The Hopi Indians of Arizona have as part of their creation myth a story about the four peoples of the world; Fire, Water, Air, and Earth. The Fire people were the White people, the Water people were the Black (or Blue) people, the Air people were the Yellow people, and the Earth people were the Red people. In their creation myth, each of the four peoples were to make their own migration path throughout the world. This story is fairly simple and representational. The four peoples represent the four directions; North, South, East and West. The four peoples also represent four major ethnic categories, according to physical appearance; those we call White and Black, Yellow and Brown. The four peoples are represented by four elements that exist as counterparts; Fire and Water, Air and Earth.
That it is a "story" makes many people dismiss it, shelve it away, in that corner of the mind relegated to fantasy. It does not have the status of hard fact, thus it can safely be ignored as a people's flight of fancy. But by doing so, one loses the opportunity to use it as an interpretative device, as a way to see the world beyond the realm of the microscope and the telescope, instead observing it with the naked eye. And far and beyond this is the possibility that this story does indeed contain a kernel of truth. Should this be the case, by ignoring the validity of this story, one ignores a part of the truth itself.
I will not make an argument here whether this story is indeed the truth, in its whole or in part. I will instead present this interpretation viewed through its lens, and hope the picture I paint communicates the truth by itself.
According to this story, the White People, in other words, the Europeans and their descendants in America and in Israel, are the Fire People. Fire has many particular qualities which render it unique compared to the qualities of Earth, Air and Water. If one accepts white people as representing fire, many elements of Western geopolitical strategy become far easier to understand.
Fire is interesting in that it produces two useful byproducts, light and heat. Heat in cold climates is necessary for survival, while if one is do anything during the night, one needs light. However, in excess, both of these products are destructive. Too much light blinds, while too much heat burns.
Another aspect of fire is easily observed. Fire must come into contact with something to spread. Once it begins to burn, it breaks down the object it is burning. If fire is not touched, it cannot spread. But sparks can be emitted from flames, which if landing in particular conditions, can cause new fires to start. This seems basic, but by comparing this to the foreign policy of the United States, bears particular resonance. The geopolitical strategy of the United States, most of all at this time in history, is exactly like that of a fire. The United States funds special operations in many parts of the world, supports rebels in areas opposed to it, and stages coups in countries whose domestic policy is not in line with its own. All of these are destabilizing to the status quo of the areas in which they take place, although they bring the regions situation more into line with the goals of the United States. Exactly like a fire, US policy spreads sparks or licks of flame to areas which are not already aflame, attempting to bring everything into the inferno.
An example of this is Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In all three, the heads of state were removed, "regime change" by the vernacular. This did not however improve the situation for a majority of the populace, nor did it stabilize those countries. Indeed, stability was lost in all three situations. If a fire catches on a tree or bush, that tree or bush will lose its structural integrity. If the tree or bush was verdant enough and the fire not complete, it will be badly burned or singed. If it was dry enough, it will be reduced to charcoal and ash. The similarity of this imagery and the actual events and situation on the ground in these countries must be seen as actual mirrors of each other, simply at different scales. The loss of governmental integrity in Libya, and the current state of tension and conflict between competing factions, is the same as a burning tree slowly crackling, spreading sparks, as in Libyan weapons, to other countries, i.e. surrounding vegetation.
A fire is also unique in its nature of spreading. I've already said a fire must be "touched" in order for it to spread. One could also see it in this sense; fire's method of "conquest", so to speak, is to get others to attack it. In retaliation, fire "counterattacks" with unbridled force, to the fullest extent possible. A candle can set alight a small branch but not a tree trunk. A bonfire can set alight a small tree, but depending on its size not a towering conifer. Fire does have limits to what it can "conquer", but once given an avenue by being touched, this being a metaphor for being attacked, it uses that avenue as a highway to spread itself as much as possible. This indeed is a fundamental aspect, a basic nature, of fire. If the object it comes in contact with is difficult to burn, the fire will putter out, but the more tinder, the more flame. Technically, at certain levels of temperature, fire can burn anything, from rock to plastic to metal, even turning water into steam. This depends on the amount of fire, the substance fueling the flame, and the surface area engulfing the object to be set on fire. The reason why I'm explaining this obvious characteristic is to show that metaphorically, fire can burn *anything* given the right conditions.
The number of wars and conflicts the United States is entering is increasing, not decreasing. Yemen has been added to the mix, and is another example of the US's conquering process as fire. Literal translation is required here. So, imagine everything committed by the United States described below, as simply processes of an object catching on fire.
The United States has initiated conflict with many countries in the last few years without any declaration of war by Congress, which is illegal under United States law. However, this illegality has been studiously swept under the rug and ignored. Yemen is simply another slide down this slippery slope. No war has been declared, and yet the United States now has troops on the ground in Yemen. Although a small number at this time, previously there had been none. As a fire grows, expect more troops to be committed. Before there were troops, there were drones and missile strikes. Before there were drones and missile strikes, there was money, financial aid, given to the ruler of Yemen on our behalf. In such a manner does the fire grow. To delineate, there are two specific processes here which are emblematic of fire's growth:
Legal Parallel:
1. No Formal Declaration of War made by the United States on Iraq
2. No Congressional Approval given for Libyan Conflict
3. No Congressional Approval SOUGHT for Yemen Conflict; Legal Dimension Ignored Completely
Military Engagement Parallel:
1. Yemeni Government provided with funds to work in US interests.
2. Yemen attacked by Drones and Cruise Missiles.
3. Yemen aided by US troops on the ground itself.
*4. Expected Progression: US forces engaging with opposition directly in combat.
In both cases, one can see the similarity to a flame lapping alongside an object, singeing it enough to catch parts of it alight, then ultimately lighting the whole object on fire. You need to be able to see these similarities as being beyond simple artistic representation, to being the actual thing itself. The United States and Israel, and their policies and practices, are the elemental manifestation of fire as manifested in human behavior. Understanding this allows one to see the current global political situation in a greater context; that of a fire, out of control, threatening to burn the entire world down.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Final Conflict: The Selfish Short-Term Game Mentality Versus The Long-Term
What I'm about to write may seem incomprehensible to many of you, but it is true. I will do my best to explain the situation using a variety of viewpoints, but the basic summary is still the same. In its essence, it is how war was co-opted as a tool by the financial class, and then underwent a final corruption to where those who now remain as the heads of the financial class are opposed to life itself. This process did not occur through conscious intent, but a slow degenerative descent marked by mankind's baser desires of greed, lust, hatred and fear. Though it may not have started with malicious intent, remember the old missive, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Originally in human history, war was the purview of the aristocracy. Wealth and the merchant class did not exist as it does now, and the only actors capable of initiating conflict were those in charge of tribes and kingdoms. In a sense, the aristocracy was the combination of both the martial class and the merchant class. They were the only ones with both wealth and military power.
As humankind evolved, there was a slow division, where an independent merchant class came into existence. Though for many millennia and centuries they remained less powerful than the aristocracy, eventually the power of the aristocracy, based on a traditional power structure of heredity or religious validation, waned, while the merchant class ascended in power, not only gaining the ability to influence the aristocracy, but also able to garner military and political power themselves. The waning of the aristocracy was partially due to overexpenditure of its own power, inability to recognize the ascendance of the merchant class, and inability to project its power through religious or hereditary mandate more effectively than the power projected through the purchasing power of wealth, which continued to transfer increasingly to the merchant class.
Neither the aristocracy nor the merchant class can be said to be composed of saints. Despite trying desperately to appear as servants, or even anointed representatives of an almighty God and morality, the fact is that both groups had many examples of evil, selfish, and cruel individuals. The aristocracy, during its reign, pursued goals that served their self-enrichment, earthly glory, and personal desires. Evil however does not necessarily cooperate with evil; when there exists two groups of selfish individuals, the result is conflict. The result is war.
At a certain point, the merchant class learned that it could engage in war just as the aristocracy had. In fact, it learned that it could engage in war more effectively than the aristocracy, because it could wage war on another level; via financial methods, the merchant class could conquer territory through influencing the aristocracy, through buying out the political class, and even directly through using their purchasing power to obtain resources, industries, and territory. Because this method of warfare was not recognized as warfare, it could be done without encountering direct resistance, and without having to engage in military conflict in many cases.
Eventually, the merchant class split again, yielding a new arm that is both subset and distinct; the financial class. Engaged directly with the acquisition and distribution of money, the financial class did not have to deal even as the merchant class in obtaining and subverting markets. They could simply buy out the merchant class, which like them, operated on the currency of money.
By the time of the Twentieth Century, the financial class and the merchant class were able to affect more aspects of human life than any previous time in human history. Business was in human health, military industry, transportation, politics, food, water, communication, housing, education, and entertainment. This meant that all these aspects of human existence could be purchased, and thus control could be consolidated under a single source. Although no one individual could, in the beginning of the century, control every aspect, each category was fought over by an increasingly small and consolidated group. This was monopoly.
Although this stranglehold was temporarily dispersed after the Gilded Age and the Great Depression, those of the financial and merchant class quickly continued their attempts at domination, for the simple human motive of greed and desire. Nothing more complicated need to be impugned at them, nor conspiracy leveled. However, by this time the extent of businesses control over the basics of human existence had simply increased. Simply put, more facets of human life were available for sale than ever before, and thus the financial and merchant classes were able to achieve control over even more of the populace through their efforts at consolidation. These are the basics of capitalism.
The problem is by this time, almost every aspect of human existence, including the supposed safeguards of the judicial system and the political system, could be purchased, and the financial class had amassed wealth beyond that which could have been comprehended in previous centuries. Additionally, those who were best at gaming the system, to wit, cheating, to wit, committing crimes, had grown even better at doing so, and had even more tools at their disposal to do so. And ultimately, those best at committing crimes were unapprehendable, and because they could "cheat" while their rivals who were more lawbound were unable to, they could cut down their rivals using extralegal methods. Indeed, through influencing the political class and judiciary, they could write laws that favored themselves, and be immune to laws that otherwise would constrain them. Thus, those at the top became even more criminal, and even more powerful. They could distribute propaganda through entertainment to affect and alter popular opinion and perspective, they could purchase news outlets to influence coverage, they could indirectly and directly control the political class, through either supporting those they favored or blocking the rise of those they did not, they could inject themselves into religion and education through monetary influence, thus affecting the ensuing generations of humanity in their formative stages. They could stifle communities, buy out land, purchase key industries, gain control of vital resources. All without being recognized for what they were in fact doing; conquering the world.
In the process of doing this, they became even more estranged from the common people. The financial and merchant class could live beyond the means of the mightiest of ancient rulers, and this gave them a similar inflated self-worth only achievable through not having to interact with the world as most of the world's population was required to. Living in modern-day palaces, waited upon hand and foot by hired servants, they were easily able to see themselves as superior to the common people.
No one can claim these individuals to be stupid, although we like to denigrate those we see as opposed to us. Given the rate of consumption in their own lives, and of the system they'd created to empower them, they realized the world could not continue at this rate and still supply them with the lifestyle they felt their due. Capitalism, the very system of their empowerment, also had created its reflection in their captive populace; the American people. This was, and is their method of control. In providing some dregs of their lifestyle to the American people, in encouraging their consumption above a rate seen in any other country of the world, they had seduced and drugged them into being their willing accomplices. However, the resources of the world were finite, as they themselves had realized, and this system could not be maintained forever. When their chosen people could no longer be distracted nor supplied with the lifestyle to which they were accustomed, there would be a mighty blowback. And so they understood, and so they prepared, to complete the enslavement of the world. By now, they could influence every aspect of society, from the prisons and police to the highest politicians, to every major media conglomerate. Thus, a prison was planned for everyone else, guarded by the paid enforcers of the financial class, devoid of resources, thus ensuring conflict among the majority population, scrabbling over what was left for the very basics of survival.
You may ask, why and how could these individuals plan such a thing? The answer is simple, and based on game theory.
If one sees the entire world as finite, as short-game theory, inevitably the only two results is being the winner, or the losers. Philosophically, it comes down to seeing the world as a place where everything will eventually come to an end, and thus all one can do is get to a position of highest power, and enjoy the remainder of existence with every comfort and vice available through one's domination of all things, until the end comes. In a place devoid of higher purpose, of eternal existence, where life is short and ugly and devoid of beauty, what else is one to do but to screw over everyone else, and live the last of your finite existence indulging in every pleasure?
To express this perspective in another manner, it's seeing the world's totality as a temporary journey from 0 to 1. Nothing exists beyond the 1. Therefore, all one can do, to be "the winner", is be the person at the top. Also, all value is placed therefore on how high on the ladder one is. Everything else, every laudable aspect of humanity, from love to faith to art, music and beauty, to spirituality, kindness, compassion, empathy, is merely as dust, to be swept under the efficacy of brutality, greed, and the short-term physical and emotional rewards of vice.
I speak to you now, to cry out that another world is possible. It requires us rejecting these darker aspects, not in their entirety, for they are essential to our human nature, but as the governors of our lives. It is the world above the 1, to where infinity stretches. For through human cooperation and compassion, we can see all that we are capable of, and that is surmounting the problems we face as the human race. It is not through rejecting our individual identity, as these monsters would have us believe and fear, but through celebrating it, and understanding that we can in fact co-exist, through education, interaction, discussion, and finally through much effort, through facing our misplaced fears and terrors, to comprehension of the wonder and validity of our differences, and the recognizing of our common spirit. Those who would seek to enslave us are the source of the whispers of our fears and doubts, the magnifiers of terror in order to submit ourselves to their designs. It is the difference between night and day. It is breaking through their imposed isolation of all of us, to reaching across that short, terrifying divide, to touch another human heart. Franklin Roosevelt told us that all we have to fear is fear itself. We are still governed by fear, by terror, and it is only by these tools that those above can keep us enslaved. The world to come will be determined by our bravery in facing the darkness together.
Originally in human history, war was the purview of the aristocracy. Wealth and the merchant class did not exist as it does now, and the only actors capable of initiating conflict were those in charge of tribes and kingdoms. In a sense, the aristocracy was the combination of both the martial class and the merchant class. They were the only ones with both wealth and military power.
As humankind evolved, there was a slow division, where an independent merchant class came into existence. Though for many millennia and centuries they remained less powerful than the aristocracy, eventually the power of the aristocracy, based on a traditional power structure of heredity or religious validation, waned, while the merchant class ascended in power, not only gaining the ability to influence the aristocracy, but also able to garner military and political power themselves. The waning of the aristocracy was partially due to overexpenditure of its own power, inability to recognize the ascendance of the merchant class, and inability to project its power through religious or hereditary mandate more effectively than the power projected through the purchasing power of wealth, which continued to transfer increasingly to the merchant class.
Neither the aristocracy nor the merchant class can be said to be composed of saints. Despite trying desperately to appear as servants, or even anointed representatives of an almighty God and morality, the fact is that both groups had many examples of evil, selfish, and cruel individuals. The aristocracy, during its reign, pursued goals that served their self-enrichment, earthly glory, and personal desires. Evil however does not necessarily cooperate with evil; when there exists two groups of selfish individuals, the result is conflict. The result is war.
At a certain point, the merchant class learned that it could engage in war just as the aristocracy had. In fact, it learned that it could engage in war more effectively than the aristocracy, because it could wage war on another level; via financial methods, the merchant class could conquer territory through influencing the aristocracy, through buying out the political class, and even directly through using their purchasing power to obtain resources, industries, and territory. Because this method of warfare was not recognized as warfare, it could be done without encountering direct resistance, and without having to engage in military conflict in many cases.
Eventually, the merchant class split again, yielding a new arm that is both subset and distinct; the financial class. Engaged directly with the acquisition and distribution of money, the financial class did not have to deal even as the merchant class in obtaining and subverting markets. They could simply buy out the merchant class, which like them, operated on the currency of money.
By the time of the Twentieth Century, the financial class and the merchant class were able to affect more aspects of human life than any previous time in human history. Business was in human health, military industry, transportation, politics, food, water, communication, housing, education, and entertainment. This meant that all these aspects of human existence could be purchased, and thus control could be consolidated under a single source. Although no one individual could, in the beginning of the century, control every aspect, each category was fought over by an increasingly small and consolidated group. This was monopoly.
Although this stranglehold was temporarily dispersed after the Gilded Age and the Great Depression, those of the financial and merchant class quickly continued their attempts at domination, for the simple human motive of greed and desire. Nothing more complicated need to be impugned at them, nor conspiracy leveled. However, by this time the extent of businesses control over the basics of human existence had simply increased. Simply put, more facets of human life were available for sale than ever before, and thus the financial and merchant classes were able to achieve control over even more of the populace through their efforts at consolidation. These are the basics of capitalism.
The problem is by this time, almost every aspect of human existence, including the supposed safeguards of the judicial system and the political system, could be purchased, and the financial class had amassed wealth beyond that which could have been comprehended in previous centuries. Additionally, those who were best at gaming the system, to wit, cheating, to wit, committing crimes, had grown even better at doing so, and had even more tools at their disposal to do so. And ultimately, those best at committing crimes were unapprehendable, and because they could "cheat" while their rivals who were more lawbound were unable to, they could cut down their rivals using extralegal methods. Indeed, through influencing the political class and judiciary, they could write laws that favored themselves, and be immune to laws that otherwise would constrain them. Thus, those at the top became even more criminal, and even more powerful. They could distribute propaganda through entertainment to affect and alter popular opinion and perspective, they could purchase news outlets to influence coverage, they could indirectly and directly control the political class, through either supporting those they favored or blocking the rise of those they did not, they could inject themselves into religion and education through monetary influence, thus affecting the ensuing generations of humanity in their formative stages. They could stifle communities, buy out land, purchase key industries, gain control of vital resources. All without being recognized for what they were in fact doing; conquering the world.
In the process of doing this, they became even more estranged from the common people. The financial and merchant class could live beyond the means of the mightiest of ancient rulers, and this gave them a similar inflated self-worth only achievable through not having to interact with the world as most of the world's population was required to. Living in modern-day palaces, waited upon hand and foot by hired servants, they were easily able to see themselves as superior to the common people.
No one can claim these individuals to be stupid, although we like to denigrate those we see as opposed to us. Given the rate of consumption in their own lives, and of the system they'd created to empower them, they realized the world could not continue at this rate and still supply them with the lifestyle they felt their due. Capitalism, the very system of their empowerment, also had created its reflection in their captive populace; the American people. This was, and is their method of control. In providing some dregs of their lifestyle to the American people, in encouraging their consumption above a rate seen in any other country of the world, they had seduced and drugged them into being their willing accomplices. However, the resources of the world were finite, as they themselves had realized, and this system could not be maintained forever. When their chosen people could no longer be distracted nor supplied with the lifestyle to which they were accustomed, there would be a mighty blowback. And so they understood, and so they prepared, to complete the enslavement of the world. By now, they could influence every aspect of society, from the prisons and police to the highest politicians, to every major media conglomerate. Thus, a prison was planned for everyone else, guarded by the paid enforcers of the financial class, devoid of resources, thus ensuring conflict among the majority population, scrabbling over what was left for the very basics of survival.
You may ask, why and how could these individuals plan such a thing? The answer is simple, and based on game theory.
If one sees the entire world as finite, as short-game theory, inevitably the only two results is being the winner, or the losers. Philosophically, it comes down to seeing the world as a place where everything will eventually come to an end, and thus all one can do is get to a position of highest power, and enjoy the remainder of existence with every comfort and vice available through one's domination of all things, until the end comes. In a place devoid of higher purpose, of eternal existence, where life is short and ugly and devoid of beauty, what else is one to do but to screw over everyone else, and live the last of your finite existence indulging in every pleasure?
To express this perspective in another manner, it's seeing the world's totality as a temporary journey from 0 to 1. Nothing exists beyond the 1. Therefore, all one can do, to be "the winner", is be the person at the top. Also, all value is placed therefore on how high on the ladder one is. Everything else, every laudable aspect of humanity, from love to faith to art, music and beauty, to spirituality, kindness, compassion, empathy, is merely as dust, to be swept under the efficacy of brutality, greed, and the short-term physical and emotional rewards of vice.
I speak to you now, to cry out that another world is possible. It requires us rejecting these darker aspects, not in their entirety, for they are essential to our human nature, but as the governors of our lives. It is the world above the 1, to where infinity stretches. For through human cooperation and compassion, we can see all that we are capable of, and that is surmounting the problems we face as the human race. It is not through rejecting our individual identity, as these monsters would have us believe and fear, but through celebrating it, and understanding that we can in fact co-exist, through education, interaction, discussion, and finally through much effort, through facing our misplaced fears and terrors, to comprehension of the wonder and validity of our differences, and the recognizing of our common spirit. Those who would seek to enslave us are the source of the whispers of our fears and doubts, the magnifiers of terror in order to submit ourselves to their designs. It is the difference between night and day. It is breaking through their imposed isolation of all of us, to reaching across that short, terrifying divide, to touch another human heart. Franklin Roosevelt told us that all we have to fear is fear itself. We are still governed by fear, by terror, and it is only by these tools that those above can keep us enslaved. The world to come will be determined by our bravery in facing the darkness together.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Important to understand.
The Drone Mentality by Glenn Greenwald
An excerpt from the article:
In a New York Times Op-Ed yesterday, international human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith describes a meeting he had in Pakistan with residents from the Afghan-Pakistani border region that has been relentlessly bombed by American drones; if I had one political wish this week, it would be that everyone who supports (or acquiesces to) President Obama’s wildly accelerated drone attacks would read this:
This tragedy repeats itself over and over. After I linked to this Op-Ed yesterday on Twitter — by writing that “every American who cheers for drone strikes should confront the victims of their aggression” — I was predictably deluged with responses justifying Obama’s drone attacks on the ground that they are necessary to kill The Terrorists. Reading the responses, I could clearly discern the mentality driving them: I have never heard of 99% of the people my government kills with drones, nor have I ever seen any evidence about them, but I am sure they are Terrorists. That is the drone mentality in both senses of the word; it’s that combination of pure ignorance and blind faith in government authorities that you will inevitably hear from anyone defending President Obama’s militarism. As Jonathan Schwarz observed after the U.S. unveiled the dastardly Iranian plot to hire a failed used car salesman to kill America’s close friend, the Saudi Ambassador: “I’d bet the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. has closer ‘ties’ to Al Qaeda than 90% of the people we’ve killed with drones.”
An excerpt from the article:
In a New York Times Op-Ed yesterday, international human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith describes a meeting he had in Pakistan with residents from the Afghan-Pakistani border region that has been relentlessly bombed by American drones; if I had one political wish this week, it would be that everyone who supports (or acquiesces to) President Obama’s wildly accelerated drone attacks would read this:
The meeting had been organized so that Pashtun tribal elders who lived along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier could meet with Westerners for the first time to offer their perspectives on the shadowy drone war being waged by the Central Intelligence Agency in their region. Twenty men came to air their views; some brought their young sons along to experience this rare interaction with Americans. In all, 60 villagers made the journey. . . .
On the night before the meeting, we had a dinner, to break the ice. During the meal, I met a boy named Tariq Aziz. He was 16. As we ate, the stern, bearded faces all around me slowly melted into smiles. Tariq smiled much sooner; he was too young to boast much facial hair, and too young to have learned to hate.
The next day, the jirga lasted several hours. I had a translator, but the gist of each man’s speech was clear. American drones would circle their homes all day before unleashing Hellfire missiles, often in the dark hours between midnight and dawn. Death lurked everywhere around them. . . .
On Monday, [Tariq] was killed by a C.I.A. drone strike, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan. The two of them had been dispatched, with Tariq driving, to pick up their aunt and bring her home to the village of Norak, when their short lives were ended by a Hellfire missile.
My mistake had been to see the drone war in Waziristan in terms of abstract legal theory — as a blatantly illegal invasion of Pakistan’s sovereignty, akin to President Richard M. Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia in 1970.
But now, the issue has suddenly become very real and personal. Tariq was a good kid, and courageous. My warm hand recently touched his in friendship; yet, within three days, his would be cold in death, the rigor mortis inflicted by my government.
And Tariq’s extended family, so recently hoping to be our allies for peace, has now been ripped apart by an American missile — most likely making any effort we make at reconciliation futile.
This tragedy repeats itself over and over. After I linked to this Op-Ed yesterday on Twitter — by writing that “every American who cheers for drone strikes should confront the victims of their aggression” — I was predictably deluged with responses justifying Obama’s drone attacks on the ground that they are necessary to kill The Terrorists. Reading the responses, I could clearly discern the mentality driving them: I have never heard of 99% of the people my government kills with drones, nor have I ever seen any evidence about them, but I am sure they are Terrorists. That is the drone mentality in both senses of the word; it’s that combination of pure ignorance and blind faith in government authorities that you will inevitably hear from anyone defending President Obama’s militarism. As Jonathan Schwarz observed after the U.S. unveiled the dastardly Iranian plot to hire a failed used car salesman to kill America’s close friend, the Saudi Ambassador: “I’d bet the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. has closer ‘ties’ to Al Qaeda than 90% of the people we’ve killed with drones.”
Friday, October 14, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
The Onion: America Gets Set to Enjoy Month Or So Of Libya Seeming Like Symbol of Freedom
GRAND RAPIDS, MI—Americans across the nation told reporters Wednesday that with the collapse of Muammar Qaddafi’s despotic regime, they were preparing to savor the next month or so of Libya seeming like an inspirational symbol of freedom. “We’ve got a nice four weeks of thinking Libya represents a triumph of liberty before the situation begins to deteriorate and some new form of authoritarianism inevitably asserts itself,” said Michigan-based architect Wes Reinhorn, adding that while he was looking forward to the nation potentially serving as a model for other Arab countries, he would eventually realize the situation in the region was very complex, and any hope he had of Libya transforming things for the better would presumably fade away by October. “We should all enjoy this stirring image of Libya as a beacon of democracy before Islamists or a new military strongman moves in to fill the power vacuum.” Other Americans, however, said that after a month of looking to Libya as a symbol of freedom, they planned to simply stop paying attention to the nation altogether.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI—Americans across the nation told reporters Wednesday that with the collapse of Muammar Qaddafi’s despotic regime, they were preparing to savor the next month or so of Libya seeming like an inspirational symbol of freedom. “We’ve got a nice four weeks of thinking Libya represents a triumph of liberty before the situation begins to deteriorate and some new form of authoritarianism inevitably asserts itself,” said Michigan-based architect Wes Reinhorn, adding that while he was looking forward to the nation potentially serving as a model for other Arab countries, he would eventually realize the situation in the region was very complex, and any hope he had of Libya transforming things for the better would presumably fade away by October. “We should all enjoy this stirring image of Libya as a beacon of democracy before Islamists or a new military strongman moves in to fill the power vacuum.” Other Americans, however, said that after a month of looking to Libya as a symbol of freedom, they planned to simply stop paying attention to the nation altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)