Off the Edge

It used to be, in simpler times, people could use hyperbole in exclamations of frustration (e.g. “I’m gonna kill him for playing that prank on me!”) without striking paranoia and fear in those who heard it, and without being scrutinized as a potential murderer. Not that the person was actually going to kill anyone, but just that he was reacting to something unpleasant in an exaggerated way. Mix political correctness and the classic Barney Fife refrain of “we’ve got to nip it in the bud”, and you get the mindless concept of Zero Tolerance with the rationale that leads otherwise sane people to say “we can’t just sit around and wait for something bad to happen – we must be proactive!”

One can justify quite a bit of preemptive violence using that logic. Suppose your friend Steven, whom you like and have a good relationship with, says he feels threatened by his neighbor Kumar, who can be a real jerk sometimes. That’s what people are saying, anyway. Not only that, but the word on the street (from previously unreliable sources who have misled you before) is that Kumar is planning to hurt Steven. Normally, you’d find this disturbing to the point that you’d want to help your friend. You still might go, but there are some things you should consider first…

  • you’re not really sure that Kumar is really doing things to plan to hurt Steven. These rumors have gone around before, but they turned out to be just that, rumors
  • even though Kumar is armed, so is Steven, and Steven has a history of defending himself pretty well. In fact, it almost seems like Steven has been protected supernaturally in the past, to the extent that you’ve been amazed and impressed
  • though Steven and Kumar are neighbors, who live in an admittedly rough neighborhood known for its seemingly never-ending turf wars, they’re not only not yourneighbors, but they don’t even live in the same city – in fact, they live in another state altogether
  • the state they live in is one you’ve actually thrown your weight around in before (just recently, in fact), and most of the people there aren’t too happy about it – some of them didn’t want your there, and were glad to see you leave. They said their affairs weren’t any of your business, and that you had impure motives for even going in the first place
  • whenever you go to this state, you have to take out another loan to go;Â you’re not even finished paying off the last loan, or the one before that, or anyof the money you’ve borrowed for these excursions. You’ll be in debt forever at this rate, and will pass it on to the next few generations
  • the ones that want you to meddle in Steven and Kumar’s matters claim that if you don’t stop Kumar from picking on Steven, he’ll start messing with his other neighbors (and maybe even come to your state and mess with you), even though a) this hasn’t happened to any serious degree before, and b) you could easily defend yourself against Kumar, who doesn’t really pose a real threat to you
  • your own family is divided in its feelings over whether or not you should go fight Kumar for Steven’s sake – but the ones for it are the ones who are listening to the gossip on the street. Those opposed are the more levelheaded ones
  • Kumar has as much right to be armed as you do or Steven does, even if he does talk trash. If it came right down to it, Steven would very likely prevail in a gunfight, and you have some serious ways of dealing with Kumar, if you absolutely had to, that neither he nor Steven even know about.

Taking all these things into account, does it really make sense to engage in an unnecessary fight at great expense to you and your family? Furthermore, your involvement in their business is likely to start a huge riot that will make their whole neighborhood erupt in fighting even worse than before you came along. By now, I almost needn’t even explain my hopefully accurate metaphor of Iran (Kumar) and Israel (Steven). In the unlikely event the analogy was lost on you, re-read it with the appropriate substitutions; it should become clear. (Go ahead, no one else will know.) Whenever a country with the military might that America possesses seeks to invade another country (usually at the quiet behest of the ruling elite for monetary and political gain), its propaganda machine must be ratcheted up to crank out the most compelling arguments it can muster in support of action against that country. Personally, I’m waiting for more file film to be shown of Iranian protesters burning the American flag to incite anger among Americans for retaliation.

They did that in 1980 during the Iran hostage crisis that lasted 444 days before it was finally resolved in the October surprise. (I fell for it back then – even bought a t-shirt that said “Go to hell, Iran” and wore it to a college accounting class, liberal punk that I was.) I can almost imagine some executive at ABC telling Ted Koppel, whose show was birthed from that scenario, “keep the public interested in one story for a year, and you can have your own show.” About a year or two ago, there was the Iranian speedboat incident, wherein a small private vessel, reportedly with Iranians aboard, somehow symbolically threatened a much larger U.S. military ship. While I don’t recall the details, my reason for recounting the incident is to illustrate the lengths to which the government and its media will go to whip the public into a hawkish frenzy to attack another country for some perceived act of aggression.

Thankfully, the incident was laughable enough, and maybe there were enough people who were wise to the ploy that it never gained any traction in the world arena, so it came and went without much fanfare. This is what is known as a “false flag” operation, and has been used by various countries with great success throughout history, proving Winston Churchill’s sage observation that “the first casualty of war is truth.” I have been meaning to write this article for quite some time, and intending to warn people (or perhaps just remind them of what they already know to be true) about the impending campaign to take military action against Iran. Does Iran have nuclear capability? Would they use it against Israel if they did? Did the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to embroil us in the Vietnam War ever actually happen? Was FDR really surprised by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that provided justification for American entrance into the unpopular World War II?

Did Saddam Hussein really have the much-ballyhooed Weapons of Mass Destruction (a description more fitting of 95% of the occupants of Capitol Hill)?

The answer to the first two questions is as likely to be ‘NO’ as it has been proven to be to the others. So why would you believe the masters of deceit whose incessant penchant for distortion wraps itself around this latest cause?

With their diminishing credibility over the years, do you fancy they have repented of their deceptive ways and are now telling the unvarnished truth? Two points which are always instructive in these situations (the second helping to answer the first) are these:

Cui bono (who benefits)? And “follow the money”.

As I intimated earlier, the international bankers benefit from the interest on the money borrowed by the U.S. government to finance what can’t help but be another tremendously costly expedition for our already abused military forces (see Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC, “War is a Racket”, and the documentary “Why We Fight”). They earn interest on the money that Iranian government will at some point be borrowing (if it isn’t already) to defend its country from foreign invasion.

Ditto for Israel.

There will be obscenely lucrative defense contracts which will get little or no news coverage, unless it is broached by the likes of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore. In that case, conservatives will automatically support it merely because those poster child liberals oppose it – such is the ease with which the public is manipulated. Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Blackwater, et al, will all profit handsomely from whatever military operations are set up, as they have in Iraq and Afghanistan. American companies will be given no-bid contracts to rebuild after the destruction and carnage in Iran.

If possible, a U.S. military base will be set up there, and our grandchildren will speak of continual deployments to Iran. A new surge of faux patriotism reminiscent of Desert Shield, Desert Storm, etc., will come over the public, causing them to bring out their yellow “support our troops” ribbons and hypnotically wave their Chinese made American flags at the first mention of anything thereto related. Pavlov would have been proud. The media will talk of how grateful the Iranian people are for American intervention in their country. They’re the same kind of people as the takers & looters in this country who are grateful for government intervention in their lives.

The ones who resent a foreign military occupying their country, as we would if one occupied ours, will be painted with the derisive term “insurgents”, “enemy combatants” and “persons of interest”. Yet more draconian legislation will be introduced because of some Iran-related “terror incident”, further reducing Americans’ liberties at home, but doing absolutely nothing to fight the amorphous “war on terror”. It should be more accurately called “war of terror”. Someone famous once said that “taxes are not raised to fight wars; wars are fought to raise taxes.” If that isn’t a revealing little observation, I don’t know what is. Oh, yeah – I almost forgot. In the midst of this global turmoil, holding our usual quadrennial presidential elections would probably not be prudent, so until hostilities cease and things get back to normal (by now a quaint notion), the process will be suspended for the foreseeable future.

So the current officeholder benefits, as do those pulling his strings. If all this can be averted (and we should do our part, even and especially in prayer), then there will be peace, but with peace there is no profit for the elite. Maybe I’m wrong in my assessment of the circumstances – I will always grant that possibility.

More so, I fervently hope I’m wrong about my predictions of the near future. I would not delight in being right about such matters. However these things all bear a striking similarity to the signs told to the disciples and to us by Yashua the Messiah (the real name of the One we have for so long called Jesus) in His Word, the scriptures. In the synoptic gospels, it is written that He said that in the last days, we will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but that we are not to be troubled, because these things must come to pass. Nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom. I encourage you to read these passages in their entirety so you’ll be prepared. It’s happening – be aware, be ready.

Nations are judged in this life.

Individuals are judged in the next.

%d bloggers like this: