That is what the ‘granting of independence’ was generally all about anyway. So when nations get all charismatic about their ‘national’ and ‘independence’ days, ed just shakes his head and chalks it up as further evidence that, in this 'modern' scheme of things, ‘adulthood’ is just another phase of childhood where one can legally reproduce and replicate their stupidity in the next generation.
So here we see the west, again, ensuring ‘regime change’ if Libya. Under the pretext of protecting the civilians of Benghazi, the UN - which is just a stooge of the Juvenile State of America - enforces a ‘no-fly zone’ thus disabling Gaddafi’s airforce from making mince meat of the rebels and other civilians in the vicinity - the u.s. justifies it as ‘collateral damage’ whenever it suits its imperialist purposes - which is alright actually, but then moves on to bombing Gaddafi’s forces, which effectively puts the rebels in the employ of the u.s.
That is nothing short of western aggression on Libyan soil. And some american git, on the news last night stated smugly, ‘Syria is next’. You can be sure that the u.s. will be, as usual, up to something behind the scenes to bring this about.
That is why, when the Twin Towers came tumbling down live on t.v. ‘reality show’ style, I didn’t celebrate it. Just found it hilarious, shook my head at the stupidity of men, and then yawned and switched channels to see what movie was on. I mean, do people actually think they can go about killing people and their children and expect the survivors to confine their grief to gnashing their teeth, and beating their chests whilst clad in sackcloth and ashes?
The west isn’t a ‘lesser evil’. It is actually a ‘greater evil’ because the greatest evil is always ‘an evil refined, or seen as a lesser evil, and consequentially seen as good, and hence perpetuated’. What the ‘terrorists’ did was wrong, but given the wrongs done to them prior to that, it becomes understandable from a scientific and psychological viewpoint. Being able to explain ‘cause and effect’ and connect the dots betwixt doesn’t mean you’re a ‘terrorist’ as is the implication by Bush in his ‘you’re either with us or against us’. It just means that you’re objective enough to know that when you slap your neighbour, he’s probably going to slap you back. That doesn’t make him right, but you can say that his wrong is incited by your preceding wrong. That makes both wrong, but the neighbour, at least, would be able to mitigate his actions with an, ‘you started first’.
But america tried to twist this whole thing by promoting the notion that it doesn’t matter who started first, what mattered was that american lives are worth more than others. That is why Madeline ‘none too bright’ Albright, the u.s. ambassador to the U.N. stated that the death of close to half a million Iraqi childen arising from american embargoes prior to 11/9 was ‘worth the price’. I wonder if these blatant acts of u.s. terrorism and absence of remorse by the u.s. was intended to provoke a ‘terrorist’ response from the Arabs so as to justify american aggression in the Middle East. I mean, surely the u.s. can’t be that stupid as to think that there wouldn't be retaliation sooner or later given that the u.s. would retaliate for much less a reason.
You could say that the fall of the ‘Two Towers’, simply enabled the ‘Return of the King’ to do more to further strengthen the pre-existing, ‘Fellowship of the Ring’, or, what is known as the u.s.-led NWO, or ‘New World Order’ - look closely at the u.s. dollar bill, and you’ll see those words inscribed in Latin on it. (I may like some americans, Clint Eastwood, Miles Davis, and Grand Funk Railroad, but i despise america as a state)
If you think about it, the fall of the Twin Towers was just collateral damage, not for the ‘terrorists’, but the u.s., as it was the price unwittingly paid by civilians to enable the furtherance of the profit and power-motive of the elite. And the people and military fell for it hook, line, sinker. Well, we cannot expect much from a nation where celebrity-worshippers abound, where a talk-show host can become a billionaire, and one of whose greatest media exports is The Simpsons. Anyway, i’m quite with american and british conspiracy scientists in their claims that 11/9 was orchestrated by the american government, as was the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Anyone who staunchly believes otherwise is an ignorant moron.
But ed is conflicted here. Gaddafi is obviously, well, an asshole. He denies the people democratic rights, bans political parties, and incarcerates and tortures opposition. So he should be ousted? Certainly. But as one African bloke put it in a publicised debate with the rich toff git, David Cameron, this is an issue for Africans to resolve, which, in other words, probably meant, ‘not for the west to profit from, or to expand their control over’. So the west has been bombing Gaddafi’s forces. Whilst denying Gaddafi’s use of the airforce against the rebels, the west supplies its airforce for the interests of the rebels; an supplies them with arms, training and logistical support. In other words, the west is involved in indirect regime change, directly.
If you think about it, the west cannot allow great evil to fester too long as history has shown that with great evil come great philosophers who will seek a true alternative. So we have a choice here. We either focus on Gaddafi’s ‘asshole status’ and support any means to get rid of him, or refuse to allow the west to further their hegemony over those areas where the have yet to be able to control indirectly through ‘native administrators’. I’d opt for the latter.
Now think about the following really carefully.....
The west isn’t a ‘lesser evil’. It is actually a ‘greater evil’ because the greatest evil is always ‘an evil refined, or seen as a lesser evil, and consequentially seen as good, and hence perpetuated’. Gaddafi is the ‘lesser evil’. That is, ‘an evil recognised as an indubitable evil and which can hence be potentially done away with in favour of a truly good system’. We need great evils to get us to think about what ‘good’ really is. To support the west is to confuse a lesser evil for good because it is better than a greater evil. I’d rather keep an evil such a Gaddafi alive and kicking so that people might seek a greater and truly good solution that is truly the opposite, than to desire immediate gratification and sell out to one of the devil’s minions.
If you think about it, the west cannot allow great evil to fester too long as history has shown that with great evil come great philosophers who will seek a true alternative. Before this can happen, the true forces of evil has to step in and offer a compromised way out so that evil can still reign supreme in a less vicious form. But in this less vicious form, it reigns forever.
ed
0 thoughts:
Post a Comment
The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.
Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.