Dissenting voices and delayed wars

Something very interesting is happening in the USA: two candidates for the next Presidential election (Ron Paul, R, and Mike Gravel, D) are running on an anti-war platfrom and they are speaking up in each debate (so far - soon they will be given the boot). They stand no chance whatsoever under the current political system. Just take a look the Washington Post's truly orwellian editorial complaining that "Too many candidates talking about too much" and which specifically singles out Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as "excess candidates". Presumably the Neocon editors of the Post would prefer a few, shall we say, "unanimous" candidates on the issues of the current wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia) and the one to come (Iran).

Unlike the Establishment press, the free and independent media is mostly expressing interest or even outright admiration for Paul's and Gravel's courage. Some in the blogosphere are even suggesting that the two only anti-war candidates should drop their current party affiliations and join forces on an anti-war & civil liberties platform.

What is becoming increasingly clear that both Paul and Gravel and not so much trying to win the nomination of their parties as they are trying to use the devates to educate the American electorate on the true reasons behind today's crisis. And in this lies a huge opportunity.

Ever since the Democrats took control of both chambers of the Imperial Senate it has become clear that there is simply nothing to be expected from either faction of the "Republicrat Party". Besides, can anyone still tell these two Parties and their candidate apart?! With Republicans like Guliani and Democrats like Hillary it is clear that the USA is about to enter a very ugly phase of its history as the former will most certainly brutally crack down on internal dissent (Guliani is for all intends and purposes a genuine Fascist) while the latter will do whatever it is AIPAC demands from her. Throw in Obama with his assurances that he does not want to nuke anybody "right now" and McCaine singing "bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran" and the picture is gloomy indeed: some "choice" given to the American people...

So why has the war with Iran not started yet?

First, it appears that there is a strong reaction of the "old Anglo" oil lobby against the Neocons and their plans for war. Simply put - the bosses of the likes of Baker or Brzezinski have too much to loose financially in such a folly and they have unleashed an strong anti-Neocon campaign involving such personalities as Jimmy Carter, General Odom, Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Michael Scheuer and many others. Second, there are persistent rumors of very strong opposition to these plans inside the US military brass. So that's two of the three most powerful lobbies in the USA (oil and military-industrial) opposing the war. Which leaves the Neocons alone in their designs of more war. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the Neocons don't care and that they are already firmly control all the Presidential candidates (except Paul and Gravel). They also have amnequally firm grip on the Imperial Senate and the corporate media. Which brings me to the role played by the free & independent media and the blogosphere as the sole and increasingly powerful, outlet for the anti-war movement to express its views: thanks to its very existence no matter which of the Neocons actually gets elected in 2008, the three pillars of power of the Establishment (the two factions of the war Party, the Imperial Senate, and the corporate media) will become even further discredited in the eyes of the American people once it becomes clear that there will be hell to pay for the Neocon's policies (what the CIA calls the "blowback effect") and that the only the free media consistently warned about that.

Alas, the Neocons have nothing more to loose politically and they are now looking at the very real possibility of facing various criminal indictment for war crimes, international aggression, perjury, obstruction of justice, espionage, fraud, civil rights violations, etc. It is thus clear that barring a miracle a war with Iran is still probably inevitable. The only good thing coming from that is that it will be the last war of the American Empire and that, as so many empires before, the USA will eventually become a "normal" nation (and the Neocons will be either in jail or hiding abroad). Sadly, the price to pay for this outcome in blood and money is likely to be staggering.

The value of the lone dissenter

Originally, this was posted on Scott Horton's blog

For all its intrinsic merits - and God know they are numerous - it is unclear how big an audience Scott's show reaches and, even more importantly, how much of an impact it has on anyone. Surely in a country which re-elected, scratch this, which elected Bush the Lesser in the midst of two lost wars any voice for reason and decency is lost in the ocean of stupidity? Not so. Here is why:

Social psychologists have done a lot of work on the issue of conformity. In particular, the experiments of Sherif, Asch and Milgram have looked deeply in the the mechanisms which make people agree to seemingly obviously mistaken and outright evil concepts and actions. One of them (Asch) centered on the effect of the group on an individual's judgment. Basically, he showed that most people tend to agree with other's obviously wrong judgments usually to the point of kidding themselves in to sincerely believing whatever the group says. That's the bad news. The good news is that it only takes ONE dissenter to dramatically decrease this phenomenon. In fact, if ONE sole dissenter's common sense makes him openly challenge the unanimity of the rest of the group members the number of people who choose to conform against their best judgment falls by 75%!

Unanimity is what the Imperial rulers need from their population. This is one of the mains reasons why most authoritarian and all totalitarian regimes spend a truly phenomenal amount of resources trying to silence even a very small minority. For example, in the Soviet Union the so-called 'dissidents' had very little popular support, if any. But the KGB had an entire Main Directorate (the 5th if I remember correctly) only to deal with them. Often this is explained away as "paranoia", and sometimes it is so. But it is also a reflection of an acute understanding by those in powers that only a unanimity (even only a seeming one, an external one - that's all that's needed) can secure the passive compliance of a population.

So this is why Scott's work is truly invaluable: it allows anyone listening to his shows who would otherwise nod his/her head and shut up to think "yeah, that makes sense, and its the others who are full of shit!" and break the psychological barrier of the need to conform.

Even Scott's "rant shows" are hugely valuable because he shows that somebody can get on the air not just somewhere, but in Texas of all places, and speak freely without fear or self-censorship.

I strongly encourage everybody to *totally* cut any contacts with the corporate media. Don't watch TV, don't read the paper, don't listen to the (non-pirate) radio. Not ever, not once. Get all your information ONLY from independent and free media (God knows with the Internet you can get enough of top quality info and analysis - see links poster on the lower left of this page) and re-direct ALL the money you would be spending on corporate propaganda to truly free and independent media. And then - spread the word, tell all your friends, download sample shows and burn them unto CDs and give them out. That will be *your* way of puncturing the ugly bubble of unanimity.

A huge 'thank you!' to you Scott - you are the real patriot ;-)