Psychotic Views Part Twelve:
In order for humanity to avoid severe catastrophe or even total annihilation, it had to adopt, what I call: A New Way. This New Way had to be enacted globally by every corner of the human world. Partial enactment is useless. This is a total sum plan. This plan needed to be put into place by every nation on every continent. The cornerstone at the core of this New Way is the idea that all of us are human: all races, all religions, all ethnic groups, all sexes, all nations, all continents, all people and we are either going to survive and endure together or we are going to die and disappear together.
I know I am not the first person to say, ‘ we are all one’, ‘we are all brothers,’ or ‘ we are all a part of the same family’. You can say the idea is corny and lame all you want, but it is true. We are all part of the same species.
The idea seems simple enough, but it is an idea which has failed to be accepted by the world’s human population. Humans on the whole, instead want to obsess themselves with our differences. Age, race, ethnicity, nationality, political affiliation, class status, religion, and on and on and on. This is the Old Way.
These categories are categories of separation. People pigeon holing themselves and everyone else in the world into segregating groups. This way has led humans down a destructive and self-defeating path since its inception and this Old Way carries on today throughout the world as strongly as it has in the past, and now, at this especially unique time in human history, the continuation of this Old Way will bring the severest of dark consequences. The repercussions will be dire and will leave no part of the world untouched.
Death makes no distinctions. It comes to everyone. It doesn’t care who you are, how rich you are, what color you are, what religion you are or any other sort of absurd distinction. Every species given life also has it taken away. Many species have passed into extinction just in the last fifty years. Many more will continue to do so. So why then, do humans take the possibility of human extinction so casually, so indifferently, so apathetically. Species go extinct, we are a species; therefore, we can go extinct.
Humans will admit that extinction is a very high possibility for wolves. They will admit that it is a very high possibility for polar bears, they will admit it is a very high possibility for tigers, for fish, for birds, for coral reefs, on and on and on, but they will not seriously consider the possibility of human extinction. Why not? The same conditions that made life possible for us, also made life possible for them. If these conditions are tampered with and altered in significant ways, then life becomes threatened and the more the conditions are tampered with and the more severe the alterations are, the more serious the threat to life becomes and unlike some religious zealots of many different persuasions, I am not cheering for the end of the world. I am joyously anticipating its arrival. I am not singing songs of glory and praise. For me, the thought of it brings a familiar, short phrase to mind: What a waste .
The formation of a new nation, known as the United States of America a couple of centuries ago, could have initiated and led a New Way from its very first days, but such was not to be. It was evident this was not to be long before the nation had even officially began.
The Caucasians who had come here from Europe clearly were not interested in a New Way. They instead preferred the Old Way. The Old Way that said Caucasians were superior to all other races, Christians were superior to all other religions and men were superior to women. These beliefs still hold much reign in the nation even today in the year 2012.
The Caucasians, due to this self-proclaimed superiority, believed they had a right to do whatever they damn well pleased to whoever they damn well pleased who wasn’t like them. Why should I share the land with all of the people who were already here when they con them out of it, cheat them out of it, steal it, rob it, and plunder it. They were heathen savages, after all. They were sub human. They didn’t deserve to be treated
Like they were humans on an equal footing. Hell, much of the time they were not seen as human at all. They were different in the two most intolerable ways someone could be different. Racially and religiously, Caucasians could do whatever they pleased with. Their god’s blessing: rob, rape, pillage, plunder, steal and murder. They could do all of this, yet never be savages.
The Caucasians held the same attitude toward black people brought here in chains as slaves. They were savages, they were inferior, they were subhuman. Again, they wre different in the two most intolerable ways: racially and religiously. It didn’t matter that like the Native peoples’, they had families, cultures and civilizations of their own.
So, again because of self-appointed superiority, Caucasians could treat Africans an way they damn well pleased. Beatings, oppression, whippings, rape, enslavement and murder and this went on for approximately 350 years. All but the enslavement went on for another 100 years.
The treatment of all non-white, non-male, non-Christian people was an accepted, institutionalized, cultural display of human beings’ cruelty, brutality and inhumanity toward other human beings. It is a clear example of the group insanity of people who can look at another group of people andnot see human beings. How does anyone get in their pointy little head that they have a right to mistreat another human being.
It is this brand of psychosis, the Manifest Destiny psychosis, which gives the U.S. the right to go anywhere in the world they damn well please, do whatever they damn well please for as long as they damn well please. Any detailed citing of U.S. foreign policy in the last 100 years will prove this out as absolute truth. The U.S. could have introduced, implemented and led a New Way for humanity to live by, but instead it proved time after time that it would use its force, finance and give energy to the Old Way. The way of Empires, the way of selfishness, greed, money, power and dominance.
When addressing the topic of foreign policy, I can honestly say I see no discerning difference between Democratic and Republican president. I see nothing that would resemble what would be a liberal foreign policy. There is no such thing in the U.S. foreign policy of the U.S. is a policy of empire, power, green and big business. These were the foreign policy goals invoked during both Democratic and Republican administrations and it continues to this very year of 2012. If the true goal of U.S. foreign policy had really been about encouraging freedom and building democracies around the world, then the world of 2012 would have been a much different place than it is now. The world would be a fairer, freer, more equitable, more just place than the world we actually have today.
The U.S. foreign policy could have been the greatest force for positive change in the global quality of life the world has ever seen. When the powers that be of U.S. foreign policy set their mind to a goal they, more often than not, achieve them. They are people not to be denied. When they want something, they get it. So, if their real goal for U.S. foreign policy was to make the world less poor, make the world more open, make the world less sick, make the world more free and more democratic, it would have been achieved, but these are not the real goals of U.S. foreign policy. These are just what they say their goals are in public. It is sold solely for public affect. In private, there is a whole other game being plotted, planned and executed and sometimes executed is literal. If the actual goals of U.S> foreign policy were the same as its stated goals, then South and Central America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, would be freer, more democratic, more just, more open, and less poor than they are now.
The U.S. foreign policy power players, in fact, have spent their time encouraging, sponsoring and financing brutal, oppressive, right wing fascist regimes. The U.S. foreign policy would much rather support dictators than democracies. You see, a dictator is just one person, but a democracy is a whole bunch of people. It is much easier to get your way with one person than you are with a bunch of people. Take bribes for instance. It’s much easier to bribe one person than a whole group of people. It’s much easier to influence one person than a whole group of people. A while group of people are likely to say no and make it stick.
You can to anywhere in the world and look at a list of dictators with full U.S. support. Look at the Western Hemisphere alone: Banzar in Bolivia, Batista in Cuba, Branco in Brazil, Cerezo in Guatemala, Cordova in Honduras, Christicun in El Salvador, Martinez in El Salvador, Papa Doc & Baby Doc in Haiti, Noriega in Panama, Pinochet in Chile, Monet in Guatemala, Somoza Sr. and Somoza Jr. In Nicaragua, Trujillo in Dominican Republic, Cedras in Haiti, Stroessner in Paraguay and Videla in Argentina.
This isn’t even a full, updated list, but it sure gives an impressive first impression about what the real goals the U.S. foreign policy have been. You can go to Africa, Asia and the Middle East and make similar lists.
Abacha in Nigeria, Amin in Uganda, Bolkiah in Bruner, Botha in South Africa, Kar-shek in Taiwan, Diem in Vietnam, Doe in Liberia, Hassan II in Morocco, Marcos in Phillipines, Mobutu in Zaire, Ozad in Turkey, Shah Pahlem in Iran, Papadopoulos in Greece, Park in South Korea, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Rabuka in Fiji, Selassie in Ethiopia, Smith in Rhodesia, Suhante in Indonesia, Zia in Pakistan, Saud family in Saudi Arabia, Sadat and Mubarak in Egypt, monarchy in Jordan, Kuwait and Nepal, Saddam Hussein before the invasion of Kuwait.
Again, not a full updated list, but even given these two partial lists, do they indicate the actions of a government that wants to encourage freedom and help to spread democracy around the world? Do these lists indicate the actions of a government truly concerned with global human rights and civil liberty abuses? Even these partial lists would clearly indicate that the answers to these questions is no. Does the actions of many administrations, both Democrat and Republican, indicate that the U.S. government gave anything except repeated lip service to actually wanting the form democracies all around the world, to plant the seed, water it, give it a little sun and watch them. Again the answer is obviously no. The U.S. foreign policy doesn’t want democracy to seed and be sowed. It just wants to use other countries for their natural resources and the best way to accomplish that without incurring difficulties along the way is to have a sole master dictator in charge of the country to be used.
Iran is in the condition it is in today because of U.S. foreign policy interference. Iran would be a much different country in 2012 if U.S. foreign policy would have stayed out, minding its own fucking business and let the country play out on its own accord. Iran would be more open and free. The people there would have more say and more freedoms and maybe this result could have spread to the rest of the Middle East. Maybe these ‘Arab Spring’ uprising protests that rose up in 2011 and spread throughout the region wouldn’t have been necessary, if not for U.S. foreign policy interference in Iran. Maybe the demands they were and still are asking for, would’ve already been met and in peace. Maybe then living conditions, regrets and freedoms would have already showed noticeable improvement.
