9/11 Reflections Part 1: The Elephant and the Mosquito

What the myths of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Ahmadinejad have in common is that they represent a particular kind of propaganda spread by parties in the U.S. who advocate for war.

Salem-News.com

(EUGENE, Ore.) - What happens when a mosquito bites an elephant? The answer to this question lies at the intersection between myth and reality. The Big Lies, Grand Illusions, and Great Myths of our age are stories of the elephant and the mosquito. They are tales based on misdirection and deceit woven by mythmakers who think of themselves as Platonic philosopher kings and adopt the showmanship and trickery of stage magicians.

The events of September 11, 2001 are the foundation of the Big Lie. This lie encompasses the myth of Al-Qaeda, the myth of Osama Bin Laden, the myth of the Taliban, the myth of Saddam Hussein, the myth of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, the myth of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the myth of Iranian Nuclear Weapons.

The myth of Al-Qaeda is that it poses a threat to the United States. The reality is that there has never been any organization that called itself “Al-Qaeda.” “Al-Qaeda” is the name invented by Americans to describe a loose knit group of people, numbering a few hundred at most, with no centralized command and control, who have taken part in irregular military actions around the world.

The myth of Osama Bin Laden is that he created and leads this mythical group called Al-Qaeda. The documentary, The Power of Nightmares, unravels this myth completely. The reality is that Osama Bin Laden was a rich Saudi who went to Afghanistan in the early 80’s to play Jihad. In Afghanistan, he bought himself the title of “emir” (leader) of a small group of Egyptian revolutionaries lead by Ayman Zawahiri. In his early videos Osama Bin Laden paid a day rate to the militants who posed behind him holding weapons. He never had any armed following of his own.

archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

The myth of Osama Bin Laden is that he was involved in the events of September 11, 2001. In a statement released after September 11, attributed to Osama Bin Laden, he said “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle.”

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, said in an ABC interview that the last “precise information” about where Osama Bin Laden might be located is from “the early 2000’s.” Numerous audio and video tapes released since September 11, purportedly of Bin Laden, are proven forgeries. These fake tapes have commonly been released to coincide with U.S. political events, making it clear that the intent of the forgers is to manipulate U.S. public opinion.

guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/30/alqaida.terrorism

spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/osama-bin-elvis

The myth of the Taliban is that they harbored and supported the terrorist Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Firstly, Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the events of September 11. Secondly, the Government of Afghanistan actually did offer to turn Bin Laden over on several occasions, including after September 11, provided that the U.S. provide evidence of his involvement in the attacks. According to the official record, the U.S. had many opportunities over the course of several years to arrest or kill Bin Laden, which they never capitalized upon.

cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/index.html

guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

latimes.com/sns-worldtrade-taliban-chi,0,1586746.story

guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3

If Osama Bin Laden really was involved in bombings before September 11, this involvement was never sufficiently threatening to make capturing or killing him a priority. In fact, based on all the evidence, Osama Bin Laden was likely always a inconsequential person, who primarily served the role of a convenient name and face to put into media reports about attacks on U.S. assets where it would be uncomfortable to divulge the real identity of plotters.

Throughout the years the U.S. government stubbornly refused to provide any evidence of Osama Bin Laden’s direct involvement in military actions. The most likely reason for this refusal is that no such evidence exists.

The myth of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction is closely related to the myth of Osama Bin Laden and the myth of Al-Qaeda, although these dueling myths have at time conflicted with each other.

One of the key proponents of the myth of Saddam Hussein’s involvement in the events of September 11 is Lauri Mylroie, a close associate of the congenital liars Richard Perle and Daniel Pipes. Mylroie claimed in 1995 that Hussein was responsible for the first bombing of the World Trade Center. In her piece on that bombing, she does not mention Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden once.

fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

In reality, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was conducted by a group of bunglers who had been penetrated by an FBI informant named Emad Salem. Emad Salem claims to have offered to sabotage their bomb, but the FBI declined to interfere with the plot. One of the bombers was arrested after the event when he tried to reclaim the deposit he had paid on the vehicle that was used in the bombing. Emad Salem is now in witness protection, living on a permanent pension provided by U.S. taxpayers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem

Claims of Saddam’s links to Al-Qaeda and involvement in the events of September 11 were frequently made in editorial columns and televised appearances by everyone from Dick Cheney on down.

Condoleeza Rice famously said that “We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon … we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.” She drove her point home by saying “The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/

This interview was conducted on September 8, 2002, and was timed to coincide with the first anniversary of the September 11 events. Everything Condoleeza Rice said was a blatant lie or willful misrepresentation of fact.

The myth of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction was spun by every member of the Bush administration. It was pushed by every leading media outlet, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, and all of the broadcast media.

This myth was the product of calculated and willful deceit on the part of both politicians and the media who refused to report the reality, which was that inspectors on the ground consistently found that there was no evidence of any illegal weapons programs in Iraq.

The reality is that the two main stories of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, one about Nigerian uranium, and another about mobile weapons labs, were complete fabrications. Both of these stories, one based on forged documents, and the other told by an Iraqi cab driver who fled to Germany after being charged with embezzlement, were known to be false when they were used to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people and to the United Nations.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081.html

globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2.htm

The myth of Iranian Nuclear Weapons is very similar to the myth of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. The key pushers of this myth are once again the liars and con artists at The Weekly Standard, led by William Kristol, and their allies throughout the government and the media. They persist in their lies and distortions despite the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate for 2007, which asserted that Iran halted research into nuclear weapons in 2003.

weeklystandard.com/blogs/cias-curious-report-irans-nuclear-program

washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/30/cia-iran-has-capability-to-produce-nuke-weapons/

The reality, according to the CIA, is that Iran has no nuclear weapons, no capability to produce nuclear weapons, and no active programs to create a capability to create nuclear weapons.

The myth of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is that he is an insane anti-Semitic dictator who wants to exterminate the Jewish race. This myth is closely tied to the myth of Saddam Hussein. The two were joined in the so called “axis of evil” by President Bush’s speech writers, who clearly wanted to connect the two with memories of the “axis” of World War II, Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler foremost amongst them.

The reality is that Ahmadinejad is an elected president in a constitutional republic. There may be some doubts as to the legitimacy of his election, but such doubts are common in democracies, ours included. Ahmadinejad has never called for any extermination of the Jewish people, nor is there any documentation that even shows a racist remark against Jews. The entire myth of Ahmadinejad is pure fabrication.

What the myths of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Ahmadinejad have in common is that they represent a particular kind of propaganda spread by parties in the U.S. who advocate for war.

In war propaganda, the U.S. is never invading a country, or destroying a government. The U.S. didn’t topple the legitimate government of Afghanistan, we toppled something called “the Taliban.” The U.S. didn’t destroy the legitimate government of Iraq, we toppled a dictator name Saddam Hussein. The U.S. is not going to invade Iran and overthrow their constitutional republic, we are going to topple a dictator named Ahmadinejad.

This propaganda is designed to delegitimize the targets of military aggression with lies and fabrications. It has been used by the same people going all the way back to the Reagan and Bush administrations. As part of the illegal Iran Contra operations we funded terrorists fighting “the Sandanistas,” otherwise known as the legitimate government of Nicaragua. Under Bush we captured the dictator and drug kingpin Manual Noriega. What would objectively be called invading Panama, overthrowing their government, and kidnapping their President.

The propaganda of delegitimization is also common in Palestine where we refuse to negotiate with the “terrorist organization Hamas.” Otherwise known as the elected government of the Palestinian people.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600372.html

Instead, we support Fatah, an organization that seized control of the West Bank in Palestine in a military coup. Fatah’s military force is made up of mercenaries trained by Dyncorp under the leadership of retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Keith Dayton.

defensenews.com/story.php?i=4330380

The mythology of “The War on Terror” was introduced to the world after the events of September 11, 2001. This mythology revolves around a larger set of myths concerning Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Iranian Nuclear Weapons. These myths are closely tied to the myth of the terrorist organization Hamas, the myth of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, and the myth of Islamic Terrorism generally.

The Big Lie that all of these myths give credence to is the idea that Islamic Terrorists threaten the United States of America. This is an absurd lie, which cannot stand up to even the slightest objective inquiry.

The United States is the most industrialized nation in the world, and possesses the most advanced military machine every assembled. The U.S. government has under its control a hierarchical bureaucracy comprising millions of agents, including hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers, deployed to every corner of the globe.

Are we to believe that a few hundred people, loosely affiliated in a group we call Al-Qaeda, possessing no centralized command and control, could possibly pose a threat to the juggernaut that is the U.S. military? How exactly do a few hundred men with AK-47’s, driving around in a remote corner of the world in pickup trucks, or even riding on horseback, pose a threat to an army of hundreds of thousands, equipped with trillions of dollars worth of advanced weaponry?

If any such threat ever could exist, it could only be the result of the worst kind of strategic and tactical blundering imaginable. If Al-Qaeda or Islamic Terrorism is a threat to the United States, then the whole of our political and military command should resign tomorrow, because even a monkey equipped with our military capacity could successfully defend our country against the threat posed by the myth of Islamic Terrorism.

This won’t happen though, because Islamic Terrorism is a myth, and those who propagate this myth for public consumption have very different military objectives in mind.

In the Quadrennial Defense Review Report of February 2010, signed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the military leadership spells out very clearly their true agenda, and the true objectives of the use of military force around the world.

“As a global power, the strength and influence of the United States are deeply intertwined with the fate of the broader international system—a system of alliances, partnerships, and multinational institutions that our country has helped build and sustain for more than sixty years.”

“America’s interests and role in the world require armed forces with unmatched capabilities and a willingness on the part of the nation to employ them in defense of our interests and the common good. The United States remains the only nation able to project and sustain large-scale operations over extended distances. This unique position generates an obligation to be responsible stewards of the power and influence that history, determination, and circumstance have provided.”

defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf

What the QDR makes clear is that the top military leadership believes that it is their duty and the duty of the United States to act as the foot soldiers for a globalist imperial order, described as the “broader international system.” In this globalist imperial order the interests of the U.S. are subordinate to something referred to as “the common good.”

If anyone has made a more open admission of treason while serving in the highest positions of power, I am not aware of it. The juxtaposition of “our interests and the common good” clearly implies that the “common good” is contrary to U.S. interests, and that U.S. interests are inferior to this “common good.” Truly a stunning statement for anyone serving as the head of any nation’s armed forces.

That the Secretary of Defense of the United States places his allegiance to the “broader international system” and “the common good” above his allegiance to his own Country and Constitution, and states so openly, publicly, and shamelessly, reveals a great deal about the underlying causes of many of the problems that bedevil our nation.

To understand why President Bush appointed Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense it must be remembered that Gates was Deputy Director of Intelligence for the CIA from 1982 to 1986, and was deeply involved with the illegal Iran Contra activities. Even though he was caught in several lies relating to his involvement with these crimes, the Independent Council for Iran/Contra Matters declined to indict him.

fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_16.htm

The legacy of many of the key players in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq stretches back to the Reagan administration and even earlier. These individuals are euphemistically referred to as “neoconservatives,” and much has been written about them under that rubric.

The creators of our modern big lie and the myths about Islamic Terrorism and evil dictators in the middle east were, thirty years ago, busy creating myths and spreading lies about the threat of the Soviet military. Interestingly, they were also proponents of U.S. military action in Afghanistan then, although with a different causus belli at the time.

In 1976, George H.W. Bush, then Director of the CIA, authorized the creation of an “independent” group called “Team B” that would analyze raw intelligence on the Soviet Union. Team B was headed by Richard Pipes and its advisors included Paul Wolfowitz. Team B made a variety of wild claims about Soviet military capabilities, some lifted from optimistic Soviet propaganda, and others that were pure fabrication.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

Dr. Anne Cahn, who served at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1977-1981, appears in The Power of Nightmares, stating that “if you go through most of Team B's specific allegations about weapons systems ... they were all wrong.” She continues, saying “I don’t believe anything in Team B was really true.”

In the journal article, Team B Intelligence Coups, Gordon Mitchell outlines how the “Team B” formula was recycled in 1998 by the Donald Rumsfeld led and Paul Wolfowitz staffed Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. This commission was formed to overturn a CIA National Intelligence Assessment that correctly concluded that no country outside of the major nuclear powers was capable of producing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. The Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz team concluded, incorrectly, that Iran and North Korea would be able to produce ICBM’s within five years. We are still waiting.

Interestingly, this was the second attempt by extremist factions to override the CIA, and hype up a non-existent threat of nuclear weapons. The first “independent” commission to reassess the CIA’s conclusions was chaired by Robert Gates, but ultimately concluded that the CIA’s assessment was correct.

pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/TeamBqjs.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Assess_the_Ballistic_Missile_Threat_to_the_United_States

After September 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense again, along with his lieutenant and long time partner in crime Paul Wolfowitz set up the Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) to reassess raw intelligence sources in order to overturn the CIA’s conclusion that there was no relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Douglas Feith, a Rumsfeld cohort and Undersecretary of Defense, staffed PCTEG with Michael Maloof and David Wurmser. Feith, along with Richard Perle, had worked previously with Wurmser and Maloof on a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.”

The “Clean Break” report was commissioned by Benjamin Netanyahu, then (and now) Prime Minister of Israel, and called for the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein in order to improve Israel’s security.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

Based on the “evidence” of the PCTEG, Vice President Cheney went on Meet the Press on September 14, 2003, once again to celebrate the anniversary of September 11, and claimed that “there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade.” By this time, the lies manufactured by PCTEG were an important part of spinning the non-existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which was becoming increasingly apparent.

In the same interview, Cheney claimed that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was “directed” by Al-Qaeda, and repeated the Mylroie claims that “in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government.”

Cheney of course conveniently forgot that Mylroie never mentioned Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden in her writings about the 1993 bombings, because when she was writing, the myth of Al-Qaeda and the myth of Bin Laden had not yet been created. Cheney did not mention that a key player in the 1993 bombings was an FBI informant, whose offers to stop the bombing were rejected by the FBI.

Cheney also neglected to mention that the documents recovered in Iraq included an audio tape in which Saddam Hussein speculated that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing “could be the work of either Israel or American intelligence, or perhaps a Saudi or Egyptian faction.”

nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/

In Team B Intelligence Coups James Bamford, an author, journalist, and former Navy intelligence analyst, is quoted as saying “the Wurmser intelligence unit would pluck selective bits and pieces of a thread from a giant ball of yarn and weave them together in a frightening tapestry.” The paper concludes that “their [PCTEG] work products were about as sophisticated as 'a high school biology student’s reading of a CAT scan.’”

Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Robert Gates, Douglas Feith, Daniel Pipes, and other characters mentioned here have a record of participation in intelligence frauds, criminal activity, and the creation of Big Lies to serve militarist agendas that stretches back over three decades.

What is it that holds this cabal of top level government officials, sometimes referred to as “neoconservatives,” together and gives them their motivation to continually spread lies and falsehoods designed to instigate foreign wars? What is the connection between these government officials and civilian propagandists like Irving and William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Christopher Hitchens, who align themselves with the “neoconservative” movement, and whistle their particular war-mongering tune?

Who are these neoconservatives, and what are the fundamental principles of their political movement?

For the answers to these questions, it is instructive to turn first to Russell Kirk, an old guard intellectual of prominence in American conservative thought. In a lecture titled “The Neoconservatives: an endangered species,” given on December 15, 1988, Kirk deconstructed the neoconservative movement with unmatched alacrity, and somewhat prematurely predicted their demise.

heritage.org/Research/Lecture/The-Neoconservatives-An-Endangered-Species

Kirk quotes an unnamed “distinguished historian” as writing that neoconservatives “are selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson." He continues, quoting "A feeling for the land, for its conservation, and for the strong modesty of a traditional patriotism (as distinct from nationalism) none of them has."

Kirk concludes that the neoconservatives are "Deficient in historical understanding as in familiarity with humane letters, most of the Neoconservatives lack those long views and that apprehension of the human condition which forms a basis for successful statecraft. Often clever, these Neoconservatives; seldom wise."

Kirk relates that “He [Irving Kristol] and various of his colleagues wish to persuade us to adopt an ideology of our own to set against Marxist and other totalist ideologies. Ideology, I venture to remind you, is political fanaticism: at best it is the substitution of slogans for real political thought. Ideology animates, in George Orwell's phrase, ‘the streamlined men who think in slogans and talk in bullets.’”

The totalitarian ideology that the neoconservatives wanted to set up against Marxism was “democratic capitalism.” Kirk points out that “the phrase is a contradiction in terms; for capitalism is not democratic, nor should it be, nor can it be.”

Kirk goes on to point out the fallacy inherent in totalitarian ideologies and their conflict with the Christian religion central to real conservatism: "All modem ideologies have the same irrational root: the permeation of politics with millenarian ideas of pseudo-religious character. The result is a dream world. … All these presume that man could create himself, implying that he is not a creature, dependent on God, but the master of his own soul and destiny."

In regards to the neoconservative agenda of “spreading democratic capitalism,” Kirk retorts that "the Constitution of the United States is not for export," as Dr. Daniel Boorstin puts it. To expect that all the world should, and must, adopt the peculiar political institutions of the United States - which often do not work very well even at home - is to indulge the most unrealistic of visions.”

He summarizes the dream of global democratic capitalism pursued by the neoconservatives, saying that "they aspire to bring about a world of uniformity and dull standardization, Americanized, industrialized, democratized, logicalized, boring. They are cultural and economic imperialists."

As to the specific roots of the neoconservatives, Kirk says that "This fresh horde of dissenters from Holy liberalism were men and women of Manhattan, for the most part, and of Jewish stock chiefly - although they recruited some Protestant and Catholic auxiliaries. At one time or another, nearly all of them had professed to be radicals or ritualistic liberals."

Kirk muses that "not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."

Many neoconservatives claim as their source of philosophical inspiration the fascist political philosopher Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss was a friend and colleague of Carl Schmidt, who was called “The Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.” Schmidt was an avid Nazi who joined the NSDAP (Nazi party) in 1933. As a professor who focused on philosophy, religion, and law, Carl Schmidt wrote many academic works that supported and guided the Nazi movement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

Schmitt helped Strauss obtain a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation, after which Strauss moved to Paris.

The history of American fascism is beyond the scope of this article, but as an aside, the Rockefellers maintained close relationships with German fascist industrialists. They were major funders of “The American Liberty League,” a group involved in plotting a coup against Franklin Roosevelt with the goal of installing a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. Today the focus of the Rockefeller Foundation is “globalism” – just like Robert Gates and the U.S. military.

coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html

coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/all-both.html

guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Fellowship

After Paris, Strauss moved to England, where he was befriended by the Marxist Harold Laski. Strauss was unable to find work in England, and so in 1937 he came to America. With recommendations from both Marxists and Fascists in his pocket, Strauss first found a home at Columbia University, followed by The New School in New York, and the University of Chicago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Strauss’s philosophical views can be summed up in his own words: “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked he has to be governed: Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united—and they can only be united against other people.”

This philosophy is predicated on racism, because the unstated assumption is that the writer is not one of these intrinsically wicked members of mankind. The writer is part of some other group that is separate from the rest of humanity and to whom the same rules do not apply.

It is for this elite that philosophers like Strauss write, and it is with this group of elitists that the absurd ideas of philosophers like Strauss find adherents. Strauss is revered by the “neoconservatives,” apparently because they seriously believe in his theories about them being a elite who have the duty to rule over the masses of common men by creating myths and illusions with which they can control society.

Like Strauss, with his ties to both Marxism and Fascism, other leading neoconservatives are former communists of one branch or another. Irving Kristol and Christopher Hitchens openly assert their history as Trotskyite communists. Other claims of neoconservative/communist connections are the subject of some debate.

enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/0304neocontrotp1.htm

The use of the term neoconservative itself has been criticized by Barry Rubin, of the Interdisciplinary Center in Israel, who says that “'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As anti-Semites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.”

He goes on to say: “In this case, there is not even any Rothschild or Trotsky, Jews who actually did play a big role in big business and the Russian revolution. In the top dozen of [sic] so policymakers involved in the war, the only Jewish person must be Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, neither a neoconservative nor anyone with particular ties to Israel.”

tinyurl.com/285lzsk

Rubin conveniently ignores the roles of Douglas Feith, Michael Maloof, and David Wurmser in creating and spreading lies about Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Lies that were used to push the same agenda of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein that they also proposed when employed by Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

Neoconservative is not, as Rubin would have it, a codeword for Jews. If anything, it is a codeword for fascists. If some of the intellectuals labeled as neoconservatives happen to be Jewish, it is certainly not their self-ascribed racial identity that is at issue.

The issue with neoconservatives is that they promote fascist ideologies. In the place of racism or communism as the binding force of the fascist State, they have substituted a vicious and warped form of Christianity along with the absurd and self-contradictory ideology of democratic capitalism. For an external enemy, to unite our society for war, they have created the myth of Islamic Terrorism.

The very same people propagated the myth of a dark and sinister international communism, a supposedly atheist menace, as America’s external enemy before the collapse of the Soviet Union. This despite the fact that some prominent neoconservatives were themselves communists. When the Soviet Union collapsed the neoconservatives simply replaced one mythical enemy with another.

These myths need not be credible or intellectually consistent. They are not sold to the American people on the basis of reason. They are given currency through mass repetition, willful deceit, and purposeful abuse of emotionally powerful images and symbolism, such as the events of September 11, 2001, and the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Some of these neoconservatives may actually believe in the theories of Leo Strauss; that they are an elite group of philosopher kings charged with the duty of directing the mass of intrinsically wicked mankind. Such a belief might explain their lying, murder, torture, subversion, and treason. Hermann Göring made similar arguments, based on similar philosophical sources, at his trial at Nuremberg.

Göring was sentenced to hang for his crimes, but committed suicide before he could be executed.

Göring is quoted as having said: “Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along … voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

The fascist playbook has not changed. The Nazis themselves learned their techniques from more ancient sources, which they slavishly imitated. Then, as now, Big Lies, Grand Illusions, and Great Myths are used for the purpose of uniting society against imaginary enemies in order to wage aggressive expansionist wars for the purpose of enriching the war mongers at the expense of the useful idiots.

The mythology of the War on Terror is the Big Lie of our age. These myths are nothing more than the tricks of a stage magician. The events of September 11, and all of the lies about the threat of Islamic Terrorism, are a bit of clever misdirection designed to hide the mechanism by which our civil liberties, our dignity and honor as a nation, and our wealth has been made to disappear from before our eyes.

This misdirection was certainly grand. It relied on the best shock and awe that modern weapons and a pervasive mass media could provide.

This misdirection has for a time made people forget the truth about what happens when a mosquito bites an elephant. Nothing.

Even if all of the lies and myths about Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and Islamic Terrorists were true, they would never pose a credible threat to the United States for a single instant. A few hundred guys with AK-47’s cannot threaten an institutionalized industrial military with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and literally tens of millions of civilians involved in administering, supplying, and supporting it.

What does pose a threat to the United States is the insane ideology of globalist democratic capitalism. This ideology was created by former communists as an intellectual counterpoint to communism, and in the end, it is no different than communism. It is just another b.s. ideology designed to trick people into fighting other people’s wars, for other people’s profits, with their own lives and their own money. Such ideologies are a dime-a-dozen, and can be created at will using whatever buzzwords and symbols are found to resonate with people of a particular culture.

As Smedley Butler, the Marine General who exposed the Rockefeller plot to overthrow FDR, said: War is a Racket. As with every racket, if you’re smart, you get out while you still can.

===================================

Salem-News.com Business/Economy Reporter Ersun Warncke is a native Oregonian. He has a degree in Economics from Portland State University and studied Law at University of Oregon. At a young age, his career spans a wide variety of fields, from fast food, to union labor, to computer programming. He has published works concerning economics, business, government, and media on blogs for several years. He currently works as an independent software designer specializing in web based applications, open source software, and peer-to-peer (P2P) applications.

Ersun describes his writing as being "in the language of the boardroom from the perspective of the shop floor." He adds that "he has no education in journalism other than reading Hunter S. Thompson." But along with life comes the real experience that indeed creates quality writers. Right now, every detail that can help the general public get ahead in life financially, is of paramount importance.

You can write to Ersun at: warncke@comcast.net