If divisions are a construct of a third party

[dry kleaner]

If divisions are a construct of a third party then wars based on those divisions seem pointless, especially if those divisions where created to cause conflict. If this realization came to light the human race would have to look at it self differently and reconsider the concepts of division that exist currently.

War with Iran is imminent and the leaders on both sides are attempting to polarize the world by using the construct of religion and race to divide mankind and force a war upon us. As we know a war needs two sides to be fought and with out the polarization you will not have two conflicting sides. In such times we are not encouraged to question the worth or logic behind a war, instead we are encouraged to trust in our leaders and rally behind them. With documents such as ‘The Project for the new American century’ which is a blue print for political and economic domination by the United States that was written in September 2000 asking for a ‘New Pearl Harbour’ to unite the American people in a quest for political dominance, one must ask what is the war on terror really about?

September 11th has become a huge defining point that has allegedly changed the world and is now used by the leaders in the USA and in this country as a justification for military action abroad, particularly in the Middle East. If September 11th could be proven to have been an inside job; made to, or allowed to happen by the United States government to pursue their goals of power then the war on terrorism which seems to hinge its justification on September 11th could be considered a war based on bogus claims. Many people do not believe the American Government or any Government could kill its own people, but in 1962 the US military proposed just such a scenario in The Northwood’s documents to fake terror attacks in the USA and abroad to allow a justification for the invasion of Cuba. Robert Macmanera and John F Kennedy threw the plan out. Kennedy was dead a year later.

Certainly September 11th has brought up old religious based conflicts and made them contemporary once more. By stirring up these old conflicts in belief systems, mainly between Islam and Christianity could the might of America really succeed in its goal for political dominance? The nature of this war seems to be very different from World War 1 or 2 in its tactics. Now we no longer need machines to bomb a foe into submission since people have become bombs and are willing to take on suicide missions in the name of their belief system. If America where to fail in its goal for domination what could this mean and what type of world would we have? If you read the transcripts of the Iranian president he promises a free world under the ideals of Islam; a system that arguably seems to have failed in providing peace, freedom or equality in Middle Eastern counties such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Could the Muslims succeed in creating an Islamic world or might another nation such as Russia or China rise up in the chaos of a religious war and take over? Or will an unpredictable system emerge in all the chaos, in a moment in time in which each and every one of us is spiritually, economically and politically broken and promises us peace if we believe in it? Could a New World Order be established amongst the chaos? Certainly many people such as David Icke, Michael Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell and Alex Jones believe and propose such a thing is possible. Could such a New World Order succeed or would it fall apart in time and cause more suffering? The one thing that seems constant on this planet is suffering, and the negative energy that comes from that suffering.

What the majority of people seem to take for granted as natural within the context of their culture has in fact been artificially constructed by a dominant belief system that operates on a common sense level. Gramsci believed that ‘Common sense’ is the site on which dominant ideology is constructed, but it is also the site for the resistance to that ideology.’ (Simon, 1991: 26-27). There is a danger that when concepts, ideas or thoughts operate on a common sense level, that critical thought no longer takes place. This seems to be the area Descartes maintained his ‘false beliefs’ occurred in. ‘It is now some years since I detected how many false beliefs that I had from my earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was everything I had since constructed on this basis’. (Descartes 1997:134). French philosopher Roland Barthes with his theory on the concept he called Mythologies operates at a common sense level. He believed the relationship between the denotation and the connotation revealed an ideological point of view being communicated on a common sense level. ‘Myth consists in overturning culture into nature or, at least the social, the cultural, the ideological, the historical into the ‘natural‘. What is nothing but a product of class division and its moral, cultural and aesthetic consequences (stated) as being a ‘matter of course’; under the effect of mythical inversion, the quite contingent foundations of the utterance become common sense, right reason, the norm, general opinion’ (Barthes 1977:165)

Peace and love

Dry Kleaner