You see, back in the 1940’s, Iran had democratically elected a leader. Yes, the people of the country had voted and elected someone to run their country. It wasn’t a military coup. It wasn’t by tyrannical force, it wasn’t through a hand me down by blood monarchy. It was by a pseudo election that dictators often like to trot out before the eyes of the world. It was a real square deal election.
Now, the U.S. and its Western European allies should have been pleased with this outcome if they really wanted the region and the world to be a freer, more open, more democratic place, but as I said before, this is not what they really want. Foreign policy is all about business. It is today in 2012 dictated by business. It has always been dictated by business, it’s reaction to the democratically elected leader in 1940’s, Iran proved this, they had him assassinated.
The great man of British 20th Century history, Winston Churchill, was involved in the plot, England, due to the devastating effects of World War II on the homeland, wasn’t in a position to get directly involved in any foreign policy intrigues around the world. It had to spend every ounce of its time and effort rebuilding the country which, in many places had been reduced to ashes.
Churchill was very upset by the newly democratically elected leader in Iran and what had upset Churchill was that the new Iranian leader had the gall, the outrageous tenacity, to want to nationalize his nation’s oil supply and use it for his nation’s own greed. This meant, in essence, no British oil companies, no U.S. oil companies, no foreign oil companies of any kind would be allowed to operate in Iran. This was what had raised Churchill’s dare and he and his allies in the U.S. were like minded people. Nations were to be used for their resources, Democracy be damned. It was a policy the British had built, an empire and so too, it was a policy U.S. built its empire. The effects of World War II had taken England out of the empire game, but before completely leaving the game, it handed the dice to the U.S., the next best thing and the dice were loaded and ready to be rolled.
So, Churchill calls up officials in the U.S. and tells them about the audacity of the newly elected man in Iran. He wanted to freeze British oil, U.S. oil, and all outside oil companies. The man must be dealt with in the strongest possible terms. The only way to solve this problem was to eliminate him, to assassinate him. A man who will do business with British, U.S. and other outside oil companies must take his place, a puppet dictator, The Shah.
In the end, the U.S. agrees to Churchill’s assessment of the situation in Iran and to his solution. A plan is hatched, the plan is successful. The democratically elected man is out, the puppet dictator is in, the Shah, in his years of rule, proceeds to rob the country into near oblivion. He is a crooked, corrupt, cruel despot, but that doesn’t concern U.S. or British officials. He is a friend to their business interests. As a result, an extremist uprising occurs and the Ayatollah Khoemini becomes the new leader of Iran. He is cast iron fisted Muslim extremist ruler of the first order. American hostages are taken. Iran is ruled by a continuation of Muslim radical rulers which has continued on to the year of 2012, and all of this is due to U.S. foreign policy. Democracy? We don’t want no stinking democracy. Puppet dictators, give us puppet dictators. That’s what we really want, as many as you can find. There’s one, there’s another one, wait, there’s another in the bushes and look there’s another one living under a rock. Strategy, a game all self-serving, world dominating, empire seekers can play. It’s all just mad, mad, fun.
No, the U.S. foreign policy players are not seekers of a New Way. They are not interested in civil liberties, human rights, freedoms and any other type of high minded nonsense. Power and money that’s what they’re interested in. This only this, and by any means necessary. Whatever it takes, at all costs, ethics? Integrity? Truth? Decency? Humanity? Those words aren’t in our dictionary. We had them legally removed.
Ever hear of the School of the Americas? Oh, it’s a nice little school, you know what they teach there? Murder, torture, oppression, brutality, assault. A real liberal arts education, funded. And sponsored by the Pentagon no less. Nasty little people from Central and South America come here to the U.S. and are trained how to torture, assault, intimidate, harass, brutalize and kill, and then these people take what they have learned here in the U.S. and go back to their native countries and carry out all of the things they have learned on t from the citizens of their country. People were accepted at this school even if they were known criminals and violators of human rights. Why would they be rejected on these grounds, that was the whole point of School of the Americas training after all. Criminal activity and violating human rights.
The U.S. government’s covert involvement in Central and South American countries isn’t bad. It’s horrific. Assassinations, coups, uprisings, overthrows, suppression, oppression, human right violations, civil liberties squashed, scores of endorsements of vicious dictators, that’s the history of the U.S. government’s involvement in Central and South America.