Uncategorized
It’s a heck of a note…
to have to root for the Rockefellers. Blog entry by Lew Rockwell:
“The Eastern Establishment Is Pro-Peace
Well, not quite, but the Rockefeller-neocon split continues. I hate to agree with the Trilateral Commission types, but the more conservative warmongers and imperialists are right to see the neocons as insane. The Rockfellers opposed the 2nd Iraq war, or at least the regime-change part, and now oppose the planned war on Iran as possibly leading to an economic calamity (the dead don’t much bother them). The Iraq Study Group was intended to be a shot across the neocons’ bow, but it had little effect. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s startling testimony against this war and the new one has been ignored by the court media.
“Bill Clinton was the last Rockefeller president, and now he looks pretty good in comparison to Bush. Bush’s own heritage is pure Rockefeller, since his grandfather Prescott, but he fell in with worse companions. (Thanks to Kev Hall for the link.)
“PS: On the pro-peace question, I should note that the Eastern Establishment helped promote, and mightily profited from, US entry into WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, among other adventures.”
Not so fast, says Anthony Gregory:
“Re: The Eastern Establishment
Lew, the Establishment seems to oppose the neocon insanity because it jeopardizes the US empire and has already ruined its post-WWII reputation worse even than Vietnam — which is the only silver lining of the Bush administration.
I think they want to clean up. I think the Anglo-American establishment and the neocons, while they disagree now, will agree once again when the time is right. Or, the next Rockefeller takeover, if it happens, will make us miss the days when the realists actually opposed intervention.
The neocons love the World Wars and Cold War, and so do the realists and Rockefellers. I fear that those who have their influence in both camps see some long-term, globalist Hegelian benefit from this supposed split. (Not to mention those in the military industrial complex who, in the short term, benefit from war no matter who wages it.) Isn’t it possible? Or do you think the split is real?
Me: Lew’s right, the split over Iran has to be real. Quote the mouth of David Rockefeller:
“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”
It must be an emergency for Zebigniew Brzezinski to be saying such things in open hearings before the Imperial Senate. (Not that everyone doesn’t already know that governments resort to such things all the time and always have.)
Let’s just hope that a silver lining to all this madness will be the death of the golden goose - the American Empire - for all these factions without any more destruction here in the States or in U.S. colonies overseas. Let these idiots fight over their country club privileges and leave us alone.
Discussion
8 Comments
Leave a Reply
Buy Scott's Stickers
Social Bookmarks
Scott,
I have commented before that these two factions are so smart that they are really stupid!
My question is when are you going to have Jim Tucker on your radio show. I think he would be an excellent guest for you. Seriously.
On another subject, did you see Mark Lane’s comments about E. Howard Hunt. Evidently Hunt was negotiating some type of tell-all about the JFK assassination just prior to his death. I think Lane would be another great guest.
If Scott is doing requests, I’d like to see Francis Fukayama on Anti-War radio. Scott’s read a ton of history/politics but his philosophic references are lacking. Perhaps w/ Ex - neocon Fukayama on his show, as prep work Scott will have to brush up on his Hegel - an activity Horton no doubt relishes.
Okay, the split on Iran seems real right now. If the neocon madness is an aberration, that’s good, I suppose, but what will normalcy actually look like? And why are so many of the Rockefeller mainstream Dems and GOPers right now as warmongering on Iran as the administration, even if they’re souring on Iraq? What if souring on Iraq, along with Iranian intervention in Iraq, are used to justify action against Iran?
And as for Brzezinski, weren’t there times when Carter’s foreign policy was attacked by other realists as being insufficiently belligerent? Can the split be real but not represent just two groups, but several overlapping ones?
…Mr. Gregory, allow to be as brief and hopefully succinct as possible as I am presently busy as a one legged man in a rat stomp: As there was, relatively speaking, no Pan Islamic uprising, nor global movement per the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as such. Then is the neo-Con first reassured, and afterward emboldened by these realities, and thus logically encouraged follow his reckless War Policy to its conclusion. Indicative of this is the present gauging of public sentiment through de-facto announcements of the relocation of military assets in the region for these same intended purposes. Thus sensenig no outrage on the electorates behalf, the neo-Conservatives become more confident in the likelihood of the US populous tolerating an expanded regional war, that neo-Con foreign policy designers are even now finalizing, and mean to, by the use of further aggression therein, to call the Islamic World’s “bluff.”…I find even the open wording and description of such an eventuality to be disturbing. Conversely, the US is not only been politicaly compelled to subsidize Israeli sovereignty, repression of a subject populous and subsequent expansion, but the eventual Chinese challenge for dominion of Petroleum resources in that region with the continued sale of US Bonds, the negotiable returns on which, Chinese weapons programs are actively being developed for that very, pending, impasse. Philosophy is ever a wonderful thing, the psychological basis for human behavior itself, and as such we need it surely. But it is my considered opinion that the examination of the Realpolitik behind neo-Conservative-Zionist reasoning should take intellectual priority, if not energy…To summarize: The neo-Con figures “If you can hit a guy once? Then you can hit him twice”…True enough…But the bad news is, pursue to this line of logic to its conclusion? And there is another Global Conflict pending…
Check out some of the names in the back of the Iraq Study Group Report, Pretty interesting, they all aren’t part of the group, but I don’t know if they are advisers…also, there was news out somewhere not to long ago, it was even on CNN, that Kissinger was and is one of the people that has been advising in Iraq…
What the heck is two guys from the washington post in there for, and bill kristol, and thomas friedman? I’m not saying they had anything to do with the report, but, why are they considered ” Former Officials and Experts”, which they are classified under?
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html
Why the unified front against Iran… perhaps the thesis of Mr. Palast is correct. America and its oil establishment favor the House of Saud and its interests in OPEC, not Irans.
That would be good to get Fukuyama on the radio, even though he’s a weasle. The interpration of Hegel by Kojeve is different then Hegel. It’s a reading through Marx and Heidegger. It’s more realist (if you want to call it that). A commie ( Marx) a nazi ( Heidegger) I wonder what good will come out of this
Boil it down. It’s a dialectical nihilistic world police state.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Reading-Hegel-Phenomenology-Paperback/dp/0801492033/sr=1-1/qid=1170993097/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7840727-5525535?ie=UTF8&s=books
It’s actually much easier to read then Hegel, but still torture. Allan Bloom edited. Front of Fukuyama’s book dedicated to Bloom. People sometimes try to make Bloom and Strauss out to be different, I don’t think so. There is supposedly different groups of Straussians, West Coast, East Coast. West I would say read Strauss much more literally, and are generally more political, and are often for less government, more conservative, (Jaffa) but strong centralization. East coast are more new deal liberals, and are often more Nietzschean, (Bloom) more esoteric, culturally conservative but not politically conservative, by this they see distinctions in individuals and men and their action and accomplishments, not nessasarily cultures, they are elitist, less involved with politics, and also for strong centralization.
So the west are more exoteric and the east are more esoteric.
Here’s some good AUDIO MP3’s on Strauss that you guys might want to hear, these guys take him seriously, not like some others who just say the same thing as everyone else without reading him.
http://www.subfm.org/leostrauss.htm
I’ve read quite a bit of him, and they are pretty accurate from what I’ve read. Only really good thing at that site. I think Strauss has some interesting things to say, even if you disagree with him, I don’t think he should be brushed off as a flake as some do. I don’t agree with Shadia Drury either.
This isn’t the whole story on Strauss, he also I believe never stopped being an ardent Zionist, and all his students all seem to be, whether Jewish or not. Interesting that Strauss came over on a Rockefeller grant, and taught, eventually at the Rockefeller founded Chicago University. I think Bloom was much more involved with politics then Strauss, but I don’t think he corrupted Strauss’ thought at all as some try to claim, to keep Strauss innocent. many of the neo cons were taught by Allan Bloom and Harvey Mansfield.
The only “split” I see is between the monsters in power who want more war, and the monsters formerly in power who realize these wars could ruin everything they worked for. Unsurprisingly, the monsters in power have all the power and will make whatever decisions they want.
Palast said there won’t be an attack on Iran since the establishment (James Baker) doesn’t want one. Nearly everything he said wasn’t plausible.