GOV/MIL The Power of Nightmares - The Rise of the Politics of Fear

A fantasy that politicians found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age.


The Power of Nightmares is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. The series consists of three one-hour films The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative movement and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and noting strong similarities between the two.

It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media.

More controversially, it argues that the

threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives

Click to expand...

—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

Part I - Baby It's Cold Outside http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

Part II - The Phantom Victory http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3951615.stm

Part III - The Shadows in the Cave http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm



view the documentary film here: http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/power_of_nightmares.php



*** popup some popcorn and give this film a look see.

h-m-m-m-m so, they just may have lied to us

out of thousands of viewers not one has seen these films???

The BBC has been a mouthpiece for Englands socialist/marxists for more than a generation.

Nothing that comes our of their mouths is to be believed.
Similiarly, the word "neoconservative" is to be rejected in my book. It is meant as a slur, usually arising from differences in modern conservative thinking when compared to traditional conservative thought. This is a damned if you do damned if you don't approach.

In other words, Conservatives simply can't win.

For example, traditionally conservatives have wanted to stay out of other nation's affairs. However, due to the rise in global economics, politics and law, conservatives have been forced to step outside of thier traditional boundries.

In other words, times have changed and so have conservatives to keep up with them.

Here is where the BBC and other liberals pounce.

If conservatives stick to thier original beliefs, they are called "ignorant," "outdated," "neanderthals," "backwards," and such.

And when consevatives react to modern probabilities, then they are criticised for stepping outside of their traditions and called "neo-conservatives" or "warmongers" for using force once diplomacy fails. Note: These diplomatic failures are often agains other marxists that the BBC supports wholeheartedly, no matter the destruction or amount of deaths in the country with which America is disagreeing. In other words, the BBC is defending their marxist friends and cohorts who want international communism established throughout the world.

Finally, the BBC and other libs love to ignore the words of radical islamicists while amplifying words of conservatives. Thus "we must stop Al-Queda" becomes "we must destroy ALL Islam." OTOH, "we will conquer the West" from the mouths of the Islamicists is simply a cry for more monetary aid and understanding from the West. Terrorism is simply their way of getting our attention, according to the BBC mindset.

The irony is that the BBC has become the main mouthpiece for British liberals, and thus the propaganda arm for the very marxists that are claiming Bush is a neoconservative are themselves destroying England with their leftist policies.

Since the BBC already has a foregone conclusion, I see no reason to listen to them about anything.


Rage

I saw the first two videos some time ago. I don't agree with everything but it's 95% correct. It shows the evil history of Cheney and Rumsfeld, beginning with the sales of biowarfare agents to Saddam by Bush, Sr with Rumsfeld as his rep. And it shows how British and US Intelligence invented al Qaeda as a foreign, false-flag tool to deceive the people and take all power unto their shadow government.

It's too bad that so many are too ignorant to 'get it' and refuse to do the research.

PS: The videos attempt to imply that Clinton was a good guy, when he was just more of the same.

Similiarly, the word "neoconservative" is to be rejected in my book. It is meant as a slur, usually arising from differences in modern conservative thinking when compared to traditional conservative thought.

Click to expand...

Wow! You really don't get it, AR. You had better do some research on the neoconservatives and I would refer you to google Ron Paul's speech entitled "NeoConned."

I am a traditional conservative Constitutionalist, as in Ron Paul. The Neocons don't speak for me. Most Conservatives have not changed. That's why they don't plan to vote for McCain. Most of the activitives of the Neocons (as they call themselves) are illegal, such as preemptive war. As you will find from Ron Paul's speech, they are Trotskyites (and proud of it). Anyone who blindly follows them is not very smart.

Congressman Ron Paul Addresses the U.S. House of Representatives
July 10, 2003
"Neo-conned"
www.TheLibertyCommittee.org
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal Christopher Hitchins, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. 2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

[...]

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machiavelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4][5]

As of July 8, 2008, The Project for the New American Century website is inoperable. A message saying that the account has been suspended and to contact the billing department was put on the site's page.

An initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a 501(c)(3) organization headed by William Kristol (Chairman) and Gary Schmitt (President),[1] the Project for the New American Century is funded in part by such organizations as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[6]

On January 26, 1998, in the PNAC's open letter to President Bill Clinton, its members explicitly called for a U.S. ground campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.[7]
Further information: #Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq

The goal of regime change remained their consistent position throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[8] They followed that up with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott.[9]

On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, William Kristol, co-founder of the PNAC and editor of The Weekly Standard, called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine: "...any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[10]

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (2000), which lists as Project Chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and as Principal Author Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."[22][23]

One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."[26]

The report also states:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" (MY comment: as in 9/11)

The report Rebuilding America's Defenses has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.[4][5]

Y2KO,

I wish I had time to respond, but unfortunately anytime I've been on the net for the past two weeks it is to break from a state mandated test I've been studing. Perhaps once I've taken the test, I can investigate and/or repudiate (or possibly agree) with your argument. Until then, I simply don't have the time.

Rage