My opinion is that Hitler's (and the Nazis') basic premises about the world
were insane at the root, and that their thought processes were distorted in
every dimension of their decision-making. Hitler, like Bush, was listening to
a psychotic inner voice which he confused with inexorable historical destiny.
The Nazis, like the neoconservatives, believed that the path to success lay in
taking by force whatever one wanted, without contemplating the negative
consequences of their acts for *themselves*. In other words, both the Nazis
and the neoconservatives are preeminent examples of self-destructive
messianism. Leading neoconservatives down the line are probably going to
suffer the same fate as leading Nazis in the 194os. Messianism produces a kind
of sociopathic euphoria which enables extreme criminality and which disables
one's ability to foresee the self-destructive effects of one's actions.
The Nazis brought ruin and disgrace upon Germany.
The neoconservatives are bringing ruin and disgrace upon the United States.
Arguably neoconservatism is a much more dangerous and destructive messianic
ethnic nationalist cult than even Nazism: the neocons are armed with nuclear
weapons and the fanatical fervor to use them. They harbor a grudge against
nearly the entire world.
Leading neoconservatives, like leading Nazis, will probably face war crimes
trials after all their pipe dreams collapse.
Alan here has implicitly suggested that Nazi aggression in pursuit of Russian
natural resources is analogous to neoconservative aggression in pursuit Mideast
oil resources. Neoconservatism is indeed a contemporary iteration of Nazism.
Just as the Russians fought back against German military aggression, Iraqis
(and the entire Arab and Muslim world) will predictably fight back against
American and Israeli military aggression. Foreign occupiers are always at an
enormous military disadvantage vis-a-vis the peoples they occupy and abuse.
The neoconservatives, who are violently opposed to all forms of traditional
Americanism (including traditional conservatism, liberalism and mainstream
Christianity), have poisoned the American political and cultural system. Most
Americans will eventually figure this out, after the full bill comes due for
neocon crimes.
LeaNder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan? rational but risky?
Rational? I'd call that mad.
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
> smcbride2@ wrote:
> >
> > "Sane": the pursuit of policies that achieve a successful outcome,
> > that improve one's position on the grand chessboard of
> > international politics. For instance: Adolf Hitler's invasion of
> > Russia was insane from the standpoint of German interests.
>
> But that's not true. It was rational, for at least a couple of
> reasons. (And note when I say "rational", I do not mean that it
> was not very very risky, with a large chance of failure.) First,
> Hitler knew that he had to have the USSR's energy resources,
> without which his whole military machine would literally grind
> to a halt. Energy shortages were a critical handicap to the
> Germans. Second, Hitler knew that Stalin was about to attack
> to the West, anyway. Hitler's invasion was pre-emptive, and
> "necessary" from his standpoint, and Germany's.
>
> I see the present military thrusts as motivated by a similar
> desperation, and "rational" from the standpoint of empire
> people with very few options at this late date.
>
> > Neocon plans to hurl American military force at Israel's neighbors
> > is insane from the standpoint of American interests (and
> > especially from the standpoint of American oil and energy
> > interests).
> >
> > How does one extract oil profitably from a region that is boiling
> > over with hatred for those doing the extracting? The American
> > military has already exhausted itself in Iraq, and the game has
> > barely begun.
>
> The "boiling over" part is more recent. We've been over this.
> There was no guarantee that the operation would go well. It could
> have gone a lot better. But it didn't.
>
> > We know the neocon solution to this problem: exterminate tens of
> > or hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims with nuclear and
> > biological weapons, to commit the most evil act of genocide in
> > human history. Do most Americans really want to go down that
> > path? Do American industrial and business elites want to go down
> > that path? I strongly doubt it. The rest of the world would rip
> > us to shreds.
>
> Very good question. Certainly no one would ADMIT that they want
> to go down that path. And most everyone would not even admit it
> to themselves. But it depends on which question is asked. Do we
> support nuke/bio genocide? NO, of course not! Do we support the
> continuation of our "way of life", "non-negotiably"? Yes, sadly.
> And there is the rub. Most people will vote for continuation of
> our way of life, offered by leaders not so indiscrete as to
> be honest about what that will entail. As long as the leaders
> are halfway (or even quarter-way) decent liars, the imperial
> initiative will go on, without substantial objections from the
> people.
>
> >
> > There is enormous opposition to the neocon agenda within the
> > American power elite, and even from leading members of the Bush 43
> > administration. Have you been reading the memoirs and comments of
> > the Bush 43 dissenters and defectors? If my analysis is correct,
> > and I am confident it is, we are on the verge of a major explosion
> > between the traditional American power elite and the neocons. I
> > hope this development won't take you by surprise -- you've been
> > given the straight dope. :)
>
> I am fully prepared, and anxious, to be surprised, and proven
> wrong about everything. But I doubt that I will be. :-)
>
> Alan
>
