Lets call it the Dumbbell Axis -- the Jewish State as one bell and "Hindia" as the other.
In the ongoing struggle to make the whole planet safe for limited liability corporate settlement, these two are Big Sam's best sidekicks.
Now I may scorn chatter over the Zionic placebo for personal reasons. But I'll make up for it with a Philippic over the subcontinent's "liberal" hegemon, possibly the conscience of the earth itself, the post-Raj Hindu chauvinist republic.
My old friend Mr Y, late of the state department's dirty-tricks staff, aka 'deep bottom', phoned recently (shortly after the recent Mumbai rumble and before his "official" resignation from the foreign service last week):
Y: "We gotta cadge those swami-soaked humanist fraud bastards into more border rattling nonsense -- really shake their neighbors up -- we need 'em to start taking a few chapters from the Mini-Me book of culls. Shit, man, it's in uncle's strategic interests -- takes the heat off us and our loser crusade up there in Kaboolaboolaville."
Me: "Really? Delhi another Tel-y? Why now -- and not say back in '63 or '71?"
Y: "Simple. We're in deeper around there now -- that Dulles do-little type crap is a one way ticket to nowhere. We gotta start by letting those urine-drinking Hindu-fundie weirdos loose. The Punjabi Pakis gotta get forced into blowing their misbegotten dogs' breakfast of a nation apart -- back into its primal constituents."
He went on, in a downright Nixonian geopolitical vein:
"The roof of South Asia is formed by Tibet and Afghanistan -- the Hindustanis need to blow that roof off eventually, but first they gotta shatter Pakistan. It's a bulwark of the status quo, a fuckin' turd in the drain of world-historical progress. Oh, and Israel isn't crazy about the Paks either. As you know."
Me: "And this is in Uncle Emperor's best interests?"
Y: "Absolutely -- we need a new Balkans over there -- a real mess. Either that, or China and Russia will be making muskrat love right in front of our faces."
Comments (8)
Makes sense. When guns are your best play and stable democracy your worst nightmare, you need a fight equal to your own limitations/capacities.
Too bad James Petras is too important to The People he owns to fathom the obvious lesson here. Same goes for the other culturalists.
Sometimes (sigh) I'm pretty sure we need a companion site, SMBIAAAWM -- Stop Me Before I Attend Another Anti-War Meeting.
Posted by Michael Dawson | January 10, 2009 1:59 PM
Posted on January 10, 2009 13:59
this may just be bad timing on his part, but we are having our own Enron/Worldcom scandal unfold right now.
no fucking way india can or will invade pakistan. maybe if the crazy hindu wingers get into power on their own(doubtful-they needed a coalition last time, and they will now too). we really have got too much shit going on at home - maoists and other domestic insurgents would go apeshit if india provoked anything with china.
Posted by almostinfamous | January 10, 2009 2:11 PM
Posted on January 10, 2009 14:11
MD is right SMBIAAAWM 2009. I've never attended an ANTI war meeting as I believe it's synonymous w/ animal rights and Country Joe and the Fish, so I feel qualified to comment w/ hippocricy and pompus pro military conjecture.
Posted by Son of Uncle Sam | January 10, 2009 3:39 PM
Posted on January 10, 2009 15:39
Who you shootin' at, Son of Sam? Your post is a non sequitur.
Posted by Michael Dawson | January 10, 2009 4:29 PM
Posted on January 10, 2009 16:29
I attended anti-war meetings; until it became clear that the organizers and participants had, in the nicest possible way -- no sarcasm in that -- recapitulated a familiar division of labor.
I've had jobs in very nice, high church liberalism corporate environments. That's what it was like. The problem with it in social movements is that a "natural elite" rises to meet the demands of the organizational purpose, which is usually gaining numbers and swelling the membership roster. The recruiters and marketers and people with a connection or two take charge. It's still very nice and deeply caring, but it's also an emulation of the same logic that measures prosperity by size and metastatic growth. Eventually you get the UFP&J, then a rush to the respectability of supporting the nicer Democrats (Kucinich, Lee) and then a stampede to whatever monster claws its way to victory in the primaries. Honestly, I think we'd do better to stay sectarian.
Posted by Al Schumann | January 10, 2009 5:01 PM
Posted on January 10, 2009 17:01
I have to agree with Al Schumann's comments--not just anti-war groups but progressive organizations in general--their tendency is to emulate, in political structure, private for-profit corporations. I do think that this fact shouldn't necessarily disqualify support of them. Like, Democracy Now! does report many relevant stories you can't find anywhere else, even if it would more accurately be called "the Amy Goodman Show" Rather it should be seen as a mistake we have to correct next time. (Incidentally, however, I think often this kind of cynicism can serve as a cop-out for people who know better but still wish to avoid taking political responsibility.)
Posted by Peter Ward | January 10, 2009 6:35 PM
Posted on January 10, 2009 18:35
It only follows by continuing a humorous idea (SMBIAAAWM) awaiting to contribute w/ yet another non sequitur.
Parralelling absurdities as the productiveness of meetings on anti-war mean anything more then the guy who's voting libertarian.
Down in little Rhody, we practice our freedoms by drinking beer and playing keno................. and talkin' about titties.
Posted by Son of Uncle Sam | January 10, 2009 7:19 PM
Posted on January 10, 2009 19:19
Peter, I propose a little more anarcho-skepticism and a large reduction in the sense of duty. Speaking entirely personally, I've been whacked over the head with Moral Bludgeon of Participatory Rectitude so often that I fear I may develop a permanent concussion.
Posted by Al Schumann | January 10, 2009 8:23 PM
Posted on January 10, 2009 20:23