No peace on Earth, No goodwill to neocons

Posted by Pobble-Face on December 28, 2006, 06:16 AM | #

This is an interesting video in which the main figureheads at the American Enterprise Institute explain their motivations and their view of the world.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6453738561338241311&q=Neocons

Four players:

1) Person with vested ethnic interest in Middle East, and many millions or billions of dollars- desires the infrastructures of Arab states destroyed, desires them permanently destabilized and impoverished. Machiavellian Ethnostatist/Strategist.
<1% of population

2) Person with connections to oil industry, desires direct access to oil fields in the middle East. Militant Capitalist/Imperialist. <1% of population

3) Person who believes that American-democracy can be forced upon the middle East, after it’s States are effectively destroyed. Also believes this is worth doing. Neocon.
~1% of population.

4) Person who fails to grasp the influence of player 1’s genetic interests and player 2’s oil-ambitions, whose belief in the ‘values’ of democracy and rights, and the evils of ‘terrorism’, render him vulnerable to being temporarily convinced of the legitimacy of player 1 and 2’s actions by player 3. Average Citizen. ~50-80% of the population.

Player 1 and Player 2 need Player 3- because he ultimately convinces Player 4- who is actually responsible for fighting the war. That would at least explain why the Neocons are so lavishly funded and given so much space in print and on television to voice their opinions-- someone wanted to empower them to do that.

Posted by Rnl on December 28, 2006, 07:50 AM | #

Player 1 and Player 2 need Player 3 - because he ultimately convinces Player 4 - who is actually responsible for fighting the war.

That’s very good.

I have doubts, however, about the existence of Player 2. I think he was invented by leftists to avoid talking about Player 1. 

Non-militant versions of Player 2 have, after all, had easy access to Saudi oil since the 1940s. They haven’t yet orchestrated an invasion. Even if they were militant imperialists at heart, they don’t need wars to acquire oil. Peace works just as well. Probably better. Zionists have often complained about the Arabism of large oil companies.

I’m also not sure about Player 3. The game’s structure is right, but if the game implies Player 3’s sincerity, it is surely wrong in most cases.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2006, 12:09 PM | #

In that video Richard Perle said of the neocons, “The fact is the world tends to look the other way, and we don’t.”

Every Jewish neocon not only favors forced race-replacement of Eurochristians wherever they may be in the world (while opposing, needless to add, any race-replacement of Jews wherever they may be in the world) but favors it with self-righteous fervor almost religious in intensity. 

Is that part of what Perle meant by “not looking the other way”?  Supporting Euro race-replacement to the hilt? 

When Perle and one or two others in that video said the Bush administration had adopted a neocon foreign policy they might have added it’s also adopted a neocon domestic policy:  forced race-replacement of Eurochristians.

I watched about a third of the video (all I could stomach).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2006, 12:10 PM | #

I’m talking about Pobble’s video, of course.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on December 28, 2006, 12:35 PM | #

Of course, this presents a diemma for Tony Blair and all his wanky ‘human rights’ bullsh*t.
Blair, as we know, in is a full-signed up member of the silly liitle European ‘human rights’ bandwagon, the same smelly, pompous industry that has for ever outlawed use of the death penalty in Europe, and has for example, bullied Russia into sparing the death penalty for perpetrators of the Beslan masacre.
It is because of people like Tony Blair that we suffer the earthly existence of Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe, to name but two.
How these people love to take the moral high-ground and pompously pontificate that ‘For the state to take human life is the ultimate illiberal injustice’.
I’ve got no time for Saddam, and personally believe that he desrves to die, (he was wholly and solely responsible for not backing down in 1990- even Gadhaffi begged him to reconsider- when it was evident he could not possibly win - how his people have suffered for his stupidity and arrogance).
But in no way possible can it be construed that he recived anything like a ‘fair-trial’, and will the lefty hawks at Amnesty International and such like have the guts to protest and make a cause celebre out of this?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

Speaking of Bliar, Kenelm (and no, that spelling of his name was not a typo), check out this excerpt from an article he just wrote.  Oh and, uhhh .... you’d better have a good stiff dose of anti-emetic handy ... just in case, you understand ... especially if you’ve just had new carpets laid ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2006, 02:47 PM | #

Did you see in that excerpt where he said the Koran was “far ahead of its time in its attitude toward marriage”?  Right.  Four wives per man seems to be the latest development in places like Holland but is that what prime ministers should be extolling in articles they write???

This man is a complete piece of excrement.

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 28, 2006, 04:12 PM | #

Kenelm, Blair did get into a bit of a twist over his sincere opposition to the death penalty. I think he even snapped and told a journo questioning him about it to stop bothering him.

The man’s near the end of his tether, pure and simple. He knows his time is up and is getting twitchy about his legacy. I would say what his legacy is, but I don’t want to have MR blocked by the profanity censors.

Posted by Pobble-Face on December 28, 2006, 05:03 PM | #

Existence of Player 2, Sincerity of Player 3

Here’s a video about the Kennedy Assassination, produced by Prison Planet:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031

There are 2 examples that come to mind, which prove that Player 2 is more than a leftist invention. First, George Herbert Walker Bush and Zapatos oil, based in Cuba. The military action that took place was the Bay of Pigs invasion (see video). The men who carried it out had been trained by aforesaid oil-tycoon.

Second example is Halliburton in Iraq, and the Iraq war.

A more tricky question is the sincerity of Player 3, The Neocon.

My personal belief is that alot of self-deception occurs in their camp, as people forget the Straussian esoteric/exoteric dichotomy and fall into believing their own ‘doctrine’, their own ‘myth-making’.

Alot of their Zionism, for example, will simply have been imbibed from living in a Jewish milieu, not from any hard thinking they have done about the future of Israel per se. When they discovered that Israel could be defended on the basis of it being the only Democratic, ‘Western’ State in that region, they instinctively began to get behind the idea that only Western Democratic States have a Raison d’Etre. If all States in this region need to be smashed to conform to this pattern, then it is one reason to pound the hell out of everyone in the region except Israel.

That doesn’t require clarity of vision or realism at all, its like learning to do the Funk. You see someone doing it, and suddenly your shoulders start moving, and soon you’re funkin’ too. I don’t see why we need to credit them with clarity of thought or realism where none has been demonstrated. They have realist backers, obviously.

Posted by ben tillman on December 28, 2006, 06:41 PM | #

Second example is Halliburton in Iraq....

But halliburton is not an oil company.  It is, essentially. a construction company.

Posted by Pobble-Face on December 28, 2006, 07:49 PM | #

[I]But halliburton is not an oil company.  It is, essentially. a construction company[/I]

Translated from a stock-broker website, under ‘Portrait of the Company’: “Halliburton offers a variety of oil-field services, engineering services, and construction services for the Oil industry and for industrial and government clients.”

At the beginning of 2006 Halliburton’s stock was quadruple it’s value at the beginning of 2004.

Posted by ben tillman on December 29, 2006, 12:26 AM | #

Right, Pobble.  Halliburton is a construction company that profits by rebuilding what is destroyed in war.  Oil companies, however, do not benefit from—and did not push for—the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 30, 2006, 04:35 AM | #

Saddam executed.  (Hat tip to Occidental Dissent regular commenter Ingolf Lück.)

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 30, 2006, 09:10 AM | #

Saddam executed

..."parties" break out in Iraq, according to the Beeb this morning (their words, not mine). Auntie’s usual line is that the war has only brought instability to the region (without ever grasping the vine and saying that it would’ve been better with Saddam still in power), so this is a change.

What’s the betting most of those partying are America-funded malcontents? Pretty high, I dare say, given the hostility evinced by most Iraqis to their invaders. Or is it a case of “You’ve done your job Yankee, now go away”?

Posted by Abe Foxman's cousin on December 30, 2006, 10:43 PM | #

The war has been a success for the people who wanted to wage it. The war has met the undeclared objectives of the people who had been working tirelessly to start it. Do not be fooled by all the nonsense about democracy, which is intended for the public’s ears.

First, type in “Saddam” and “Israel” into Google and run a search. The results will explain why the war was waged. Secondly, the result of the war has been that Iraq has been thrown into complete chaos. This suits the Israelis perfectly since this means that Iraq cannot put together organised government which could threaten Israel militarily. As long as the US and Britain remain in Iraq, the country will keep feuding between the various factions. Terrorists are a minor irritant. They do not pose the threat that scud missiles or an organised military pose.

So it all depends upon how we decide what is successful and what is not. If one measures success by the stated goals of the neocons in public, then the war has been a disaster. But if the real and unstated goal was to get rid of Hussein because of the way in which he kept invoking Arab passions against Israel and destroy Iraq, then the war has succeeded. If anything, I believe it suits the Israelis better to let Iraq remain in chaos. A united Iraq under one leader would be much more dangerous. Israel has enough enemies in the region. But this war has meant there is one less organised enemy to worry about. Undoubtedly it is a disaster for America. But since when did American interests precede Israeli interests in Congress?

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on December 31, 2006, 02:36 AM | #

“The Power of Nightmares” is an interesting series of BBC videos blaming the neocons and the MSM for whipping up hysteria about terrorism.  It’s very interesting to see in this documentary that the neocons, the ring leaders behind our descent into a Soviet style police state, just happen to be of the same tribe that led the Bolshevik party during the murder of millions of innocent and helpless Russians (Whites and Christians).

Google Video:
The Power of Nightmares (in three parts)

Posted by wjg on December 31, 2006, 04:13 AM | #

AFC,

Your analysis is correct.  The Iraq war has been a smashing success for those for really brought it about.  The cattle are left to chew their cud and wonder what went “wrong”.  You’d think we’d learn after WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and now this.  No.  More of the herd are already lining up for the next truck to the abattoir.

Posted by Rnl on December 31, 2006, 06:29 AM | #

Blair:

To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1780

What are the chances that Tony Blair has actually read the Koran? Presumably a British prime minister has demands on his time, and wading through the Koran isn’t part of the job description. Blair likely learned how progressive the Koran is by reading newspaper accounts about the Koran, which informed him that Islam is a remarkably tolerant and enlightened faith. Or perhaps some British Muslim leader impressed those truths upon his pliant brain. Where exactly he acquired his knowledge of the Koran we can only guess. What we do know for certain is he didn’t acquire his knowledge of the Koran from reading the Koran.

I write with great humility as a member of another faith.

Blair is humbled by the Koran. Although he is not so humbled that he plans to convert, he recognizes that Islam is better than his own religion because, as he learned somewhere, it is more progressive.

The normal religious response to discovering that a rival faith is better than your own faith is to convert. But Blair is speaking here not as a religious man but as a post-Christian christian. Post-Christian christians believe that you best express religious belief by acknowledging the superiority of other religions. That shows that you have fully learned the tolerant truths of your own faith, a faith which teaches nothing much other than the need to display humility before the religious claims of non-Christians, especially if they’re that troublesome variety of non-Christian with a habit of blowing themselves up on the subway.

The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition.

There are two audiences for the Koran: humans and genies. The Koran is explicitly addressed to both. Mohammed hoped to bring men and women back to their old submission to Allah, but he also hoped for the conversion of genies, those magical creatures one discovers in bottles. (The Arabic plural is _jinn_, often Westernized as _genii_.) Mohammed once even preached to a large group of genies and succeeded in converting many (Sura 46.28-32). The attentiveness of genies to Mohammed’s revelation is recounted in Sura 72 (Al-Jinn), which is devoted to the subject. In his _Life of Mohammad_ Sir William Muir reports that some Koranic verses were composed in the dual in order to include any genies who might be listening, since “the Kor’an professes to have been revealed for the benefit and salvation both of Men and Genii.” None of this suggests an abhorrence of superstition.

An atheist would say that all religious belief is superstition. Certainly few Christians could find the idea of Gabriel physically communicating revelations to Mohammed inherently implausible, nor could a biblical literalist find the Koran’s calls for the conversion of genies any more inherently plausible than the Old Testament’s frequent references to the existence of angels.

But Blair isn’t decrying superstition in his own religious texts. He is suggesting that, unlike other religious texts, the Koran abhors superstition. And that’s nonsense.

It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.

In fact the Koran has a low estimation of women: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other” (4.34). Consequently a woman’s testimony has half the value of a man’s (2.282), and wife-beating ("scourging") is advised for the disciplining of disobedient wives.

It is even misleading to say that the Koran’s attitudes toward women were enlightened for seventh-century Arabia. Ayesha, Mohammed’s favorite wife, once complained that believing women received, in the form of beatings, worse treatment from their husbands than infidel women received from theirs.

and governance.

In other words, sharia law, which Blair deems “practical and far ahead of its time.” That is a strange opinion for a politician who officially opposes the imposition of sharia on British soil.

***

Islam: Religion of Peace

“Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter.” (Sura 5.33-34)

“O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the people of the evildoers.” (Sura 5.51)

“Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’ That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah.” (Sura 8.12-13)

“In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost.” (Sura 8.37)

“Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah.” (Sura 8.60)

“O Prophet, urge on the believers to fight. If there be twenty of you, patient men, they will overcome two hundred; if there be a hundred of you, they will overcome a thousand unbelievers, for they are a people who understand not.” (Sura 8.65)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden - such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] - until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.” (Sura 9.29)

“If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men.” (Sura 9.39)

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” (Sura 9.73)

“They [i.e. faithful Muslims] will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay and be slain.” (Sura 9.111)

“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness, and know that Allah is with the godfearing.” (Sura 9.123)

“When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgment is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly.” (Sura 17.16-17)

“We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: ‘Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.’ ‘Woe betide us, we have done wrong’ was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light.” (Sura 21.11-15)

“When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until war shall lay down her burdens.” (Sura 47.4)

“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Sura 48.29)

“May the hands of Abu Lahab [Mohammed’s uncle, who had refused to embrace Islam] perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with firewood, shall have a rope of fiber around her neck!” (Sura 111.1-5)

***

“When the apostle ordered him to be killed Uqba said, ‘But who will look after my children, O Mohammed?”’ ‘Hell’, he said, and Asim b. Thabit ... killed him.”

Ibn Ishaq, _Sirat Rasul Allah_, 458; trans. A. Guillaume (Oxford, 1955), p. 308.

Posted by Rnl on December 31, 2006, 06:43 AM | #

typo:

... any more inherently implausible than the Old Testament’s…

Posted by Abe Foxman's cousin on December 31, 2006, 10:43 AM | #

Here is a video which documents Blair’s lies in roping Britain into the Neocons’ war.

Posted by Rnl on May 03, 2007, 11:38 PM | #

In Defense of George Tenet
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10902