On the evening of February 15, 1898, in Havana harbour, the USS Maine mysteriously exploded. Quickly sinking to the bottom. 274 of the 374 crew were killed. The Maine had been in Cuba during a time of upheaval, with local rebels resisting Spanish rule. A month later, the US Naval Court of Inquiry ruled that a sea mine had caused the disaster, and it was widely held that the mine was planted by the Spanish. The resulting nationalist sentiment within the US sparked the Spanish-American War.
Later, it was revealed that the presence of a mine was unlikely. It emerged that an internal explosion, from the coal bunker igniting the weapon magazines, was responsible for the sinking of the ship.
The sinking of the Maine certainly didn't count in favour of the Spanish, since they weren't looking for a fight with the US, and ended up losing control of Cuba to the Americans.
It could be co-incidence. Maybe everything happened as official sources claim, or, maybe, this is all too convenient. This could be another example of the most insidious strategy used by governments around the world. Attacking their own, or allowing attacks to be made, in order to appear the victim. Will governments shoot themselves in the foot to appear righteous in the coming war? I believe so. (See False Flag Incidents, right.)
Here's a nuts and bolts example of how it works. Country A wants to influence Country B, only, so does Country C. Countries A & C don't really get along. A could assassinate C's friends in B, but the resulting wave of public opinion swinging against Country A does even more damage. The population of B feels, despite what they may be told, that A is responsible. C now has more friends inside Country B. So A's short-term benefits are ineffective against the long-term 'blowback'. Intelligence agencies know this. They are not stupid. So let's run that scenario again. This time A kills its own friends within B. The blowback goes the other way. Despite the short-term liability of losing sympathetic allies, many more are recruited. Country B is now within Country A's sphere of influence. The blowback has been controlled.
Which makes you wonder about a lot of things. How did the Japanese manage a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour, moving the largest carrier force ever seen four thousand miles over eleven days, when the US knew a war was inevitable, and had cracked all the Japanese codes? While at the same time, being warned of a pacific attack by their allies? Furthermore, radar operators at Pearl Harbour were ordered to ignore massive amounts of unknown contacts picked up that morning. I'm sure that's what they teach at day one of air defence school. Is this stupidity, or deliberate inaction? As chance would have it, only surface battleships (considered obsolete since the Battle of Jutland) were in the port during the attack. The US carriers (the decisive weapon in the Pacific theatre) were all away at the time. Can anyone else smell a Reichstag fire?
Why? Franklin D. Roosevelt had come into his historic third term promising to keep the United States out of the Second World War, even though he supported re-armament and the British war effort. America needed to join the war against the Axis, but a turnaround in policy would have been political suicide. Something big and horrific was needed. Another Lusitania.
The Former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko might have been killed because he believed the FSB were behind the Russian apartment bombings which prefaced the Second Chechen War. What about 9/11? Worry about the next big horrific false flag incident which will herald the next war.
What am I describing here? Responsible governments with the safety of their citizens as the highest priority? Or sophisticated organised crime networks offering up human sacrifices to achieve their goals? I doubt there's a government in the world which deserves your respect or obedience. I'm not against Human civilisation, in the words of Gandhi: 'I think it would be a good idea'.
The False Construct
The political world map only looks the way it does because we think it should. Some thoughts are more successful than others. Look at Iraq. Obviously a false construct, patched together from the Ottoman Empire after the first world war. It is not convincing as a nation. Nobody really believes it is. Not even those that proclaim the loudest. You could argue that it was designed to destabilise the region, and its current condition is deliberate, but that's a whole different topic. The point is, Iraq isn't stable, because people see through it.
For this kind of false construct to successfully exist, the population needs to believe in it. This is where the myth of the nation comes in handy. It begins with shared stories, shared beliefs, shared background, which compounds groups of people into nations. It works because people want to team up, against them, the different people, from over the hill, who they're afraid of. Just because sometimes the idea sticks, and sometimes it does not, doesn't mean a false construct like the United States is any more or less valid than Iraq. Just a more successful illusion. In one the myth of the nation prevails, in the other, not so much. The different regions of Iraq all have their own, much older, myths to cling to.
It's human nature. We are incapable of being nonpartisan. We want to be included in a group, not be left out alone; unsupported. In prehistory, this would have been a death sentence. So, if we're going to believe in false constructs, why not believe in the best kind. A noble and compassionate idea that demands no human sacrifice. Inclusive, not exclusive. Not tolerance, but acceptance. Acknowledging that each human being is the same as yourself. The same intrinsic value. The same tribe.
If all the Earth is your heritage as a human being, then I suggest a nation of which we are all a part, and I'll even suggest a name: Pangea. The name of the single super continent which existed 300 million years ago. Pangea, meaning 'All-Earth'. Not a new nation. The oldest. It doesn't require any myths to sustain itself. The entire history of the Earth and all of its people is the story.
You have a nation, you have a flag. We don't have to think in terms of illusions anymore. The nation of Pangea is more real than any other false construct.
For this kind of false construct to successfully exist, the population needs to believe in it. This is where the myth of the nation comes in handy. It begins with shared stories, shared beliefs, shared background, which compounds groups of people into nations. It works because people want to team up, against them, the different people, from over the hill, who they're afraid of. Just because sometimes the idea sticks, and sometimes it does not, doesn't mean a false construct like the United States is any more or less valid than Iraq. Just a more successful illusion. In one the myth of the nation prevails, in the other, not so much. The different regions of Iraq all have their own, much older, myths to cling to.
It's human nature. We are incapable of being nonpartisan. We want to be included in a group, not be left out alone; unsupported. In prehistory, this would have been a death sentence. So, if we're going to believe in false constructs, why not believe in the best kind. A noble and compassionate idea that demands no human sacrifice. Inclusive, not exclusive. Not tolerance, but acceptance. Acknowledging that each human being is the same as yourself. The same intrinsic value. The same tribe.
If all the Earth is your heritage as a human being, then I suggest a nation of which we are all a part, and I'll even suggest a name: Pangea. The name of the single super continent which existed 300 million years ago. Pangea, meaning 'All-Earth'. Not a new nation. The oldest. It doesn't require any myths to sustain itself. The entire history of the Earth and all of its people is the story.
You have a nation, you have a flag. We don't have to think in terms of illusions anymore. The nation of Pangea is more real than any other false construct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
