The 28 Pages

Doug Bandler The Second's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler Th... on Wed, 2016-07-27 16:37

This lady talking with Tom Woods actually worked for the Department of Defense. In the interview she shows how the Saudis were involved with the 9/11 attacks from top to bottom. Yet they are untouchable today. Both Conservatives and Leftists protect the Saudis. The Saudis, the most anti-social liberal, anti-egalitarian people on Earth , are being defended by today's egalitarians and liberals. Think of that.

My question is why? Is it simply financial? They've bought people off like the Bush Family and the Clintons? Is it because Saudi oil is linked to the US dollar and the elites are worried if Saudi Arabia falls so will the US economy? Is it related to Israel? Its been argued that Israel's enemies have become America's enemies and right now Israel and Saudi Arabia seem to have mutual enemies and an arrangement.

What I'm really interested in is the philosophical angle. Rand argued that philosophy drives history (ultimately) and a core component of the Objectivist analysis regarding foreign policy has been that altruism is driving our war efforts. (OrgOists feel that fighting this altruism means advocating for nuking Iran and Saudi Arabia all while allowing Muslims to continue migrating here; call it "the nuke the world and invite the world" foreign policy of the ARI.) Of all the Objectivist views, I have sympathy with the altruist thesis in that I do see that there is a self-sacrificial ethics involved with our decisions. Another thing going for the altruism thesis is that I've seen a version of it elsewhere.

Larry Auster (whose solution of total separation from the Islam world including eventually having no Muslim presence in the US is the one I hold) believed in something very close to Rand. His view was that "liberalism" dominated the Western World. For Auster, "liberalism" was the combination of philosophic skepticism and moral relativism with leftist egalitarianism culminating in the culture wide nihilism of today; "generation airhead" as Linz calls it. Auster argued that the Left was operating on a "non-discrimination" worldview which aimed at making every human soul equal. It was the Left's religion; a secular replacement religion for Christianity.

Middle Eastern policy in his eyes was an "ameliorative" foreign policy designed by the right wing arm of the Progressive movement; ie the NeoConservatives. NeoConservative foreign policy was to wage soft wars to improve the Middle East by spreading representative democracy and hopefully taming Islam so that it could become more like the West. For Auster, everything we were doing was grounded in this desire to improve the Muslim world while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that Islam was not just like every other religion and the Muslims were not assimilable. It was grounded on the modern blank slate view that all people are fundamentally the same and culture is infinitely malleable, things Auster rejected. Auster never used the word "altruistic" to describe American foreign policy, but his view expressed a similar sentiment as he thought that modern liberalism (in which leftism, mainstream Conservatism and libertarianism would all be variants to Auster) ultimately had to sacrifice itself and its uniqueness and its very existence if it was to ultimately create a society based on total equality.

There is great overlap between Auster's and Rand's theories. In both, a self-sacrificial and delusional world view is motivating extremely self-destructive behavior on the part of the West. Now Auster had far better solutions than OrgOism. OrgOism only gets one thing right; namely that altruism is involved. But outside of that I have seen no useful commentary on Middle Eastern affairs from any Objectivist. Libertarians on the other hand have provided useful commentary. However, libertarians provide no fully useful solutions because for them, with their anarchist foundation, the solution to every problem is abolishing the state. But that being said, libertarians like Scott Horton or Ryan Dawson do provide interesting empirical analysis that I hear nowhere from O'ism.

But back to my question. What is it about the Saudis that they are being protected when they are clearly the most dangerous Islamic people on earth? Why are they protected by mainstream Conservatives like the Bushes and the Neocons and mainstream Leftists like the Clintons? One theory: the Saudis are integral to the current system. And if they are exposed or fail, it might give the "far right" talking points and power. Remember my post "What is really moving the Left", a post no one comments on because it is too explicitly racial and that makes people nervous. But in that post I lay out an argument that a powerful motivator of the Left is to restrain any in-group solidarity among white people for fear that it will lead to a resurgence of ethno-nationalism among whites (a very real possibility - look at Trump's success - what do you think its based on?). I think that if the true evil of the Saudis were to be known, then the true evil of Islam would be known. The Right would then gain the moral high ground (something the Left fears) and the TOTALITY of modern liberalism would be in danger and its very existence would be challenged.

So that's my theory, call it the "defense of the reigning paradigm" theory. But are there any other ideas on why the Saudis are so untouchable especially in wake of the very damning "28 pages"? This is not an unimportant question.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Why the American gov't has been so sycophantic and subservient to the ultra-evil and profound-enemy Saudi dictators for more than 40 years is inexplicable to me. I guess they just massively, systematically, quietly bribe every single high-power U.S. politician that comes to power...

But the real answer here is to take back America's oil. The Saudi dictatorship stole it via "nationalization." They should be forced to repay every penny, plus interest, penalties, and recovery (war) costs. This isn't harshness, extremism, or cruelty -- it's justice.

Afterward, it would also practically force the Saudi people to adopt some form of semi-libertarian gov't. The Saudi people would quickly be much happier.

Here is the video

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Linz would listen to this and say it is unhinged empiricism and I can understand. And yet, Dawson does present a story with grand scope. He deals with the CIA, the aftermath of WW2, the various ethnic Mafias all supported by the CIA, Israel and its enormous influence over America policy and its possible connection with the assassination of JFK, Bush senior in '73 making alliances with Saudi Arabia for oil, all the way down to the alliances that exist today.

I would love for a philosopher to take Dawson's account (if true or even if largely true) and make sense of it. The best I can come up with is that within the parameters of welfare state social democracy, which has been the political ideology post WW2, and within the parameters of the Overton Window, which is a combination of somewhat restrained leftism with waning elements of Christian traditional morality, and within the parameters of post modern philosophy and ethical altruism - all that sets the contours of what can be done in international politics. Thus today's chaos.

Ryan Dawson . . .

Neil Parille's picture

is a little too conspiratorial to me, but he has a discussion of the 28 pages:

Doug II

gregster's picture

I like that you've put this well written piece together.

I believe you're correct and the conservatives cannot attack the Saudis either because to criticise a nation whose problems stem from primitivism would also expose their own irrationality--their christian basis. It is the reason why Islam is making inroads. I haven't listened to the above video all the way yet. Good to see you back in form.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.