Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Divide and Conquer

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
OxQQme Donating Member (694 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:31 PM
Original message
Divide and Conquer
Do y'all reckon we might be being "played" by something bigger than the RightWing 'Machine' that makes us believe in an "either/or" way ?
Divide and Conquer is one of the 'old rules' it seems.
We definitely need watchdogs and reporters of the goings-on of those who have a different POV, but hating them for that POV seems to maybe fall into that category.
Would like others opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Each thing evokes its opposite
Everytime Ann Coulir prints some hateful rant, some non-con somewhere catches the disease, and becomes a "liberal" version of Ann Coultir, and posts the exact same hateful rant, with the labels reversed. Nothing makes corporate America happier than two sides locked in a bitter stuggle over symbolic issues while ignoring their thefts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GregD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. we've been attacked on all fronts since Jan 20, 2001
Enviros, peaceniks and folks of all sorts of persuasions have been kept chasing our tails since the bastards took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillieWoohah Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Debate about the war in Iraq was carefully structured
Maybe I'm paranoid, but after reading up on Straussian philosophy, I definitely don't think we are exposed to the whole picture, or even the outlines of what is really going on.

Basically I am talking about the Straussian idea of having a "public truth", which is a set of reasons for government policies given to the masses to mollify and appease them, and having a "private truth", which is only accessible to the inner core of the ruling elite.

Up until now I'd taken for granted that the official B.S. reasons for going to war in Iraq (WMD, ties to Al Quaeda etc) were the "public truth" and the plans detailed in the PNAC documents and mission statements represented the real reasons.

However, what kind of Straussian would publish their private, secretive reasons right on the internet where anyone can read them, as they did with the PNAC documents? Almost everybody who takes an interest in American foreign policy has heard of them now, they are hardly secret documents. Even most RWers I argue with seem to be aware of the PNAC plans, but they actually agree with them! (usually saying that America needs to expand it's sphere of influence/dominace to spread democracy and thereby reduce terrorism)

Isn't it possible, that the PNAC mission statements are actually the "public" reasons, designed to make critics of US foreign policy believe they have stumbled upon the inner truths of what motivates the neocons (and thereby frame the debate), and that the real reasons are much more sinister?

Or am I being a little too paranoid here? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GregD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. PNAC isn't sufficiently sinister?
I don't think you are at all being too paranoid; I just hesitate to consider what that deeper intent could be, as PNAC is more than enough to chill most folks around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillieWoohah Donating Member (79 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Maybe they actually INTEND to provoke WW3
as opposed to inadvertently bringing it about through hubris and belligerence.

If they believe that the world human population is headed for a massive "population crash" (think: billions dead) following an economic and social breakdown of society as global oil runs out, they may decide to initiaite a massive conflict to secure their position in the aftermath, while they still have power.

That's just one sinister scenario. I can think of others. It all depends on how paranoid and pessimistic you want to be :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 26th 2014, 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC