ISN'T
SCIENCE WONDERFUL?
It
seems that the old Freudian concept of "repression" of
unwanted memories has been given a boost by two scientists
at Oregon University, who have apparently reproduced the
repression process under laboratory conditions. Roger
Highfield, Telegraph science editor, writes: "More
than a century after Freud suggested the existence of
a repression mechanism that pushes unwanted memories into
the unconscious, scientists now have hard evidence to
explain how that mechanism works." People who want
to forget invariably succeed in forgetting – although
why we needed a laboratory experiment to "prove" the obvious
seems yet another indication of the absurdity of empiricism
and science-worship. Be that as it may, however, in the
experiment, the subjects deliberately tried to forget
certain words – and were unable to recall them later,
even when offered money for the correct answer. According
to Highfield, "This is the clearest demonstration of a
direct connection between people's efforts to control
awareness of a specific unwanted memory and their later
ability to recall it." Understanding what the article
calls "selective amnesia" could help victims of child
abuse, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Taking apart
this mechanism and revealing how human beings can direct
their attention will, perhaps, help us diagnose and deal
with the effects of age and disease, including schizophrenia
and attention deficit disorder. Perhaps, someday, this
line of research will also reveal how "selective amnesia"
plays a major part in spreading another disease: the plague
of war.
MACHINERY
OF LIES
As
news that Albanian terrorists are sparking
yet another Balkan war grabs today's headlines, does anybody
recall what got us into the last one? It was newspaper
headlines charging the Serbs with "genocide": it was CNN's
Christiane Amanpour "reporting" as fact the propaganda
put out by her husband, James Rubin, then Madeleine Albright's
ephebic Igor. It was NATO's machinery of lies acting in
tandem with the Western "news" media that fueled such
popular support as the War Party managed to attract. You'll
recall – that is, if you aren't suffering from some
kind of self-imposed "amnesia" – that the initial
reason given for the bombing campaign was the "massacre"
at Racak, in which dozens of supposedly unarmed Kosovar
civilians were reportedly slaughtered by units of the
Serbian military. As
Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi put it in The eXile,
"Years
from now, when the war in Serbia is over and the dust
has settled, historians will point to January 15, 1999
as the day the American Death Star became fully operational.
That was the date on which an American diplomat named
William Walker brought his OSCE war crimes verification
team to a tiny Kosovar village called Racak to investigate
an alleged Serb massacre of ethnic Albanian peasants.
After a brief review of the town's 40-odd bullet-ridden
corpses, Walker searched out the nearest television camera
and essentially fired the starting gun for the war."
WAR
FEVER
Standing
before the television cameras, Walker announced: "From
what I saw, I do not hesitate to describe the crime as
a massacre, a crime against humanity. Nor do I hesitate
to accuse the government security forces of responsibility."
It was a
brazen lie, of course, and the
truth is now coming to light. There was no Racak "massacre"
– evidence unearthed
by Finnish forensic experts indicates that the bodies
found at Racak, according
to the forensic report, were likely killed in combat,
and that the "atrocities" reported were faked. In the
European media, the mythology that got us into the Kosovo
war has been thoroughly debunked: a
recent report on German television exposes the lies
of the NATO-crats as part of a sophisticated propaganda
campaign to manufacture atrocity stories and whip up the
public into a warlike frenzy.
FISCHER'S
FISH STORIES
The
report, first broadcast on the ARD public channel on February
8, contrasts the statements of German government officials
in the period leading up to NATO intervention with OSCE
reports from on the scene in Kosovo: while German "Green"
foreign minister Joschka Fischer, the ex-ultra-left
"revolutionary" thug, and his Social Democratic coalition
partners were claiming that a "humanitarian catastrophe"
was taking place, the OSCE March 1999 report cited "39
deaths in all of Kosovo – before the NATO bombers
came."
NEVER
AGAIN
"There
must never be another Auschwitz!" This was Fischer's slogan,
along with all the other formerly antiwar, anti-interventionist
lefties who supported the Kosovo adventure, in Germany
and internationally. Since the Serbs were supposedly the
21st century equivalent of the Nazis, it was
necessary to come up with the right imagery – the
key to enlisting left-liberals in the fight against Serbian
"racism." To support this thesis, the government looked
for "evidence" of "concentration camps" run by the Serbs.
Just as the fight against Hitler was the "good war," so
the war against Slobodan Milosevic was equally righteous
– or so the argument went. The War Party soon came
up with their "evidence" – allegations that a "concentration
camp" had been set up in the Pristina soccer stadium.
Except, as it turns out, there never was any such thing:
ARD's investigative reporters went to Pristina, and asked
eyewitnesses about the alleged concentration camp. Shaban
Kelmendi, a Kosovar politician whose house is right next
door to the stadium, said on camera: "There was not one
single prisoner or hostage held there at that time. The
stadium was always used only as a landing field for helicopters."
RUGOVO
FLIMFLAM
German
officials had also claimed that, on January 29, 1999,
Serbian authorities carried out a "massacre" of unarmed
citizens in the small town of Rugovo in southern Kosovo:
the German government even released photos of the alleged
atrocities, and the next day they were splashed across
the front pages as newspapers screamed with the headline:
"THIS IS WHY WE ARE AT WAR!" But was it? Our German reporters
cite a secret report of the German defense ministry: 'Confidential-for
official use only. Twenty-four Kosovar Albanians and one
Serb policeman were killed in Rugovo on January 29, 1999
during a battle." While publicly claiming that the Serbs
were committing "genocide," the German government had
access to secret reports that came much closer to the
truth: prewar Kosovo was the scene of a civil war,
with the Yugoslav military responding to heavily-armed
rebels carrying out terrorist acts increasingly directed
at civilians.
DIAGNOSIS
AND PROGNOSIS
The
whole rationale for war in the Balkans has long since
fallen apart: but the same American news media that reported
lies as fact has yet to acknowledge misleading the public,
never mind correcting their error – if, indeed, it
was an error instead of a deliberate policy. Here is proof
positive that "selective amnesia" has reached epidemic
proportions among journalists in the English-speaking
world: the problem is, there doesn't seem to be any cure.
ON
THE FENCE
Now
that the interventionist chickens are coming home to roost
– not only in "liberated" Kosovo, but in Macedonia
and throughout the region – the governments of virtually
all the NATO countries are publicly trying to distance
themselves from the unfolding disaster. The US has just
announced the withdrawal of 750 troops – from
Bosnia – and this is being reported by CBS News as
part
of a larger plan to withdraw all or most of our troops
from the Bosnian confederation. No word yet on withdrawals
from Kosovo – or any additions to the 450
or so US troops in wartorn Macedonia. The effort to disguise
this shift in forces as a "withdrawal" is White House
spin that cleverly recognizes the stubbornly anti-interventionist
sentiment of the American people – and most especially
among voters who represent the GOP's base. But how long
can the Bush administration get away with straddling the
Balkan fence?
FORGETTABLE
YOU
The
selective amnesia that afflicts our politicians, who not
only forget their own campaign promises but also expect
us to forget them, is mirrored by our governing elites
in the media, academia, and among intellectuals in general:
these people apparently have no trouble repressing all
politically incorrect thoughts and memories within themselves.
They are, after all, well-paid to apply the same methods
to the general public: and they are very good at it. It
looks like the more we understand "selective amnesia,"
the more incurable it sounds. As one of those Oregon University
scientists told the Telegraph:
"Amazingly,
this type of forgetting is more likely to occur when people
are continuously confronted with reminders of the memory
they are trying to avoid. This is contrary to intuition,
which says that seeing reminders a lot ought to make your
memory better. When reminders are inescapable, people
must learn to adapt their internal thought patterns whenever
they confront the reminder if they are to have any hope
of avoiding the unwanted memory."
A
FUTILE CRUSADE?
The
more we remind them of the truth, the more they ignore
it: if this is the operative principle, then no wonder
I'm depressed today! After all, as editorial director
of Antiwar.com, it is my job to confront the War Party
on a daily basis with the evidence exposing their lies.
But it seems the more I confront them, the less chance
there is going to be any admission of error (let alone
guilt). We can excoriate the "mainstream" news media all
we want for allowing itself to be turned into a conduit
of government propaganda, but the process will continue
unto eternity. Arguing with the very elites that made
an immoral and incredibly destructive war possible in
the first place is only valuable insofar as it exposes
the truth to ordinary people. But, even then, so what?
Most people did not support the Kosovo war, which is one
reason why it ended so abruptly: Clinton's poll numbers
were dropping as a direct result of the escalating conflict,
just as Bush's will sink like a stone if our new President
allows himself to get suckered into another Balkan intervention,
this time in Macedonia. So who cares if ordinary people
supported or opposed the war? It happened anyway, didn't
it?
THE
USURPERS
Well,
now we have a solution to that problem – a problem
caused by the usurpation of the power to send troops overseas,
which has historically belonged to Congress. At least,
that's what the Constitution says. Of course, that hasn't
been the case ever since Harry Truman sent American troops
to Korea to fight the Commies without bothering to inform
the elected representatives of the people. They are still
there. In Vietnam, too, the machinations of four Presidents
– Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Nixon
– trumped congressional opposition, and got us snarled
in a trap of our own making: another unwinnable land war
in Asia. Today, on account of Truman's usurpation, the
President has the power to send American troops overseas
at a moment's notice: to the Balkans, the Middle East,
or Timbuctu, if he so chooses – but
not if congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has his way.
RESTORING
THE CONSTITUTION
Rep.
Paul has introduced a measure in the House of Representatives
to "fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution"
that Congress alone has the legal authority to send US
troops into battle: the "Constitutional War Powers Resolution
of 2001," or H.J.R. 27. It is co-sponsored by Rep. Barbara
Lee (D-CA): last session, a similar but broader bill which
included limitations on domestic presidential powers garnered
40 co-sponsors. Passage of this bill would stop a president
from sending armed forces into battle or imminent hostilities
without an outright congressional declaration of war,
unless the U.S. was directly attacked. The bill would
also forbid funding unlawful war activity and facilitate
lawsuits to enjoin unlawful actions. The great thing about
this bill is that it is retroactive: the text of
the legislation reads that the bill, if passed, would
apply to "the deployment of elements of the Armed Forces
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this
joint resolution."
REVIEW
THIS!
The
Bush administration is constantly telling us that they
are engaging in a "wide-ranging review" of our various
overseas missions and military entanglements, and that
such a step is necessary if we are to devise a coherent
and comprehensive strategy for the post-cold war world
and come up with a defense budget that makes sense. Well,
then, the passage of H.J.R. 27 should go a long way toward
accelerating that process, of forcing each deployment
to justify itself in terms of its actual value to US national
security. Surely, then, Team Bush realizes that Rep. Paul
is only going along with the program (as stated), and
that the least they can do is support his efforts. [Sarcasm
off]
BRING
BACK BRICKER!
If
Team Bush is not about to jump on this particular bandwagon,
perhaps they will be forced to jump out of the way before
being caught under its wheels. Opposition to the Kosovo
war was centered not on the Left side of the spectrum,
but within the Republican camp in Congress. This reflected
grassroots sentiments among GOP rank-&-file activists
who never swallowed the war propaganda of the pro-Clinton
liberal media in the first place. If a grassroots movement
can be generated at the local level on behalf of the "Constitutional
War Powers Resolution"/H.J.R. 27, it could very well snowball
and force the administration into taking a public position,
much as the Eisenhower administration was forced to take
a position on the Bricker
Amendment. The Bricker amendment to the Constitution
– introduced in 1952 – which failed to pass
Congress by 2 votes, would have forbidden any foreign
treaty from overriding the US Constitution – preserving
our national sovereignty not only against the UN (the
chief manifestation of globalism at the time) but also
against such future threats as NATO, NAFTA, and the International
Criminal Court. Of course, Eisenhower and his gang bitterly
opposed Bricker, just as the Bushies will no doubt oppose
the Constitutional War Powers Resolution – and for
the same reasons.
IMAGINING
CARLA DEL PONTE
In
arguing against Bricker, the Eisenhower administration
averred that it would unduly restrict the power of the
President to conduct foreign policy. Bricker's supporters
argued that nothing less than the sovereignty of the country
was at stake, and that, in any case, the President had
no such exclusive power. The latter lost, but only narrowly.
On its behalf, the Bricker Amendment mobilized a long
list of supporters and endorsers: not only the American
Legion, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, but every conservative
activist organization of any consequence. All were united
in a mighty crusade to save America from globalist bureaucrats
– because, in their mind's eye, they could see Carla
Del Ponte, or, at least, imagine her. What is needed is
a similar upsurge of support on behalf of Ron Paul's heroic
effort to restore the Constitution and rein in the War
Party. The selective amnesia of our politicians, and their
media amen corner, will not be cured by simply analyzing
the problem: these people need shock therapy. They
need to be reminded, and forcefully, that truth does
matter, that law must matter, and that ordinary
people take the Constitution seriously – even if
in Washington they consider it a dead letter. The Bricker
Amendment was the last gasp of the Old Right – the
anti-globalist, anti-interventionist conservative movement
of the 1940s and 1950s – before the cold war began.
Now that the cold war is over, the growing movement to
pass H.J.R. 27 and restore constitutional principles to
American foreign policy could be the first sign of the
Old Right's return.
THERAPEUTIC
JOURNALISM
I
started out complaining about being depressed, but by
the time I reached the last paragraph I managed to talk
myself out of it: this is what they call therapeutic journalism
– but, since I'm not Jonah Goldberg, this column
isn't all about me. Here, at last, is a reason for my
readers to be optimistic: here, finally, is an action
one can take on behalf peace and liberty. Already, a spontaneous
movement is rising up in support of Rep. Paul's effort:
the War
and Law League (WALL), a San Francisco-based organization
(with which I have no affiliation and only a perfunctory
knowledge) is making waves on behalf of the Paul resolution.
It isn't only libertarians who are in the vanguard of
this burgeoning movement: mainline peace activists and
WALL organizers are making a concerted effort to build
what is truly a grassroots phenomenon. So just don't
sit there reading this column: you have a voice. Use
it. Get on the phone with your representatives in Congress,
and let them know how you feel about House Joint Resolution
27, otherwise known as the Constitutional War Powers Resolution
of 2001. Email them and ask why they haven't agreed to
co-sponsor such a worthy cause – and do it now. There's
but one cure for despair, and that is action.
TAKE
THE CURE
Selective
amnesia has reached epidemic proportions among the elites
in government and the media: not only do they seem unable
to recall the lies they told, they also can't seem to
remember what the Constitution says about the issue of
war and peace. However, Dr. Paul – and, yes, he is
a medical doctor – seems to have developed a powerful
treatment if not the cure: a good dose of constitutional
government.
