfiguration and leadership turnover like any other regime (or: what else would John Bolton be seeking to accomplish there, as UN representative?) <br><br>Rep. Ron Paul, M. D., on a wide variety of topics- <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm">www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/1/05 2:34 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Thanks for the comments

Postby Dreams End » Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:12 pm

This little debate covered all sides of the issue so well I don't really need to comment.<br><br>I'll add just a bit.<br><br>First, I read Counterpunch regularly. Mainly, I look for Ben Tripp's articles. Usually kinda traditional liberal views..but one of the funniest writers I've ever read.<br><br>Also, Cockburn's defense of Scientology is of interest to me, beyond his refusal to...oh, I was going to say entertain conspiracy theories...but he does that all the time. He's happy to promote awareness of US dirty tricks abroad, but wants us to believe that something stops them from happening within our own borders. Elves are my best theory, because surely this is magical thinking.<br><br>Scientology has more power, I think, than can easily be tracked by simply looking at their articles...and they seem to have intel connections. If you want to be convinced of the former, anyway, take a tour of their properties in Los Angeles. Cash is not an issue. And the militaristic uniforms and structure of the thing, anyway...I don't even know that Cockburn's actually involved with them...he just always jumps to their defense.<br><br>He's also definitely a fan of FMSF...his position on that is quite consistent. Even in the midst of all the revelations about Catholic priests, he comes to the rescue of one such priest. Don't get me wrong...just because lots of priests were involved doesn't mean we need to be less scrupulous about ensuring that the innocent are not persecuted (what does "innocence" mean when knowledge of these things was so widespread though?) but why choose to write about this one priest while ignoring the larger scandal? <br><br>He could simply be idiosyncratic and this could explain the constant use of rightist sources. He's pretty consistent about giving libertarians some space and I don't actually have a problem with that. I like antiwar.com, for example...I don't insist that I have to agree with everything someone writes to appreciate some elements I can agree with.<br><br>But when you get to Reagan OFFICIALS...this gives me pause. I make little distinction between the Reagan and Bush admins. After all, Bush was VP at the time and probably exercising LOTS of influence. And many of the bad guys we see in leadership positions now crawled back out from the rocks they were under after Reagan/Bush left the scene. <br><br>I do assume that elements on the right have decided it's time to jettison Bush Jr. or at least to dissasociate from him. But I think that includes elements of the intelligence community, and so the fact that the intelligence community is given a voice through Counterpunch does not make me a happy camper either. <br><br>And the fact that they printed that Madsen piece about how a military coup was in the works and the left should SUPPORT it...Madsen writes more articles than they post on CP...why did they choose that one?<br><br>And I'm sorry, but for those of you out there who chose to work for CIA or other intel agencies...I will never trust you, no matter how retired you may be. You should have thought of that before you signed on. It's not that hard to learn some of the nasty things they do.<br><br>All of these questions are legit to ask, especially given how the CIA itself has bragged of how many journalists are on their payroll or otherwise useful to them. That, at least, is not conspiracy theory...it's a fact they've acknowledged. I'm not saying Cockburn's on their payroll...I can't prove that...only that it pays to be wary.<br><br>As for the content of the article it just had the feel of misinformation to me, like when Skolnick says civil war has broken out. I really hope I'm right about that, but naturally, one simply looks for more sources of information. But NUKING BOTH countries in the next 3 years? And Roberts also puts out the "these guys are so stupid, they just might do it". I don't think these guys are stupid (excluding Bush Jr. himself, of course). I think they wanted chaos in Iraq and achieved it brilliantly. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Thanks for the comments

Postby robertdreed » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:22 pm

Cultic teaching though it undoubtedly is, Scientology preaches and teaches self-empowerment at the individual level. This puts it in stark contrast to some of the other cults out there on the scene, vying for influence.<br><br>Other cults with a similar message include the Mormons, Nicheren Shoshu, and some Protestant Christian congregations. <br><br>That goes a long way toward explaining their level of wealth. Something about what they provide to their adherents apparently helps give individuals the initiative to succeed in their lives materially, and they in turn credit the organizations with this help, and share their wealth with them. <br><br>Whatever their mind control effects and irrationalities, a lot of people swear by them because they feel they're getting tangible results. <br><br>It's a free country. No one forces them to join. Although I've heard that such cults can be a bitch to quit...notably including Scientology. <br><br>As for Paul Craig Roberts' status as former "Assistant Secretary for the Treasury" under Reagan- I think it's unlikely that Reagan had more contact with Roberts during the time he held that office than through sitting in on a few meetings with him in attendance, and maybe a photo op or two. Same goes for Bush. The Federal Government is a big place. People get hired to positions like "Assistant Secretary of the Treasury" for their resumes, not for for their ideological commitment to the Contra re-supply effort. <br><br>As for the CIA- the American right wing has recurrently had so much trouble getting their way with career employees of the Analysis branch of the CIA that they had to set up their own parallel networks in order to stovepipe intelligence, as far back as the 1970s. What does that tell you? <br><br>I think you're triggering on the term "CIA" in much the same way as some people trigger on the word "Israeli." The most articulate and probing critics of Israeli government policies are often Israelis- but to some people out there, that renders everything they say as disinformation, "fake opposition."<br><br>The fact is, it's easy to criticize from such a stance, knowing that all of one's political allies are safely untainted by any sort of Federal government or military service. But that litmus test excludes an awful lot of American citizens, and implicitly puts them in the "fascist camp."<br><br> It also removes one from having much contact with what government employees actually do on their jobs. Bureaucratic hierarchies can perpetuate astoundingly wretched policies without the least bit of malicious intent on the vast majority within the pyramid of individual functionaries. And those who do get hip at some point to their role in implementing unjust or diabolical policies, and who seek to tell their stories, perhaps deserve better than Eternal Damnation. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/1/05 6:27 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Thanks for the comments

Postby Dreams End » Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:39 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think you're triggering on the term "CIA"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yep. I've read about their work. Started as soon as they were born...importing nazis and goes on to this day. Shall we list how many <br><br>heads of state they've killed<br><br>coups they've backed (leading to death of heads of state)<br><br>revolutionary leaders they've assassinated<br><br>elections they've fixed<br><br>rightwing networks they've set up<br><br>fake terrorist operations they've created<br><br>the people they've subjected to mind control experiments against their will<br><br>I'm not going to argue that they act on their own...they are part of the whole system...this doesn't rule out that there are currently tensions with the Bush team...but that doesn't make them the good guys. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The fact is, it's easy to criticize from such a stance, knowing that all of one's political allies are safely untainted by any sort of Federal government or military service. But that litmus test excludes an awful lot of American citizens, and implicitly puts them in the "fascist camp<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Truly the most bizarre statement I've ever seen you make. Either you are arguing that my "prejudice" against intelligence agents is fascist or that by being against people who worked in the Reagan administration or worked for intelligence agencies I'm excluding everyone who's ever had government or military service. <br><br> As the physicists say...that argument isn't even wrong. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Thanks for the comments

Postby robertdreed » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:11 am

You're right. That last was an over-reach. It was clumsy and ill-phrased. <br><br>I was attempting to point up a tendency that I've noticed about a lot of people- not just on the Left, but true of a lot of people far removed from the workings of the central government in Washington, like folks in rural areas of the country, especially those who reside outside of the Northeast region. I think they're often overawed and superstitious about what goes on there, as if the central government's chief function was spying on them and acting nefariously. And the less likely they are to have known people working for the Federal government- in any capacity- the more they're inclined to weird ideas about its supposed omniscience and omnipotence.<br><br>However, I don't want to discount the FACT that ever since about January 1981, the people in charge of the Executive branch of the Federal government have been steadily more inclined to spend more and more of the energy of the Federal government on spying on the American citizenry and acting nefariously- and that this inclination has escalated tremendously under the latest Bush administration. So I think that while the suspicions are often exaggerated, ultimately there's a sound basis for them. <br><br>Bt it doesn't do any good to prematurely exclaim that a fascist takeover has already happened, and that the entire apparatus of the Federal government is in the hands of people who have implemented a plan of concerted oppression against the citizenry. That merely empowers those who wish it to be so. <br><br>I don't think it's a bad idea to be suspicious of people with former US intelligence connections. But I think it's a mistake to write them off completely, as if they all got into those agencies because they're crypto-Nazis. <br><br>Compartmentalization is the name of the game in covert operations. For instance, the Contra resupply effort wasn't run through the mainstream of CIA, it was run through the North Enterprise, its own self-contained effort. That most certainly does NOT mean that it was a "rogue operation" run by a "secret government" that operated beyond the purview of the elected officials of the Federal Executive Branch. Anyone who's studied the matter sufficiently knows that CIA DCI Bill Casey was in the loop. So were CIA agents like Dewey Clarridge and Joe Fernandez, Attorney Generals William French Smith and Ed Meese, Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger, VP George H. W. Bush, and lots of other members of Reagan's cabinet and their deputies. And the entire operation had the approval of Ronald Reagan, although my guess is that he sent out orders that he didn't even want to hear about the specifics, much less take hands-on control of the operation. He was satisfied that matters were in "good hands." <br><br>Given all that, however, the Contra effort still left most of the CIA out of the loop. Most CIA employees were doing all sorts of other things that fall under the heading of "intelligence gathering"- not covert operations or dirty work. Many CIA people don't even operate under a cover. A lot of them are contract emplyees tasked to their own designated pigeonhole. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/1/05 10:55 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Media and Information Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests