A bit O/T, but though some posters might be interested in viewing the following videos on Naomi Klein's new book "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism":
youtube.com
democracynow.org (this is a recent interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman)
For those not familiar with Ms Klein, she's the author of "No Logo", and in her domain of analysis, wicked-smart IMO.
I haven't read her book yet, but it would seem the premise is that epicenters of power in global capitalist society frequently use social and economic shock therapy (including systemic war and violence) to condition a society to adopt massive changes "necessary" to adopt capitalist systems. Ms. Klein likens this approach to experiments that the CIA did in the 1950's and 1960's, through to today's tried and true torture methods, to reduce a captive to a regressive state of mind where they are highly susceptive to behavioral modification.
Of the various forms of economic and social shock treatment, war would stand at the forefront of such techniques. Viewed from this light, war can be viewed as a pretty sweet deal from a certain perspective of power. For one, you can make a windfall in war profiteering (particularly if you sell weapons to both sides). And secondly, you can effect sweeping social change and establish social and economic control over a peoples and their productive resources. Not to mention, to get to divide the spoils. Sweet.
*** what follows is some further thoughts on this topic - thoughts which are not, to my knowledge, shared by Ms Klein ***
Of course, it you were to embark on such an endeavor and gain the support of the folks at home, you couldn't just outright say that this was your intent. You'd have to couch it in terms like "spreading democracy" or "operation freedom" or some such language. You know, make the whole endeavor uplifting and inspiring.
And, of course you'd need an "other" to do battle with. To justify you're going into a society and unleashing all manners of coercion and violence. Enter the "terrorist". And of course, a "terrorist" needs a defining moment to establish their "villainy". And if the "terrorist" was first and foremost a "legend" or a "symbol" to justify your war of aggression in the first place, well how do you create the emotional "hatred" to sustain your war of aggression? Well, the ideal solution would be the "false flag" operation. That'd do it. And then keep the fear high. As Chancellor Sutcliffe says in V for Vendetta, "remind them how much they need us".
Anyway, apologies for this somewhat OT line of thought. It's just that Naomi Klein's recent missive has got me thinking.
Oh, and Iran, I think those Persian's could use a little of "Uncle Sam and friend's" Shock and Awe treatment right about now, don't you? Terrorists. A serious threat. Best be dealt with now.
glenn |
