Divide and Conquer

[OxQQme]

Do y'all reckon we might be being "played" by something bigger than the RightWing 'Machine' that makes us believe in an "either/or" way ?
Divide and Conquer is one of the 'old rules' it seems.
We definitely need watchdogs and reporters of the goings-on of those who have a different POV, but hating them for that POV seems to maybe fall into that category.
Would like others opinions.

[InvisibleBallots]

1. Each thing evokes its opposite

Everytime Ann Coulir prints some hateful rant, some non-con somewhere catches the disease, and becomes a "liberal" version of Ann Coultir, and posts the exact same hateful rant, with the labels reversed. Nothing makes corporate America happier than two sides locked in a bitter stuggle over symbolic issues while ignoring their thefts.

[GregD]

2. we've been attacked on all fronts since Jan 20, 2001

Enviros, peaceniks and folks of all sorts of persuasions have been kept chasing our tails since the bastards took office.

[WillieWoohah]

3. Debate about the war in Iraq was carefully structured

Maybe I'm paranoid, but after reading up on Straussian philosophy, I definitely don't think we are exposed to the whole picture, or even the outlines of what is really going on.

Basically I am talking about the Straussian idea of having a "public truth", which is a set of reasons for government policies given to the masses to mollify and appease them, and having a "private truth", which is only accessible to the inner core of the ruling elite.

Up until now I'd taken for granted that the official B.S. reasons for going to war in Iraq (WMD, ties to Al Quaeda etc) were the "public truth" and the plans detailed in the PNAC documents and mission statements represented the real reasons.

However, what kind of Straussian would publish their private, secretive reasons right on the internet where anyone can read them, as they did with the PNAC documents? Almost everybody who takes an interest in American foreign policy has heard of them now, they are hardly secret documents. Even most RWers I argue with seem to be aware of the PNAC plans, but they actually agree with them! (usually saying that America needs to expand it's sphere of influence/dominace to spread democracy and thereby reduce terrorism)

Isn't it possible, that the PNAC mission statements are actually the "public" reasons, designed to make critics of US foreign policy believe they have stumbled upon the inner truths of what motivates the neocons (and thereby frame the debate), and that the real reasons are much more sinister?

Or am I being a little too paranoid here? :)

[GregD]

4. PNAC isn't sufficiently sinister?

I don't think you are at all being too paranoid; I just hesitate to consider what that deeper intent could be, as PNAC is more than enough to chill most folks around here.

[WillieWoohah]

5. Maybe they actually INTEND to provoke WW3

as opposed to inadvertently bringing it about through hubris and belligerence.

If they believe that the world human population is headed for a massive "population crash" (think: billions dead) following an economic and social breakdown of society as global oil runs out, they may decide to initiaite a massive conflict to secure their position in the aftermath, while they still have power.

That's just one sinister scenario. I can think of others. It all depends on how paranoid and pessimistic you want to be :)