Heidegger

On 12/06/2006, at 8:52 PM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:

> Present moral accusations undercover of neutral philosophical
> discussion by exclusively giving ideologically one-sided examples.

You are “disappearing up your own arse, mate” as we Aussies say. I
take it then that yes, you are incapable of dealing honestly and
openly with historical problems that threaten your sanitized view of
history and your belief in the exceptional sanctity of your nation
over and above all others.

In what sense though do you see FDR’s treasonous complicity in
setting up and allowing the Pearl Harbor attack as first and foremost
a moral problem? You might feel compelled to condemn him but I can
understand the imperial logic behind it. His presidential emergency
powers were expanded long before Pearl Harbor, in 1933 IIRC and led
to the New Deal as a way out of the lingering US depression not to
mention the gold confiscation. Many Republican writers from your
country consider he overreached his constitutional powers and brought
the US to the verge of a socialist dictatorship which was no doubt in
part the reasoning behind the Dupont, Morgan etal sponsored attempt
at a fascist coup in 1934. I have a copy of the congressional
“Investigation of NAZI Propaganda Activities and Certain Other
Propaganda Activities” from the Cal Uni national archives and if
you’d like to go through that I’ll upload it to the site.

But this notion of ‘national security’ and the ‘common good’ is an
interesting one, especially where the common good of all includes
economic security and the national entity itself as a whole. What
happens when the people abrogate their responsibility and allow the
executive to wield increasing emergency powers is naturally enough a
state of constant emergency, or 70 years of economic emergencies
followed by world war, cold wars interspersed by hot wars and finally
a never ending war on everything and everyone. All the while the
presidential powers have increased to the point the current president
is arguing he has the power to completely ignore the constitution,
the congress and the judiciary, oh yes, and the people. I agree it’s
pointless blaming Bush or his coterie for this state of affairs, but
that’s precisely my argument, it’s the structure of power relations
in the modern state that tends to centralize power, or federalize it
in your system, and that seems to be a common thread between
Stalinism, Nazism and Democracy.

But why should we morally condemn FDR for the decision to sacrifice
2,403 good and honest US citizens in order to mobilize for the war of
the century, a war that would hand the reigns of global power over to
the US? Similar arguments are made after all for Truman’s decision to
nuke Japan and kill all those defenceless women and children, as
apparently that nuclear terrorist bombing brought the Japanese to
surrender and also gave the Russians pause for thought. We can’t deny
it happened of course, and its human toll was dreadful and
generational, but you no doubt can morally justify what was also
essentially a presidential message to Stalin and a military experiment.

No doubt the same arguments are made by those in Bush’s circle, or I
should say Cheney’s circle, who executed the greatest mass murder of
US civilians on US soil. Historically we’ve never been confronted by
what we today face in the years to come as Cheney himself indicated
back in 1999. A terminal global energy crisis without precedent, and
with it an unprecedented transition from a hydrocarbon based
industrial civilization to something else entirely. The international
race is on, nations around the planet are gearing up and arming
themselves, and it’s not just the Iranians. As Richard Perle once
opined:

“This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are
lots of them out there…. If we just let our vision of the world go
forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don’t try to piece together
clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing
great songs about us years from now”.

The future of the planet hangs on our democracies military success or
failure in the Middle East. Those of us who prefer peace over global
total war need a US government of the day willing to pursue
international cooperation to prepare for peak oil and an irreversible
global economic decline that will force a massive, radical and
sustained change in our way of life as we transition to alternative
energy sources and the economic/political order they support. If 911
was the trigger for a partial US mobilisation for this never ending
war then the growing public concern within the US over the government
cover up may well be the trigger for the Neoconservatives imperial
overreach, one way or another.

I’ll leave you with your favourite theme Anthony, some very recent
Zogby poll statistics available at:

 http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZ…

Apparently 44% of your fellow citizens believe Bush exploited the
Sept. 11th attacks for the purposes of waging the war on Iraq, 42%
think the US government and 9/11 Commission are covering something
up, 38% think the Commission should have also investigated the WTC7
collapse while 43% weren’t even aware it collapsed, and 45% of
Americans want the 911 attacks reinvestigated.

What about you guys? You think something smells fishy in DC yet? We
can smell the stench from the other side of the planet, it’s
apparently already global.

Regards,

Malcolm

***************************
Dr Malcolm Riddoch
Electronic Arts
School of Communications and Contemporary Arts
Faculty of Communications and Creative Industries
Edith Cowan University, 2 Bradford St, Mount Lawley
Perth Western Australia
+61 08 9370 6034

Posted on Monday, June 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: 911 demolition» oil» power» war»