Sunday, August 05, 2007

Bush Deliberately Creates "Constructive Chaos" in Iraq

Two phrases --"new world order" and "constructive chaos" have in common Yale's not so secret "Skull and Bones" society which nurtures both concepts. Neither phrase is peculiar to the Bushes, though the elder and the lesser Bush pimp both ideas. New world order, itself a mushy half-baked soupcon of ill-considered ideologies, has been associated with a certain Yale Fraternity known less for its scholarship than its lame-brained kookiness. Constructive chaos is associated, though not accurately, with Iraq. Iraq is in chaos but its hardly productive. Both Bushes fail their own standard.

The idea of a "New World Order" was not merely reinforced or even acquired in the lesser Bush's Yale days. The lesser Bush grew up with the idea, if "idea" it be. As president, George H.W. Bush espoused a "New World Order" in 1991, 10 years prior to the events now called "911". As far as I can tell, the phrase was first used by Adolf Hitler, though there is a very good possibility that it's origins may be traced to the various, nefarious and multifarious threads called "Illuminati".

For the record, Bush Sr, of course, did not make his State of the Union address on September 11, 1991. It was made on January 29, 1991.

While nothing said by Bush about Iraq is or has been true at any time, every dire prediction has come true. Iraq is a scene of endless insurgency, sectarian bloodletting, and urban warfare never planned for by the US military. If the war was intended to end world terrorism, it has, in fact, made it worse. If the attack and invasion was intended to bring Democracy to Iraq, it has, in fact, made of Democracy an unrealizable dream. If Bush had intended merely to up-end an evil dictatorship, he merely replaced it with his own. If Bush seeks simple revenge against terrorists, he need only give himself up to international authorities. It may have been, as I recall, Le Monde Diplomatique, which wrote: Les Etats-Unis sont le plus grand terroriste au monde.

According to Watching America, the US occupation has made of Iraq, an Iraqi barrel.
A barrel is a cylindrical metal or wooden container that is now more a part of the lives of Iraqis than ever before, and strikingly so, since the American-British occupation of Iraq. Many observers calculate that the humble barrel is a prerequisite for the kind of democracy exported by Uncle Sam's country, since this greater-ubiquity of the barrel has coincided with Iraqi democracy as we know it today. The barrel has become an indispensable commodity that no Iraqi building, office, or installation, official or unofficial, can do without.

...

American strategic planners have benefited from this idea, for they have made a barrel out of Iraq: the Americans have put terrorist and criminal gangs from around the world inside it, and thrown its borders open to create a fertile breeding ground for terrorism and crime. After letting nature take its course, what's inside the Iraqi barrel can then be distributed elsewhere in the region to implement America's plan for democracy. This is being done under the strange, contradictory rubric of "constructive chaos," a phrase used in the Western press to justify the massacres and blood baths that have characterized Iraq during the American-British occupation.

--Washington's 'Iraqi Barrel Plan'

But in fact, "constructive chaos" most certainly had it's origins inside the Skull and Bones.
...the Order was first established on the Yale campus in 1832. It was officially incorporated only in 1856 under the name Russell Trust Association. According to virtually all the available biographical data on its early members, the money required to sustain the secret order's campus affairs and its broader role in placing its members into key positions of influence upon their graduation from Yale, derived from the opium trade in the Far East. That trade was set up by the British East India Company and was flourishing by the time the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 ending the American War for Independence.

--George Bush, Skull & Bones and the New World Order: A New American View International Edition White Paper, Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg, April 1991

"Constructive chaos" is a strategy by which bonesmen and pnacks (for PNAC) seek to impose a new world order. The plan is inherently undemocratic, repugnant to every principle upon which the US was founded. For a start, the establishment of a "new world order" defines any opposition as "terrorist" in nature. Thus, otherwise peaceful civilians are criminalized and waged war upon. War becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy, a logic loop, an infinite regress from which there is no escape save violence. The facts bear this out. Bush, like Ronald Reagan before him, has made terrorism much, much worse. The verifiable facts support me and I renew my challenge to my critics at the Heritage Foundation to debate me on this issue. [See:The Heritage Foundation Picks a Fight with the Cowboy]

Secondly, even if the people of the US were prepared to wink and nod at Bush's various atrocities, perversions and war crimes, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the so-called "constructive" chaos in Iraq has been beneficial in any way --even by Bush's utterly depraved moral standards.

