Terrorism in Britain: Why Today?

I am so sorry to hear of the attacks in London. I hope the terrorists are stopped immediately and forever, that those behind them are found and that their crimes have no political effect in Great Britain or elsewhere.

* * *

The top story that came up in Google at the time of the attacks was this one:

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/07/07/g8-climate-change-cz_0707oxan_summit.html

along with many other articles on the same topic: climate change discussion at G8.

Is that a coincidence? Is it possible that the supporters of terrorism aim to discourage the exposure of the devastating effects of our continued addiction to oil for some reason?

Strauss Discussion on Democratic Underground

chaska writes on Democratic Underground:

>> This is from Power Down by Richard Heinberg. It's one hell of a great book on peak oil. I just this moment read the following on page 68. The chapter is about the GW Bush administration. My heart started pounding when I read this.

Neoconservatism is the intellectual offspring of Leo Strauss (1899-1973), a jewish scholar who fled Hitler's Germany and taught political science at the University of Chicago. According to Shadia Drury in 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (Griffin, 1999), Strauss advocated an essentially Machiavellian approach to governance. <<

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1880285#1880311

Now this is too bad: I paid good money for this "Power Down" book and was hoping to get some answers from it. I hadn't gotten past the first few pages yet. Now we see Heinberg repeating what is essentially gossip from a secondary source, without bothering to cite Strauss. Is this interpretation true? I have no idea, but here is another page on Strauss:

>> Strauss wrote an influential critique of modern political philosophy, i.e., philosophy since Machiavelli, arguing that it suffers from an inability to make value judgments about political regimes, even about obviously odious ones. <<

http://www.answers.com/topic/leo-strauss

Obviously, someone has gotten things muddled up here.

realcountrymusic writes in response to chaska's thread:

>> I am increasingly fed up with DU. It has gone down the tubes since 11/04. In the last week I have seen outright stalking condoned and cheered, and now outright anti-Semitism getting a pass. Theft of intellectual property is treated here as politically salient protest. Wack-job conspiracy theories that make us look worse than FreeRepublic are rampant on this site of late, and very few reasonable voices are chiming in and saying anything. <<

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1880285#1880311

and what else is new?

Al bupp responds to the same thread:

>> .. Check-out Antiwar.com
You'll find much more on the Neo-Cons in general and Strauss, in particular. As many here probably already know, the site's edited and has many bloggers from the Libertarian/Paleocon side of the political spectrum.

* * *

He may be an associate of Pat Buchannon, but he's got a sharp wit, an ascerbic pen, and knows how to embed meaningful links into the body of his prose which support and extend his arguments. <<

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1880285#1880311

LOL

Scott Burns: Can the US Stop Using Oil by 2050?

>> Yes, says visionary Amory Lovins. So long as we get serious about improving energy efficiency. The cost? $180 billion over 10 years.

[snip]

As you might expect, Lovins starts with the American automobile. The plan calls for a transition to lightweight but safer carbon-fiber-based vehicles that start as near-80 mpg hybrids (like the Toyota Prius) but evolve into fuel-cell vehicles. <<

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P113797.asp

War in Iraq: Big Oil Wins

Slit Skirt posted on Democratic Underground:

>> BAGHDAD COUP D'ETAT FOR BIG OIL Monday, March 28, 2005 Harper's Magazine investigation reveals how Big Oil vanquished the neo-cons ... and OPEC is the winner." For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan for Iraq's oil ...."Some conspiracy nuts believe the Bush Administration had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil. In fact, there were TWO plans. In a joint investigation with BBC Television Newsnight, Harper's Magazine has uncovered a hidden battle over Iraq's oil. It began right after Mr. Bush took office - with a previously unreported plot to invade Iraq.

Thank you, Slit Skirt!

Here is a link to the page on Palast's site: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=418&row=0

Many people have said the war in Iraq was about many things, but in truth, the war was about money.

Scott Ritter and his parasites

Exclusive: Raw Story chats with Scott Ritter
By Larisa Alexandrovna
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=219

This is the issue that got me banned from Democratic Underground.

Here are my comments on selected portions:

Scott Ritter: The NeoCons are parasites. They build nothing. They bring nothing. They don’t have a foundation. They don’t stand for business. They don’t stand for ideology. They use a host to facilitate and grow their own power. They are parasites that latch onto oil until is no longer convenient.

I guess we've all got to agree with the neocons that oil is becoming inconvenient. Will I provoke implacable resentment if I suggest that humans (not just neocons) latch onto oil or anything else until it is no longer convenient? I think I probably will, but of course, I'm doing it anyway.

* * *

Ritter: No oil professional in their right mind would support what is happening in Iraq. This isn’t part of a grand ‘oil’ strategy; it is simply pure unadulterated incompetence.

Is it odd that Ritter makes no mention of the fact that Phillip Carroll, an ex-CEO at Shell, is in charge of what's going to happen with the Iraqi oil fields?

* * *

Raw Story: So your implication is that in our current foreign policy the NeoCons have set the tone via thinktanks or supposed thinktanks?
Ritter: Yes. Look at who funds the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, and I think you’ll have your answer.

Heritage and American Enterprise were mostly funded by money that came from the arms industry, Gulf Oil, and Vicks Vaporub. So what's his point?

* * *

Raw Story: So you believe the NeoCons are elitist parasites?
Ritter: Yes, elitism is the perfect term.

I am sure I don't know what Ritter means by "elitist parasites." He seems to refer only to Wolfowitz, along with Rice, as neocons.

* * *

Raw Story: Why the State Department? Why Rice?
Ritter: The State Department still has free thinkers in it. Rice is a dilettante. Anyone who was there during the Reagan era and her advising on Soviet policy knows how inept she is. She is not there because she is a brilliant Secretary of State.
The media has bought into this, because the NeoCons cleverly put a woman, an African American woman at that, into this position. So when Rice goes abroad, people do not look at the stupid things she says, they look at what she was wearing and such.

Why Rice? Just answer the question for cryin' out loud, and then you can make all the catty remarks you like.

* * *

Raw Story: Is Karl Rove a NeoCon?
Ritter: Karl Rove is not part of the neo-conservative master group; he is a host.
Raw Story: Then who is in steering the ship?
Ritter: An oligarchy of ‘public servant’ classes who are drawn from business, and serve naked economic interests. This is true whether you are Democrat or Republican.

Karl Rove is a "host," infected with some parasitical disease. Now what could Ritter mean by that? He couldn't be using parasite to refer to the Jews because everyone says that he isn't. Just what does he mean if he isn't using "parasite" and "host" in the same sense as Hitler was? He hasn't named anyone in this interview except Wolfowitz and Rice.

* * *

This content of this interview is absolutely shocking. If Ritter doesn't intend to convey a "paradigm" (as the interviewer calls it) straight out of Mein Kampf with Hitler's analogy of Jewish parasites and Aryan hosts, he should have been offered the chance to correct or clarify it.

DUer: Get those oppressive intolerant Christians under control!

pilgrimsoul posts on Democratic Underground:

>> If Christians really want people to be more respectful of their faith, then they should subdue the out of control, hypocritical, bigoted, fascist Christians causing all the trouble instead of complaining that people are not being nice when they call them on their BS. And I say this as someone whose father was a southern baptist minister. I grew up surrounded by the oppressive intolerance of people who called themselves Christians, but who cloaked themselves in a false moral conceit instead of in Christ's love. Very rarely have I ever met the genuine article, but when I do, I have the utmost respect for them.

If Christians can't handle being criticized, then they should get their fringe element under control, stop trying to turn America into a theocracy and get their prejudiced noses out of other people's private lives. <<

This DUer grew up under "oppressive intolerance" and says Christians "should get their fringe element under control."

No comment to that!

Small splinter group destroys U.S. (yeah, right)

Tactical Peek posts on Democratic Underground:

>> Our economy has been wrecked before. Our military services have been wrecked before. And our people have been bitterly divided and ill-led before, but we always recovered and came back. However, today there are other big fish in the pool, and a small group of right-wing zealots are dragging us down deeper and deeper, with no sign of relief ahead.

Typical left-wingnut nonsense about how it's a small group dragging "us" down. Left-wingnuts don't use fossil fuel, I guess. It's funny how they don't believe in God, but they do believe the Devil makes them do everything.

Can we feel empathy?

Saracat writes on Democratic Underground:

>> I think the Schindlers are evil. I find how they are willing to prostitute their daughter's death and abuse and falsify their religion in order to promote their own agenda disgusting.

What can I say? The radical left is in love with Michael Schiavo, and if you're not, you had better watch out.

Is it about oil?

Relog posts this link on Democratic Underground to show how war is linked to fossil fuel:

http://www.seen.org/pages/reports/WB_brief_0903.shtml

Good to see someone responding to the lies.

Ritter has an idea!

not systems posts on Democratic Underground:

>> I thought the power angle was very interesting... the idea that neo-conservatism was an ivory tower untested idea that has not survived it's first run in with reality seems very true. Ritter's idea that it has shed most of it's ideas except the drive for power is fascinating. That anti-communism followed by anti-Saddam and now the crusade for "democracy"are all just means to an end. The consolidation of power into the hands of professional governmental elites seems to be their main goal.

The neocons are hired hacks. They have no goals and never did. It's naive to assume they have any goal at all. They are simply opportunists working for opportunists.

The metaphor catches on!

Just Me posts on Democratic Underground:

>> EW!!! So, true!!! They really are parasitic!!!
I never thought of that word to describe them!!!

Well, it's not original, Just Me, but I see it is catching on.

BTW, it comes from Mein Kampf. Do you find that surprising, that a supposedly liberal left site like Democratic Underground would expose you to metaphors from Mein Kampf?

Ritter's metaphor from Mein Kampf

lala_rawraw writes on Democratic Underground:

>> Such hysterics. Your comments with regard to my interview of Mr. Ritter are incredibly interesting to me. I have been called many things, but given the fact that I am a Jew, a Jew who fled from the Ukraine; a Jew who lost family in the Holocaust, this latest assessment is highly creative but entirely offensive. The interview, I think speaks quite clearly and without quoting from any source (like Hitler, as you say) on neither my part or on the part of Mr. Ritter. Clearly, minus brain cells, the new vanguard is to attack with hot button words in order to disrupt or better yet, to silence. Now, let me quickly put your mind to ease, or whatever is clearly lacking in your ability to process basic information: NeoCons = Parasites, is not about Jews, it is not about Christians, in fact the analogy is about a body wholly absent of any "material" and applies to that "body's" motivation to simply control, and in this case, acquire power. I think Ritter makes quite clear that the NeoCons have no ideology, no religion, no allegiance to anything other than their own immediate power, thereby they latch on to anything that is currently providing that power. The Heritage Foundation is in fact the body that deployed their protégé to Iraq to help "rebuild" the country, in the process, losing 9 billion dollars.

You've lost me here. What protege did the Heritage Foundation send to Iraq, and how did the Heritage Foundation lose 9 billion dollars?

My grandmother came from the Ukraine. She emmigrated from there to Canada, but died long before I was born.

You've certainly picked up English very well, and I must congratulate you.

>> I do not think Ritter or anyone sane person would ever call Rove an "innocent." What the host metaphor is about is that it provides the delivery mechanism.

Again, you've lost me. The host metaphor comes from Mein Kampf. How does "delivery mechanism" relate to this?

>> He is speaking of how the NeoCons function. Now, only someone with their head stuck so far up Falwell's arse would infer that Jews, Christians, and Hitler were somehow part of this dialogue. What is part of this dialogue, in reference to the second interview, is the threat posed by NeoCons, as Ritter suggests, by using the term brown shirts. Hint this is not used to defend them; it is used to convey the danger of such extremism. Mods please don't lock this thread. I wanted to respond to this ridiculous and crass assessment of my work, but you had already locked that thread. THOSE OF YOU IN THE THREAD LISTED BELOW, I find your suggestion that I both interviewed a Nazi and am somehow spreading and supporting Nazi propaganda incredibly offensive. If you cannot read truth, then go back to watching Fox news where there is plenty of "The Jews are out to get Christmas" to help you in your quest to find hidden Nazi rhetoric and symbolism. And frankly, given with the subject of my piece and having at least done my research, I think I am comfortable in saying that I do not believe Mr. Ritter to be remotely a Nazi. Good god, this is sick, but what this really is, by way of feigned concern, is just a disinfo campaign and I would suggest that you take a good look at anyone who posts simply to get a thread locked.The rest of you sane and kind DUrs thank you kindly for recommending me for an award of any sort. I would just be happy to have some sanity back in this reality. LA

OK, I get it. You don't like that I pointed out that Ritter lifted a metaphor from the Nazis. Sorry, but I'm not sorry.

Banned!

Today I was banned from Democratic Underground for pointing out that Scott Ritter is using analogies taken from Hitler to pin the Iraq war on Jews and exhonorate others such as Karl Rove.

It is absolutely terrifying that the far right, moderate right, and far left are now joining together to abdicate from responsibility and promote racism using analogies from Mein Kampf.

I will not shut up, though. These people will have to kill me to get me to shut up.

I will continue to post and promote responsibility for all by reviewing the lies on the Democratic Underground site as they are posted, even if I am not able to help people at DU see through them.

I feel much better already. :-)