Cleaves NEWSWIRE [Cleaves Newswire has been decommissioned but will remain online as a resource and to preserve backlinks; new site here.] Independent Open Publishing
 
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh" -- Robert A Heinlein
» Gallery

Search

search comments
advanced search
printable version
PDF version

Social Mystery
by harely quin Friday, Jun 8 2007, 11:48am
international / social equality/unity / opinion/analysis

The masses are considered to be moronic by political strategists and analysts of almost every persuasion and it’s easy to understand why. In full view of EXPOSED criminal governments, wholesale plunder, global exploitation, outrageous ‘salary’ contracts (hundreds of millions for corporate directors) the people, the herd, the sheep, the slaves, the ‘work force’ -- or whatever other fitting derogatory description you care to make -- sit in their socially underprivileged spaces eating ‘shit’, relatively speaking! In no way or by any stretch of the human imagination is a person who earns 100K/annum hundreds of thousands of times the inferior of a person who earns tens or hundreds of millions per year – that is patently obvious YET the sheeple tolerate that inequity and much more.

Imagine China or Russia invading weaker nations on some terrorist pretext and killing thousands of innocent civilians, destroying the society and creating horrendous hardship for the locals! Imagine Russia or China building hundreds of military bases in nations across the globe to ensure the extraction and transportation of stolen resources – imagine that for a moment and then take another bite of your shit sandwich. Are the masses genetically inferior or are they chemically managed via the water and food supply? The paranoid and conspiracy theorists go wild over these matters.

One begins to wonder why the majority are so obliging and willing to take such a servile position in the face of such flagrant injustices, unfairness and inequity. How a few hundred corrupt Chinese government officials manage over one billion, underprivileged, fighting Chinese peasants is truly a mystery? Traditionally religion has placated and tamed the masses but there is no religion in China today! Summary execution may seem to be an effective deterrent but direct violence favours the masses not the minority elites, so what forces are active in sheeple to create such profound obsequiousness?

One can only speak for oneself in these matters and personally I never drink tap water or consume GE or packaged foods, the sense of injustice and outrage I feel ranges from screaming to roaring but it never subsides. I have killed hundreds of the enemy with skill and precision but it only serves to temporarily satisfy my sense of injustice and fair play. Indeed, the course of nations has been altered by means I do not wish to divulge at this stage. I depend on nothing for strength or inspiration except my innate senses, which surely must be common to us all, but I am beginning to wonder.

There are signs of life at times, the thousands who marched and formed the ‘bloc’ against the G8 in EUROPE – but what of Britain, America and Australia what forces have transformed these populations into the shits of the world – these populations have become perfect lab tests for inquiring minds. I mean, Bush, Blair and Howard, as leaders – give us a break!

Duty calls, another one must bite the dust!

COMMENTS

show latest comments first   show comment titles only

jump to comment 1

The Real Reason for Bush’s Invasion of Iraq is a National Security Secret
by Paul Craig Roberts via rialator - ICH Friday, Jun 8 2007, 8:22pm

American soldiers have been fighting and dying in Iraq since 2003, and Americans do not know why.

All the reasons President Bush gave us for his war are false. Bush said he invaded Iraq “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”

We now know that these were false claims. Disinformation about Iraq was produced by a special unit within the Pentagon run by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith. The unit operated outside the normal intelligence channels of the CIA and DIA. Its purpose was to create false intelligence to enable Bush to initiate war with Iraq.

Did President Bush know that the claims put into his speeches by his speechwriters was false?

Who instructed Bush’s speechwriters to incorporate known lies into the President’s speeches?

Why did Vice President Cheney, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Defense all lie to the American people and to the entire world?

What is the real agenda?

Millions of Americans have come to their own conclusions about the reasons for Bush’s invasion: (1) Oil: the US government wants to hold on to power by expanding its control over oil, and Bush and Cheney want to reward their oil company cronies. (2) Military-security complex: Police agencies favor war as a means of expanding their power, and military industries favor war as a means of expanding their profits. (3) Neoconservative ideology: Neocons’ believe in “American exceptionalism” and claim that America’s virtue gives the US government the right and the obligation to impose US hegemony on the rest of the world, especially in the Middle East where independent Muslim states object to Israel’s theft of Palestine. (4) Karl Rove: Rove used the “war president” role to rescue Bush from attack by Democrats as an illegitimate president elected by one vote of the US Supreme Court. (5) American self-righteousness over 9/11 and lust for revenge.

All of these reasons came together to make a cruel war on an innocent people.

There may be other reasons about which we know not.

As it is now recognized that every reason for the war is false or illegitimate, the question is: why does Bush insist on persisting with a costly war, the express reasons for which are now known to be mistakes? There were no weapons of mass destruction, no connections to al Qaeda, and Bush has installed a puppet Iraqi government that cannot venture outside the heavily fortified and US protected “green zone.” The Iraqi government governs nothing.

War without cause is murder, not war.

That Bush persists with a war for which he can provide no legitimate reason indicates that there is a secret agenda that has not been shared with the American people. Are we experiencing the privatization of the US government by police agencies, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby?

That the American people and their elected representatives continue to tolerate a war that has killed and maimed thousands of their own soldiers, destroyed the infrastructure of a country,
killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and created 4 million refugees for no known reason raises serious questions about the morals of the American people.

Is the impotence of the peace movement due to the power of the Israel Lobby or have Americans become morally degenerate as commentators increasingly assert?

One indication would be the response of presidential candidates to the gratuitous and failed war. What we saw at the Republican presidential candidates’ debate on June 5 is inconsistent with the self-esteem of the American people. All of the leading Republican presidential candidates openly and nonchalantly endorsed using nuclear weapons against Iran unless Iran abandons its right to enrich uranium under the non-proliferation treaty, to which Iran is a signatory (unlike nuclear-armed Israel, India, and US puppet Pakistan).

What is moral degeneracy if it is not using nuclear weapons to murder masses of innocent civilians and spread deadly radioactivity over vast areas merely in order to force a country to do as we order? If this isn’t barbarism, what is barbarism?
Do the American people realize that the frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination are monsters who want to murder people who have done us no harm?

After five years of war that has achieved no noble purpose, no valid aim, indeed, no aim at all except perhaps Osama bin Laden’s aim of stirring up uncontrollable strife in the Middle East, how can Republicans cheer for candidates who preach a wider war and the use of nuclear weapons against defenseless people?

Is the approval lavished on Republican presidential candidates, who are willing to use nuclear weapons as means of terrorizing Muslim peoples, an indication that the American people have morphed into inhuman monsters?

If not, what does it indicate? Ignorant fanaticism? Paranoia? Blind hatred? The belief that no one is of any value but Americans?

For six and one-half years the Bush Regime has relied on coercion, intimidation, war, and threats of war. Diplomacy and good will have been shunned. The regime’s blatant warmongering has resurrected the nuclear arms race. China and Russia regard America’s drive for world hegemony with great alarm. China has put nuclear ICBMs on mobile platforms to increase their survivability in event of an American attack. Russia has developed new multi-warhead ICBMs, which can penetrate any known missile defense, and new cruise missiles that Putin says will be targeted on Europe if the US persists in its aggressive military encirclement of Russia.

An administration that resurrects the threat of nuclear Armageddon so that its cronies in the military-security complex can become still richer is evil beyond compare.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. He is author or co-author of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell.


© author retains copyright


 
<< back to stories
 

© 2005-2024 Cleaves Alternative News.
Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial re-use, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere.
Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Cleaves Alternative News.
Disclaimer | Privacy [ text size normal | << | >> ]