Posts Tagged ‘cognitive dissonance’

In the Tony Palmer film Bird On A Wire, 1972, Leonard Cohen reads from a poem in his book “The Energy of Slaves”.

Poem #92 (simplified lineation):

The killers that run
the other countries
are trying to get us
to overthrow the killers
that run our own
I for one
prefer the rule
of our native killers
I am convinced
the foreign killer
will kill more of us
than the old familiar killer does

Frankly I don’t believe
anyone out there
really wants us to solve
our social problems
I base this all on how I feel
about the man next door
I just hope he doesn’t
get any uglier

Therefore I am a patriot
I don’t like to see
a burning flag
because it excites
the killers on either side
to unfortunate excess
which goes on gaily
quite unchecked
until everyone is dead.

Leonard Cohen (in poem #92) resolutely refuses to take sides.
Today it would be more accurate to invert the poem’s neutrality.
Today, the killers that run our countries, U.S. / NATO, are more eagerly trying to overthrow the killers that run the other countries (Assad, Putin, etc, etc…) than they are trying to overthrow ours.
I suppose that was actually true also 1972, but it was too novel an idea to be useful in a poem and we are blinkered or cognitively dissonant to what our Military is doing in “our” name, or more accurately the goals of the Corporate masters.


 

“The sense of something lacking or failing arises from the realization that we inhabit a violently unjust world, a world defined by the horror of war, a world where, as Dostoevsky says; blood is being spilt in the merriest way, as if it were champagne.

Such an experience of disappointment is acutely tangible at the present time, with the corrosion of established political structures and an unending war on terror where the moods of Western populations are controlled through a politics of fear managed by the constant threat of external attack. This situation is far from novel and might be said to be definitional of politics from antiquity to early and considerably later modernity. My point is that if the present time is defined by a state of war, then this experience of political disappointment provokes the question of justice: what might justice be in a violently unjust world? It is this question that provokes the need for an ethics or what others might call normative principles that might enable us to face and face down the present political situation. Our main task is to respond to that need by offering a theory of ethical experience and subjectivity that will lead to an infinitely demanding ethics of commitment and politics of resistance.”

— Simon Critchley, Infinitely Demanding: Ethics of Commitment, Politics of Resistance(Verso, 2007) https://slought.org/resources/democracy_and_disappointment


“In disoriented times, we cannot accept the return of the old, deadly figure of religious sacrifice; but neither can we accept the complete lack of any figure, and the complete disappearance of any idea of heroism. In both cases, the consequences will be the end of any dialectical relationship between humanity and its element of inhumanity, in a creative mode. So the result will be the sad success of what Nietzsche named ‘the last man.’ ‘The last man’ is the exhausted figure of a man devoid of any figure. It is the nihilistic image of the fixed nature of the human animal, devoid of all creative possibility. Our task is: How can we find a new heroic figure, which is neither the return of the old figure of religious or national sacrifice, nor the nihilistic figure of the last man? Is there a place, in a disoriented world, for a new style of heroism?”

— Alain Badiou, The Contemporary Figure of the Soldier in Politics and Poetry (UCLA, 2007)

Advertisements

Re-posted from http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/zionist-wahabbi-axis-israels-natural.html ALL opinions are the author’s. All Rights are the author’s.

August 30, 2016 –
Alexander Azadgan, Katehon – 
Late last month, Jabhat al-Nusra (aka, the Al-Nusra Front), Al-Qaida’s Syrian arm, announced that it was severing ties with Al-Qaida and renaming itself Jabhat Al-Fatah Al-Sham (the Front for the Conquest of Syria).
In a video, the group’s leader, Abu Mohamed Al-Jolani, explained that the group’s association with al-Qaida permitted the outside powers intervening in the Syrian conflict to label it as an Islamic terrorist group.
The Guardian quoted Al-Jolani as saying that the name change is intended “to remove the excuse used by the international community – spearheaded by Russia – to bombard and displace Muslims in the Levant: that they are targeting Al-Nusra Front, which is associated with Al-Qaida.”
He further explained that the new policy was an attempt to have the group removed from international terror lists and to allow it to be perceived as a more acceptable, “moderate”, alternative to its main competitor, ISIS.
Al-Nusra shares certain common goals with ISIS in seeking to overthrow the legitimate and secular government of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and replace it with a radical Salafist/ Wahabist one. It has also expressed hatred for the United States and other Western governments although it is being supported by the US and NATO. Writing for the National Interest in November 2015, Geopolitical Analyst Daniel DePetris explained:
“Like its Jihadist competitors in ISIS, Al-Nusra is composed of highly motivated individuals and commanders who would like nothing more than to strike at the United States or at targets in Europe. Jabhat Al-Nusra shares the same, minority-within-a-minority Salafi-Jihadist interpretation of Islam as ISIS, despises any and all sectarian groups outside of Syria’s majority Sunni community and has engaged in the same kind of atrocities that have made ISIS’s Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi the most wanted international terrorist alive.”
Though it has focused its attacks more directly on Syrian government forces and their symbolic and physical centers of power, it maintains a similar ruthlessness to that of ISIS. In its World Report 2016, Human Rights Watch noted that both groups were “were responsible for systematic and widespread violations, including targeting civilians, kidnappings, and executions” in Syria. ISIS and Al-Nusra both impose strict and discriminatory rules on women and girls, and have actively recruited child soldiers, according to the report.
Smokescreen or Strategy?
In its recent re-branding, Al-Nusra also seems to be evaluating the political calculus of the war imposed on Syria  and acknowledging the recent gains by Syrian government forces and their allies — Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. With President Assad strengthening his position and the rebel forces in disarray, Al-Jolani may be making a bid to unify the opposition by projecting a less militant image to the outside world.
Al-Nusra Front leader Mohammed Al-Jolani undated photo released online on Thursday, July 28, 2016 to announce a video message that the militant group is changing name, and claims it will have no more ties with Al-Qaida.
Still, it’s unclear what this apparent break with Al-Qaida actually means. At the announcement of the group’s new name, Al-Jolani was joined by a high level associate of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al-Qaida, creating the impression that the changes are more tactical than strategic. Ayman Al-Zawahri, head of Al-Qaida, delivers a statement in a video which was seen online.
Smadar Perry, an Israeli journalist known to have close ties to Israeli intelligence sources, even hinted that Israel’s Mossad urged this new path on Al-Nusra. In an opinion piece posted by YNet on Monday, Perry wrote:
“It may be that this separation is just a smokescreen, and that Al-Julani will keep in touch with Al-Qaeda in secret. It may also be that Jabhat-Al-Nusra have received an intelligence analysis from a very certain organization that told it to prepare for the day after Assad leaves power.”
The White House has a hard time buying this turnover. They’re in a test period with us, said an official spokesperson, not dismissing outright the possibility of local fighters joining the American-led coalition against ISIS.
If they make a show of force in the field, and Jabhat-Al-Nusra’s dissociation leads to Al-Qaeda’s further weakening in Afghanistan, and if Israel provides its supposed intelligence about Al-Julani – Hezbollah and Assad swear he’s a Mossad agent – Al-Nusra may become another piece of the puzzle that is the new Syria.
In the original Hebrew version of the same analysis, Perry noted the likelihood that Syria will be divided in “three or four cantons.”
This has always been the goal for Tel Aviv, which sees Syria as one of the few remaining Arab states that can threaten its interests and security.
Israeli soldiers secure an area where a mortar which was fired during clashes between Syrian rebels and President Bashar Al-Assad’s government forces in the Quneitra province hit in a community in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. For the first time in the Syrian civil war, militants linked to Al-Qaida are positioned on Israel’s doorstep.
In Israel’s utterly warped view, peace on its northern border would be guaranteed if Syria can be splintered into warring factions.
It’s an approach championed at the onset of the civil war in 2011 by Daniel Pipes, an ultra-right-wing, pro-Israel, Neo-Con who serves as president of Middle East Forum, a Zionist think tank. Arguing that “the continuing Syrian conflict offers benefits to the West,” he explained:
“As Sunni Islamists fight Shiites, both sides are weakened and their lethal rivalry lessens their capabilities to trouble the outside world.
By inspiring restive minorities (Sunnis in Iran, Kurds and Shiites in Turkey), continued fighting in Syria could also weaken Islamic governments.”
He further noted:
