Saturday, August 08, 2009

Beware what you decide to believe in...

Perhaps now, with the ginned up, phony “outrage” (in many cases, paid for and subsidized by the mega corporations of the health care combine), people may understand where this commentary is coming from. Let me take, as an example, such as Rachel Maddow, who in general I highly praise and like.

OK Rachel, like many, many media types (but, especially liberals) was in full throated support of the “Iranian Twitter© Revolution”. This is understandable, Iran has a repressive, theocratic regime which, among other things, suppresses womens' rights and those of other despised minorities such as the GLBT community. So Rachel, as many other commentators, loudly applauded and supported the ongoing protests in Iran that have been Twittered and Facebooked and MySpaced around the planet. However, is Rachel aware that the mechanism used to unseat Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 was this self same one? Are Rachel and the myriad other commentators who have loudly and strongly backed the Iranian “revolution” aware that the current demonstrations follow, almost exactly, the game plan enacted by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. (Teddy Roosevelt's grandson) in Iran in 1953? The plot that Kermit and his CIA cronies used was to stage massive street protests (riots) by segments of Iranian society disaffected by Mossaddeq's reforms. There are now (and always will be) segments of society that are disaffected. If any confirmation of this is needed, one need only reflect on the fact that, even at its nadir, G.W. Bush and his (mal)administration garnered over 20% (>60,000,000) approval ratings. If even a sizable portion of those 60,000,000+ people had turned out in street demonstrations and those were reported as the demonstrations in Iran were reported, an outside observer, with little or no knowledge of the internal situation in the U.S. at the time, might well reason that the majority of Americans actually supported G.W. Bush, Darth Cheney and their policies. They would be sadly mistaken but that would, nonetheless, be their takeaway of such demonstrations and reporting.

Another variant of this kind of flawed reasoning is displayed by many, many commentators who loudly lauded the various “color” revolutions in Yugoslavia and the post-Soviet sphere. Even such luminaries as Thom Hartmann have repeatedly lauded and noted with approval those manufactured “revolutions”, again, being wholly and abysmally ignorant of the situation on the ground. Caught up and washed over by the “news” coverage of the For Profit Media, Hartmann and others huzzahed these “revolutions” as honest reflections of the “will of the people”. What is often omitted from his and other commentators' evaluations is the fact that the “revolution” in Yugoslavia as well as the myriad “color revolutions” is the fact that they were ALL covertly (and, sometimes, not so covertly) supported, organized and funded by either the U.S. government outright or through various NGOs (“non-governmental organizations”) such as the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, to name just two. What is often forgotten is that both of these NGOs were founded under the Reagan administration, primarily to take over various formerly CIA functions such as encouraging and facilitating “regime change”. It should also be noted that the Soros Foundation also has had a hand in the Yugoslavian and other “color revolutions”. The IRI, NDI and Soros Foundations were all instrumental in establishing, organizing and funding all of these various color “revolutions”.

As was the case in the Venezuelan “overthrow” of Hugo Chavez, there certainly was a resentful core to the opposition to him. What was hardly ever accentuated in the U.S. press, this opposition was, primarily, the upper middle and upper classes who had been forced by Chavez to relinquish a tiny bit of their choke hold over the economy to the wider society. Much as was the situation in Cuba in regards to Castro, much as is the situation in Honduras with President Manuel Zelaya. Certainly, those who stand to lose power, money or position in a society are going to be upset, that goes without saying.

Again, if some outside observer, ignorant of the true dynamics on the ground, were simply to judge on the basis of “news” reports, they would have to conclude that the majority of Americans fervently and vehemently detest the very idea of change in the health care system and its delivery...and they would be very wrong!

So, this warning applies to all who rush to judgment with but a minimal, partial and/or media generated opinion, “Beware what you decide to believe!”


jurassicpork said...

OK, Cos, your assertions only hold water if you can prove two things:

#1, that we actually have a hand in what's going on in post-election Iran. To be sure, we have operatives on their soil right now, still carrying out Cheney's agenda. We always have since at least the early 80's. I'm living proof of that. But we have no proof that any so-called NGO or US government entity is stoking the flames of revolution, otherwise someone would've said something by now and the Iranians wouldn't be content with a fair election and a reform president still operating under the authority of a despotic Supreme Ruler instead of the overthrow of Khamenei.

If we're doing anything behind the lines, we'd be seeing Shia vs Sunni, which was Cheney's aim all along. We're not seeing so much of that as we are an incidentally Shi'ite government being challenged and opposed by young democracy-minded voters. This is political, not religious.

#2 I cannot believe that you, of all people, would even suggest that the Iranian rage at the fixed election results doesn't represent more than a small segment of the Iranian population. The protests have been largely spontaneous (which further erodes at the theory that a US NGO was behind the scenes, pulling the strings). The demonstrations aren't staged and organized as much as they're flash mobs, with Twitter, Facebook and Myspace (which I don't think were around in 1953 when the Shah came to power).

However, it's been a sustained, admirable effort on the part of the Iranian people, especially the young and the women, and I believe the only reason the mobs weren't bigger was because of the streets' incapacity to hold more. Several times since the June 12th elections we'd seen hundreds of thousands flooding the streets of Tehran and elsewhere in a human river.

To equate this very real protest movement with the handfuls of Astroturf wingnuts we're seeing at these Town Halls who are straining after the effect of consensus is, frankly, insulting to the Iranian people who are actually dying.

jurassicpork said...

As to #1, I tend to take the opposite tack, I believe that the onus is on you to prove that the US/NGOs didn't have some role in the demonstrations. That is my point, we've not only been involved in Iran since the 80s, as I pointed out, it was Kermit and the CIA that were involved in the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegg. It is undeniable that the CIA/NGOs were involved in the overthrow of Milošević, the color revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and the Stans and the attempted color revolution in Belorus.

As to #2, I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of native discontent in Iran (as I mentioned, there also was native discontent in Venezuela and Honduras). I'm also not saying that the demonstrators in Iran, many of them, have visceral anger and disagreement with the system. However, do you think that many of the teabagger Town Hall disrupters also don't have visceral anger at Obama (I'm discounting all those paid for shills; I'm saying the crowds in general)? What I am saying is that it is fully within the realm of possibility (and, judging from the past track record, probability) that the native discontent could well be directed and channelled by the CIA/NGOs.

Don't get me wrong, I too would be more than happy to see the theocrats and mullahs dethroned. All that I am saying is that we should be very cautious as to "what we know" when, in truth, we know very little.

I think you've missed my points, too. Why should the onus be on me to prove that the US gov't or affiliated NGO's do or don't have a hand in what's going on in Iran (especially since you're the one who'd broached the subject)? I would think that, if our shadowy presence was as deeply ingrained in Iranian affairs as you suggest, it would be of a militant/radical nature and would be reflected in the voice of the people. Yet we're not hearing anything more radical other than the occasional, "Death to Khamenei!" shout. They're not calling for an overthrow of the established order, just for a reinstatement of the democracy-within-a-theocracy system (which we all know is just an illusion of democracy).

You can't merely superimpose a 1953 template over what's going on in 2009 and say that the Eisenhower-era hugger mugger games would work equally well there and now. It wouldn't. Iran is a radically different country than the one we'd radically altered 56 years ago.

Again, I state: What's going on in Iran is politically-based, not religiously. If we were as proactive as you seem to state, we'd be seeing more clashes between Shia and Sunni (which was always Cheney's aim. Read Sy Hersh's "The Misdirection"). Yet I get the impression that Mousavi's coalition is made up of more than just Sunnis and Kurds (which are basically secular Sunnis). I'm convinced that many of them are also moderate and secular Shias who are sick of the hardline Shi'ite order on the Ruling Council.

And, yes, the only thing that really emotionally engages the town hall "protesters" is their mutual racist hatred of Obama and everything he stands for. They're completely incapable of appreciating the irony that he plans on doing more favors for the HMOs and Big Pharma companies that are fanning them out than he will ever do for us. I'm sure that over 90% of them don't even know about that secret deal that they cut with Big Pharma that would cap any payments demanded by the gov't at $80 billion.

But they just as plainly don't constitute the majority of the American people as the pro-Ahmadinejad faction represents the majority of their country.

Byzantine Blog