News & Analysis
Is Middle East Violence Really Black and White?
Yesterday a band of murderous, militaristic thugs decided to break into a diplomatic location in Libya. They were carrying RPGs and automatic weapons and murdered four people, including the Ambassador ... If you violate our sovereignty with force of arms we will treat that as the armed invasion that it is. We will hunt you down and splatter your viscera all over the dirt where you stand and live upon, as we would do to any invading militaristic force. Politicians often talk about "bringing people to justice"; I instead wish you to know that it will be God who judges you in the present tense and you will then get to learn whether your belief that 72 virgins await you in paradise is real, or whether you are headed straight to Hell. – Market Ticker
Dominant Social Theme: Do away with these Muzzies as soon as possible.
Free-Market Analysis: Market Ticker's Karl Denninger has now written two articles ("open letters") regarding the violence in the Middle East. Here are links:
Mr. Denninger's perspective is that the recent violence in the Middle East was perpetrated by "murderous, militaristic thugs." And within this context, he asks libertarians, in particular, "Do you believe in national sovereignty or not?"
He goes on to invoke the principle of non-aggression and to explain that the primary purpose of a national government is to defend the country and its land. Here's how he puts it:
It goes directly to the Non-Aggression Principle and whether it is in fact the core of the Party, or whether that entire premise, which I and many others have been led to believe were the reason the Party exists is nothing more than a scam, fraud and farce to suck people into a hypocrisy-laced pack of lies.
See, national sovereignty is no small matter. This nation's land and our national right to defend that land against any sort of armed incursion are fundamental to the entire premise of a nation itself. Without that you have nothing at all – you do not have private property rights, you do not have unalienable rights, you have a literal nothing.
We can have legitimate policy debates in the poilitical sphere on virtually any topic. But the one we cannot have within any political entity that believes there is such a thing as "The United States" and that the government itself has lawful and enumerated powers is whether that government has both the right and duty to defend itself, and its people, against armed invasion.
This is eloquent stuff – and Mr. Denninger is surely a learned and witty man. But it frames the argument a certain way; let's unpack it a bit, focusing on what we call the power elite.
One of the things the power elite does in order to pursue global governance is use fear-based memes to frighten people into giving up power and wealth to globalist facilities. A big part of the elitist toolkit involves the application of calibrated force to achieve policy ends. But it is an unfortunate fact that often what we perceive as an evolution of militarism abroad is aimed at manipulating sentiment at home.
We have covered this extensively for years, as have others within the alternative media. At least some of the war on terror is evidently and obviously fake. There is plenty of evidence that AYM, the CIA, State Department, etc., are behind at least some of the growing Middle East violence. For more on this, just search the 'Net using "Daily Bell" and "Islamic Crescent."
There is also plenty of evidence, amply documented, that the CIA was behind the formation of what became Al Qaeda and that even Osama bin Laden was considered to be a US intel "asset." The absence of a gray area when it comes to current events allows for a portrayal of Middle Eastern violence in black and white terms.
And it can give rise to black-and-white solutions as well. Mr. Denninger ends up by using some fairly heated rhetoric to suggest that the full force of US military power might well be employed against those who pursue violence against US interests and personnel.
But what if the situation isn't so clear-cut? There is, for instance, Operation Gladio to consider. The West has a history of meddling. It's not a fantasy. What if some of the violence was intended to provide a pretext for further domestic control and increased authoritarianism generally?
In such cases, heated rhetoric might actually play into the hands of those who are inciting the initial violence via surreptitious methods.
When people denigrate other GROUPS of people by dehumanizing them and generalizing, mass violence becomes a good deal easier to initiate. It is, perhaps, a form of a dominant social theme that seeks to generate chaos in order to reassert elite control over society and its operations.
Conclusions: This is one reason why change needs to come via education rather than violence, which gives an opening to those who seek to harness people's worse instincts for their own personal advancement.
Posted by thomdd1959 on 09/17/12 11:35 AM
"I've received a few lovely pieces of "hate email" over my missives of late related to Muslim extremists and our foreign policy." -- Karl Denninger
"All-in-all we had better stake out our ground and make sure that everyone involved knows exactly where our "Red Lines" are, and in my opinion we need to stake those lines at our national sovereignty and people. If we fail to do this we run the risk of being drawn into a conflict that is not of our design but which we have stoked the fires of with our insane Fed Chairman who ought to be in prison, but won't be since Congress refuses to do its damn job and put a penalty clause into the Fed's mandate and then enforce it."
"Anyone who thinks this is going to remain contained or calm down in the short term has rocks in their head. It will not until the insane credit pumping games end and our nation decides to align government spending with tax revenues in the present tense, along with Europe."
"There is no evidence that either will take place, and as such no matter where I look I see the risk of armed conflict, both of the skirmish and more-organized variety, is rising rapidly -- and in the end analysis our Fed and Congress along with the ECB and European governments are the root causes of all of it."
Click to view link
Posted by Szatyor39 on 09/17/12 02:14 PM
Once again, as so often before, Mr. Wile makes reference to "the power elite." But no one and no organization with any identifiable people is named--it is people who make decisions, forge policies, etc., not loose collectives like "the power elite." How can a conscientious reader go about making sure Mr. Wile is saying what is true? It may be true but no reader can check it out and it is an elementary aspect of good journalism that readers are given indication how to follow up the discussion, check out the claims being made.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Readers are invited to do research. DB analyzes dominant social themes
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 09/17/12 03:09 PM
Goading others into, at least in appearance, throwing the "first punch" is a very old tactic...
Click to view link
Someday some adults might grow up to be adults and to leave childish games behind...
Posted by NAPpy on 09/17/12 06:25 PM
"But the one we cannot have within any political entity that believes there is such a thing as "The United States" and that the government itself has lawful and enumerated powers is whether that government has both the right and duty to defend itself, and its people, against armed invasion."
Here's where he dissembles. As a "libertarian", does he not know about methodological individualism? This tenet says that only individuals have rights, and that groups can only have the same rights as individuals. That changes the debate from a murky "national" defense, to a clear cut "individual" defense.
Such dissembling makes me suspicious of his motives.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ah, he treats the United States as a "person" entitled to rights. Very good point.
Posted by Austrian on 09/18/12 06:07 AM
Do you believe in national sovereignty? Yes or no? That is the question? That does not sound witty to me, neither in content nor in manner.
No, the libertarian republican DOES NOT believe in national sovereignty nor do they have to. In a republic, the individual member of the republic is the sovereign. The national identity is bestowed by a people with individual rights, which they only bestow on a construct called nation and it's representation, government. Hence elections, Mr. Denninger, hence elections.
There is no automatism in how a republic must react to attacks. Serious matters on which only a few have direct influence should in a republic be seriously discussed in a legislative body elected by the owners of the collective individual rights of a republic. Therefore war, or warlike operations, and its preparations used to be dealt with in congress. But thanks to "witty" people like Denninger this is no more so. Like many things.