avatar
The liberal media and the feds


In my last column, I quoted espionage expert Phillip Knightly. "An

intelligence service thrives on threat," he wrote in "The Second

Oldest Profession." The same could be said about the rest of the defense

industry.

And there are "threats" all over, the "liberal" media

warn us: South Korea is developing missiles that can travel farther than before;

the Friday rocket attack on American diplomatic and U.N. buildings in Islamabad,

Pakistan, which is tacitly assumed to be a "terrorist" strike on

behalf of (if not masterminded by) Osam bin Laden.

What does it all come down to? There’s a lot of truth in the cliché: money

makes the world go round.

Meanwhile, defense industry folks must be real happy about all of this.

That’s right. The errand boys of the business class, who run the Pentagon system

and dole out welfare payments to huge technology-making corporations, are happy

as long as Congress is slashing social spending in the name of fiscal

responsibility, while beefing up "defense" spending.

It’s called "market discipline" for workers and the poor (in order

to wean the rabble off big government "dependence"); while nurturing

the parasitic relationship that big business has with Uncle Sam and our tax

dollars.

Whenever someone tells me that socialism has failed, I laugh. If socialism

has failed, then what do you call the Department of Defense? Economist Seymour

Melman, author of "Pentagon Capitalism", calls the Pentagon system

"a state within a state…a para-state." The chief of all military

industrialists – the Secretary of Defense, a non-elected official – controls an

economy larger than that of most nations on the planet!

This publicly subsidized, private profit-producing technology (via the

Pentagon system) we "need," no doubt. Why? Because the world is full

of terrorists, left-over commies, cranks and quacks who get in the way of our

"national interest", i.e. Middle East oil market and consumer-friendly

"free-markets" in every other nook and cranny of the globe.

Conservative hawks tend to be a little more forthcoming about these things

than are liberal doves, as a cursory reading of "academic" foreign

policy articles will reveal. The hawks usually don’t dress up their language

with Orwellian niceties like "human rights" and "democracy"

- terms employed by propagandists meant to make this harsh reality a little more

palpable to the ignorant masses. Honest talk about low-intensity conflict,

special operations and economic politics would turn the stomach of even lukewarm

Christians.

Then there’s the "liberal" media which does everything but educate

the public on the use and abuse of the forces that powerfully shape everyday

life. Just about anything will do, right? Ridiculous debates between

creationists and evolutionists; the supposed rift between O.J. supporters

(blacks) and O.J. haters (whites); grave discussions about whether the

peccadilloes of a promiscuous president rise to the level of "high crimes

and misdemeanors."

And pundits cynically chastise the "uninformed" for their alleged

ignorance and apathy. Then we are told, through no fault of the so-called Fourth

Estate, this pandemic citizen inertia is probably the sole reason for low voter

turnout. The more thoughtful pundits will note in somber tones that this is not

what the "founding fathers" had in mind. Hence, the "crisis"

of democracy!

No exposes on the Council of Foreign Relations? Just how is it that

politicians allegedly as ideologically opposed as former President Bush and

President Clinton can both be members of the CFR? What is the doctrinal glue

that binds a "conservative" and a "liberal" under one

umbrella?

No in-depth analysis on the World Bank? What is this institution? What are

its policies? With a little digging you can find a World Bank report that says

almost half of all "international trade" is really intrafirm

transfers, which, by definition is not trade.

When Ford, for example, manufactures car components in Mexico and then ships

them for assembly in America or vice versa, that’s not trade; even though it’s

carried out under the guise of "free-trade" agreements like NAFTA. Do

you think the "adversarial" press will question World Trade

Organization leaders about this when they meet in Seattle in two weeks?

And finally, the "liberal" media offer up worthy "bad

guys" that even make Rush Limbaugh fans feel good, venting their righteous

radio rage. The schizophrenic "feds," say talk radio heads, defend and

protect the "national interest" with vigor but throw discipline to the

wind when it comes to taking care of the poor and the disinherited?

Must be that old pesky American goodwill getting in the way of reason, again.

So even when we do bad, we’re good! Fascinating. The feds are squishy when it

comes to domestic policy but hard-nosed and brave when it comes to the

"national interest"? Amazing creatures – these feds.

You can learn a lot about human nature, deceit, and denial by reading the

"liberal" press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment