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.
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.