The world has not benefited from the fall of the Soviet Union for several reasons. Foremost, the GOP, having rallied a base around a banner of anti-communism, found itself without a demon to exploit. At the time, I celebrated the destruction of the Berlin Wall and dared hope for a new era of peace. Neocons, however, were already at work on ways to bring about a "catalyzing event" not unlike Pearl Harbor that would unite Americans behind a new crusade for Middle East oil.

Secondly, in the absence of a "Soviet threat", the nation had to find new justification for the trillions spent arming the nation to the teeth. Ronald Reagan, after all, had crushed the labor movement, doubled the Federal Bureaucracy, and paid off his base with historically high tax cuts that benefited only the very, very wealthy, making them more so. The industrial base was hallowed out. Highly paid skilled labor had to find work at Wal-Mart. Mired in debt, the GOP plan was to create a new and bigger Military/Industrial complex and thus mire the nation in perpetual oil wars.

How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply

As these documents illustrate, the United States knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.

The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive." ...
Additional resources






Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

13 comments:

Unknown said...

Yo, Len. Right on as usual.

It is amazing that Bush/Cheney has been wrong on every single major point, every single time about this war.

It is equally amazing that the Democrats have gone along to get along every single time. Sure, there have been dissenters. But when the big votes come, the Dems always cave. And there's mounting evidence that the two most influential Dems, Clinton and Pelosi have thrown in their lot with the Bushies. They take money from the same corporations, and inevitably end up voting on the side of the Neocons when it comes to things like impeachment and war funding.

Even if the Dems take the White House in '08, we'll still have to reform the party in power.

We are left with the vague hope that reforming Hillary is easier than reforming someone like Guiliani.

Did you hear Hillary's gushing support of lobbyists in the Yearly Kos debate?

Ugh. I have to go throw up now.

Unknown said...

Everything you say is true, Yogi. I have just about given up on Democrats.

Let us all go bow down to Moloch now.

And if you don't want to bow down to Moloch, there is left only revolution.

Anonymous said...

Fuzzflash sez...

Timely and well referenced post, Len. And Yogi, Hillary propels me to pukesville too.

Bobby De Niro's first film as a director is The Good Shepherd. Matt Damon plays a polar opposite role to his Bourne to perpetual motion bullshit. TGS features pre WW11 Skull & Bones, the birth of the CIA, and a brilliant scene where a man sells his soul in order to hold his power. It's a way above average film for people with "backgrounds" like us. Bobby plays a brilliant cameo as a Machiavellian, Cheneyesque, archetypal control freak. It's a film that needs to be viewed without distraction, but for insight into the precise M.O. of the high priests of Moloch the Mega-Mofo, it is highly informative.

"I'm giving it four stars, Howard."

Anonymous said...

Fuzzflash...

That was a very good movie, we just watched it the other day. I liked one of De Niro's lines when he stated : "I want this new agency to be the eyes and ears of America, but not her heart"

According to the movie, it did not take to long to run over that request. It is my feeling that no matter the intention, when there is no oversight, things will get out of hand, and power will be abused. Of course, I am not so sure about even the initial intentions of these people. I am certain there is a much deeper story there, or so I had been told years ago.

Even though I believe these people have greatly mucked things up over time, and up to Tennet's complicity, it may prove out that they have been one of the only stop gaps at keeping Bush from totally screwing up. At any rate fuzzflash, your movie rating is accurate, it was a very interesting piece of work.

benmerc

Life As I Know It Now said...

I have tagged you with a thinking blog award. I read you often and you definitely get me to thinking!

Unknown said...

Fuzzflash, benmerc, liberality ...

The real satisfaction in doing this blog is is reading the comments section. Again --thanks for sharing your insights. Many times the threads here spark additional research and an article. If the boys at "Heritage" get pissed off, we must be doing something right.

Thanks for the heads up on de Niro's opus. Always a great actor, I have never doubted that he would direct a great one one day.

I suspect but cannot prove that Skull & Bones rituals involve a "selling" of the soul. From a purely psychological standpoint, this becomes a powerful talisman by which this cult multiplies its power. There is no denying the primitive, psychological hold that such a "ritual" may hold over initiates.

"Selling one's soul" is not merely metaphorical. If Sartre is correct that a man is nothing more than what he makes of himself, then what is to be said of someone who --by choice and ritual --makes of himself a Satanic devotee, whether Satan really exists or not?

Liberality said...

I have tagged you with a thinking blog award.

My most humble "thank you" and a promise to work even harder. These are difficult times but made easier by the great comments. If I may boast a bit --I get the best comments on the internet. Thanks, all!

Standing_Damaged said...

'there is left only revolution...'

I think that's where we stand now - or kneel or whatever. The Republicrats and Demmicans simply tend to their masters wishes, we can't even trust that they acknowledge anyone with less $$$ than them as human, habeus corpus is still gone etc, and now they've given the Deserter in Cheif MORE Fascist power!!!!
I'm at the point of wondering if it's worth suckin oxygen to see what happens next....
Where does one look to see solutions? or even a glimmer of hope for that matter?
SD

Unknown said...

And the lastest news is Americans are not just THREATENING to move to Canada, they are doing so. I hate to see this happen. But, just as many Germans left Germany, the same will continue in the US until the dick is no longer a threat to humankind.

Sadly, those leaving the US are not out of the woods. This junta, this goddamned fascist-GOP dictatorship is a threat to civilization.

Folks, these are grim times.

As Murrow would say: Goodnight and good luck!

We're all gonna need it.

Mark Prime (tpm/Confession Zero) said...

The best laid plans of mice and men...

hizzoner said...

Catching up...

I've been gone for a few days so this is sort of a catch-up post for me...

On Constructive Chaos ...

Wasn't that another one of the Leo Straussian phrases that crept into the neocon lexicon? Isn't constructive chaos the neocon technique for achieving American hegemony? Those who believe the chaos in Iraq is by design are more than likely quite right....they tell their noble lies (again per Strass' precepts) to achieve the chaos to achieve the dream of American empire.

About The Good Shepard

DeNiro was supposed to be Colonel William (Wild Bill) Donovan...founder of the OSS which was the father of the modern CIA...I think the movie was a composite of all the stories about the early days of the CIA along with some plot lines stolen directly from John LeCarrre' (Damon's encounter with the Soviet "Master Spy" is right out of Smiley's People. The story was good but Damon is waaaaay to young faced for the part.

More later

Unknown said...

hizzoner,

I think you are right. The term "constructive chaos" may have originated with Leo Strauss. It's all claptrap, of course. I cannot believe that anyone could have been fooled by Strauss.

Strauss is often associated with the New School for Social Research, just next door to NYU not far from Washington Square in lower Manhattan. I've always thought that unfortunate in that I have always considered the New School to be of a more liberal tradition. It was founded in 1918 by Columbia scholars, primarily John Dewey, James Robinson, Charles A. Beard and Wesley C. Mitchell. They were unhappy with the state of US education and interested in promoting academic freedom. They also sought to create in the US the equivalent of the London School of Economics.

The rise of Nazism in Europe brought to the New School a wave of "refugees" many of whom wound up in the Graduate Faculty.

Non-economists included the Gestalt psychologist Max Werthheimer and sociologist Max Ascoli. The "philosopher" Leo Strauss was among them.

During the war, the New School became a haven for anti-Vichy activity but the McCarthy era turned out to have been a trial, straining resources resources amid widespread attacks on dissent.

The arrivals of Hans Jonas and Hannah Arendt were positive developments. Arendt is popularly associated with the "The Banality of Evil" which I have alluded to from time to time along with the work of Dr. Gustav Gilbert who interviewed the Nazi war criminals who stood trial at Nuremberg.

Anonymous said...

Actually, that video of his State of the Union speech may not have been on September 11, 1991, however he is on the record as using the term on September 11, 1990 - exactly 11 years to the day of the 9/11 attacks. Go here for a transcript and audio file of his "Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (September 11, 1990)."

Excerpts: "We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this ... "

[...]

" ... the dream of a new world order ..."

Regarding the origin of the phrase, I have tracked it down to the 19th Century; first coined by the founder of the Bahá’í Faith, Mírzá Husayn-’Alí [Bahá’u’lláh] (1817-1892) in the late 1860s. According to Bahá’u’lláh, a genuine New World Order required the establishment of a World Government, World Parliament, World Code Of Law, World Tribunal, World Police Force, World Language; a permanent single currency, an international uniform tax, and unity of all the world’s religions under the umbrella of the Bahá’í Faith.

Most of the subsequent promulgations for a "new world order" were spoken in tandem with references to the League of Nations or the United Nations. And, as is well clear today, the Bahá’í Faith is - for all intent and purpose - the de facto spiritual overseer of the UN.

Unknown said...

Terry,

Thanks for that link. I wanted to make clear that his State of the Union address of that year was not to be confused with his NWO order speech. The date Sept 11, 1991 at the beginning of the video, I think, was misleading.

I had searched for the text of of his "joint session speech" but had little luck. Thanks, again, for the link to it.