by Qutb » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:01 pm
It seems to me that the "underground" left is increasingly taking up the vocabulary of the far right - and I mean militia/survivalist/reconstructionist/neo-Nazi far right. I think it started sometime after 9/11, when many people on the left side of the political spectrum who were able to see through the official story realized something was wrong with how the world works, something which perhaps went deeper than they had hitherto suspected. So they started their own personal journey down the rabbit hole, primarily on the web for most people, where you can, as Dreams End points out, type in "911 conspiracy" and find a cottage industry of websites attributing the all-encompassing global conspiracy to the nefarious New World Order or the even more sinister Illuminati. <br><br>Cave! - Hic Dragones. Words are just words. Some mean well, like, say, Alex Jones, who I think is a genuine "concerned citizen", if not very discerning. People have attacked Jones for his alleged anti-semitism and racism, which I think is unfounded. But visit a neo-Nazi website and take a look at what they write - much of it could be virtually cut and pasted from prisonlanet, or even from the Sept. 11 forum on Democratic Underground. It's all about the NWO and the Illuminati and the neo-cons and the Zionists. I see so many people writing about the "NWO", somehow taking for granted that something like that exists (the GHW Bush speech to the UN where he calls for "a new world order" is usually the only proof you need), but evidently without having much of an idea as to what it's supposed to be, exactly. <br><br>So why is this? How did this happen? How did the language of the extreme right, and with it, increasingly, some of its mythology, come to permeate the underground, anti-fascist left? As this is a conspiracy board, and none of us are particularly prone to coincidence theories, let's assume it's not a coincidence.<br><br>As for the neocons, sure, they are there, they occupy key positions within the government, often somewhat behind the scenes (assistant this and deputy that), they're Jewish for the most part, they have an agenda they want to push through. Despite having mostly "behind the scenes" functions, they are very visible. They are the talking heads on Fox pushing the war on terror. They have made it very easy for people to point to the "Zionist" infiltrators in the government who have gotten us into Iraq to protect Israel from Saddam, effectively, supposedly, turning the US military into a tool for Israeli interests. "Former" CIA agents can point to them and say, the problem is those neo-cons, if only we cleansed them from our government, the US of A would be the same old again. <br><br>I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to the neo-cons, or that they are unwitting dupes for anyone. I'm saying that it's always a good idea to look for the man behind the curtain. And the neo-cons, wherever else they might be, are not behind the curtain. <br><br>For starters, who groomed them, and helped them into the positions they occupy? They didn't just maneuver themselves into high places without any help. People like Dick Cheney, George Shultz and James Baker, for instance, didn't groom the neocons and help them into important positions in order for them to fulfill some Zionist master plan (Baker was always designated "anti-semite" by the ADL). Part of what they were intended to do was to wrest some of the Jewish electorate away from the Democrats, by being even more pro-Israel than the Democrats, which the Republicans traditionally haven't been (the Mossad made plans to assassinate George Bush senior in Madrid in 1991, according to Victor Ostrovsky, in retaliation for having forced Israel to participate in the peace process, by threatening to withold US loans). Much like Condi is the African-American alibi. That's clearly one reason. Not only the Jewish voters, but naïve centrists who buy the "spreading democracy and freedom" supposed ideological underpinnings of their policy. Like John Loftus, sadly, who see George Bush and the neo-cons as "rebels" in the Republican party.<br><br>But I also think they were meant to provide an element of plausible deniability - "the Jews made us do it". Dubya was elected on a platform of non-interventionism and a <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>humble</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> foreign policy, remember? Then, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>out of the blue</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> comes 9/11, and the neocons take charge, hijack America's foreign policy and lead us to Iraq. That seems to be the dominant narrative now (owing in large part to Woodward's books, I think). The question nobody is asking is, why were the neocons selected to occupy all those prominent positions in the first place, ideally positioned to "hijack" the executive branch once the "new Pearl Harbor" was a fact? Their ideology wasn't a secret, and it was diametrically opposed to Bush's original programme.<br><br>I'm assuming, of course, that the old guard big money oil bidniss Republicans wholeheartedly approve of the neocon policy regarding Iraq and Central Asia - especially Central Asia (where they are currently losing ground to the Russians and the Chinese, a very interesting development). How witting the neocons are about how they are being used is a good question. Personally, I'm still unsure whether they actually believed the "spreading democracy" bullshit. Probably not, perhaps, but a guy like Wolfowitz is dating an Arab feminist and these people used to be liberals (in social issues at least), if not extreme leftists/Trotskyists. The "liberals that have been mugged" thing. Maybe it's not so far from believeing in a permanent Trotskyist world revolution to believing in violent "democratic" revolution in the Middle East. Maybe the neo-cons are really just naïve ideologues, albeit of the extremist sort. Like Jeff has hinted at, maybe they are being played by actors with a very different agenda.<br><br>Now that the Iraq adventure is going badly, people like BFEE insider Brent Scowcraft can come out and say that the war was a bad idea, and that he didn't support it. But Scowcroft, chairman of the American Turkish Council and director of the American Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (see <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/021805Stanton/021805stanton.html" target="top">this</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> article by John Stanton), is still more of a real insider with the real power in America and the world than any Doug Feith or Lewis Libby (World Bank president Wolfowitz, though, has done alright for himself, he was also on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Club for several years). I'm sure Brent Scowcroft knows how to reap the benefits of a war while diplomatically distancing himself from it. And I'm not talking about just the immediate benefits, like Cheney's Halliburton. Another good example is "Democrat" and Scowcroft's colleague in the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who among other things was the mentor of Madeleine Albright. He is now very critical of the war and of the *Bush administration, yet he wrote the blueprint for their militaristic, expansionist policy. In his "The Grand Chessboard", from 1997, in which he posits nothing less than the necessity of US domination of "Eurasia". In addition to evoking visions of 1984, the word "Eurasia" makes me think of the Nazi conception of the "Earth Island" - conquering Eurasia was Hitler's dream as well. Brzezisnki may be genuinely dissatisfied with the neocons, but if so, it's only their incompetent implementation of his own project he objects to. (Is Brzezinski Jewish by the way? All I know is that his father was a Polish diplomat).<br><br>Richard Perle seems to me to be the "link" between the neocons and the real power base. A question to the proponents of the "Zionist conspiracy" theory: where do you think Perle's loyalties chiefly lie, in Israel or in the Military-Industrial Complex?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