“Nothing in the constitutions of Western states requires them to get involved in every foreign conflict; sitting this one out will prove to be a smart move.
In addition to the moral benefit of not being accountable for horrors yet to come, staying away permits the West eventually to help its only true friends in Syria, the country’s liberals.”
In a 2012 email released by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton offered an Iran-focused variant of this approach:
“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”
The Al-Nusra-Israel Alliance
Ultimately, Israel doesn’t care much about what happens in Syria as long as it can maintain a puppet protectorate along its Golan Heights border. Israel began occupying and administering the region in the Six-Day War of 1967, and it officially annexing the Golan Heights in 1981. Israel continues to refuse to return the territory to Syria despite near universal consensus that the occupation is illegal under international law. Further, the discovery of potential gas deposits there has coincided with a rise in Israeli settlement expansion in recent years.
Examining the Al-Nusra-Israeli alliance in the region, it’s clear that the bonds between the two parties have been exceedingly close. Israel maintains a border camp for the families of Syrian fighters. Reporters have documented Israeli Defense Forces commandos entering Syrian territory to rendez-vous with Syrian rebels.
Others have photographed meetings between Israeli military personnel and Al-Nusra commanders at the Quneitra Crossing, the ceasefire line that separates the Syrian-controlled territory and the Israeli-occupied territory in the Golan Heights.
U.N. personnel also documented Syrian rebel vehicles picking up supplies from the Israeli side:
“Quarterly UNDOF [United Nations Disengagement Observer Force] reports since the pull-back reveal an ongoing pattern of Israeli coordination with those [Al-Nusra] armed groups.”
According to the December 2014 report, UNDOF observed two Israeli soldiers ‘opening the technical fence gate and letting two individuals pass from the [Syrian] to the [Israeli] side’ on October 27th . Unlike most fighters seen entering the Israeli side, these individuals were not wounded and the purpose of their visit remains a mystery.
UNDOF ‘sporadically observed armed members of the opposition interacting’ with the Israeli military across the ceasefire line, the report states.
The next UNDOF report, released in March, notes that UN forces witnessed Israeli soldiers delivering material aid to armed Syrian opposition groups.
These were presumably supplies and equipment designed either to help the rebels in their fight against the Syrian government forces or to improve communications between Israeli and rebel forces.
Israel’s Divide-and-Conquer Strategy
Israel’s support for radical terror groups is a long-term strategy it’s exploited in multiple theaters. Its ultimate purpose is to weaken a strong foe.
In terms of Hezbollah, Israel hadn’t anticipated that the Lebanese militant group would grow to become a much more powerful and dangerous foe than the PLO had ever been in Lebanon.
Israeli soldiers walks near the border with Syria near the site of the April 2015 Israeli air strikes, in the Israeli controlled Golan Heights.
The strategy worked better regarding Hamas because it has never been able to dominate Fatah. The two have maintained a wary and draining battle of wills over the decades, with neither being able to oust the other.
This has created a rift that has substantially weakened the Palestinians and their cause. Still, Hamas has trained its sights on Israel as well and become an even more militant foe than Fatah ever was.
Thus, Israel’s strategy of forging an alliance with Al-Nusra and strengthening it so that it can wage a formidable fight against Assad, is part and parcel of a longstanding goal of dividing Syria.
Israel erroneously hopes that these savage, militant, extremist group will dominate the Golan region and maintain stability and security there.
However, Israel neglects what almost always happens to these golems: Once they are created they take on a life of their own.
The creator loses control of his creation, which wreaks havoc and even turns against him. 
Just as it happened to Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague, and Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, so it happened with the U.S. alliance with the Afghan Mujahadeen, and the Israeli alliances with their own Arab proxies.
Israel’s alliance with Al-Nusra also points to the utter cynicism of its approach. While the rest of the world labels the group terrorists, and fights to prevent their terror attacks on Western soil, Israel looks only for its own advantage.
There’s the old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but in Israel’s playbook, the saying goes: “The enemy of my friend may certainly be my friend.”
This rings especially true when Israeli leaders warn the world about the threat of global jihad, while also cozying up to these savage Jihadis in their own corner of the world. The hypocrisy couldn’t be any more profound, making Israel one of the greatest state-sponsors of terror.
The U.S. and European countries seem to deliberately ignore Israel’s tactical embrace of the Jihadi movement. The Obama administration is even preparing to ink a new record-breaking military spending agreement with Israel that will up U.S. aid from the current $3 billion a year.
The Israeli lunatic Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded $5 billion per year over the life of the 10-year deal, and the final amount will likely settle somewhere in the middle.
Only Israel gets away with such a level of cognitive dissonance in its alliance with the U.S. Any other ally that depended so profoundly on Washington for its security and existence wouldn’t dare risk endangering that relationship to forge an alliance with an enemy of the U.S. But not Israel. It forges its own path without regard for the interests of others, even its best friends. Such is the very true nature of the Zionist entity!