Mitul lui Bin Laden/
Obama versus Osama 3.
The Bin Laden myth
For English scroll down
In celelalte doua articole sustineam ideea ca picarea celor doua turnuri si a cladirii 7 e putin probabil sa se fi datorat exclusiv avioanelor care au intrat in ele. In acest caz Bin Laden nu ar putea fi condamnat pentru ele. In acest articol voi deslusi interesul autoritatilor de a-l transforma pe Bin Laden intr-un diavol si de a-l face responsabil pentru tragedia de la 11 septembrie.
Chiar daca mergem pe ipoteza transformata in certitudine de autoritati, cum ca ce s-a intamplat la 11 septembrie 2011 se datoreaza exclusiv acelor atacatori sinucigasi, atunci Bin Laden tot nu ar fi putut fi condamnat fair play intr-un tribunal occidental care respecta litera legii. Gaura asta justitiara s-a intamplat cu alt mare cautat, Slobodan Milosevic. El a fost adus in fata tribunalului international si avea mari mari sanse sa scape pentru ca de fapt nu se putea demonstra nimic cu acte impotriva lui. Asa s-a intamplat si cu Al Capone, marele mafiot american care, la fel, nu a putut fi condamnat pentru omucidere, pentru care era vinovat. El a fost condamnat doar pentru gainarii de genul evaziunii ficale si altele de genul asta. Saddam Hussein n-a fost in final condamnat pentru uneltirea unui razboi chimic impotriva Occidentului (asa cum se preconiza la inceputul razboiului), ci tot pentru nimicuri de genul acesta. Dupa cum am mai spus-o in acest spatiu, eu as paria la un procent de 50% ca Milosevic nu a murit atunci cand au spus "soldatii" din presa in cor. Pariez ca s-a facut o intelegere cu el sa dispara pe undeva prin America Latina, tocmai pentru ca nu vad cum putea fi el condamnat la cum evolua procesul lui. Toate acuzatiile impotriva lui se dovedeau a fi, nefondate din punct de vedere juridic. Lumea deja incepuse sa-l vada ca pe o victima si sa simpatizeze cu el.
Pai daca Milosevic nu a putut fi gasit vinovat, avand ca argumente un intreg mecanism organigramic al sistemului, cum oare sa il gaseasca un tribunal specific statului de drept vinovat pe Bin Laden, care nu a lasat documente specifice consemnarilor oficiale ale statului in acel moment? Ca Bin Laden a vorbit el candva la telefon cu atentatorii de la 11 septembrie (lucru iarasi dubios, dupa cum s-a vazut aici http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-contra-osama.html ), asta nu inseamna deloc dovada de responsabilitate. Asta e vrajeala oferita de (farma)CIA pentru gura casca. Daca eu sun pe cutare, care apoi a facut o crima, asta nu e un motiv pentru a ma face pe mine responsabil pentru crima. Asta la ce spune litera legii. Cel mult, asta ma poate face complice la tainuirea ei, in cazul in care se poate demonstra ca stiam cu siguranta ca urmeaza sa fie facuta. Dar chiar si asa, tot e ambiguu pentru ca nu se poate dovedi clar ca Bin Laden ar fi stiut de aceste atentate. E greu de crezut ca cineva l-ar fi putut anunta pe Bin Laden prin telefon ca va comite atentatele de la 11 septembrie. Iar daca CIA, FBI sau alte astfel de (de)servicii secrete ii asculta telefonul prin care apoi l-a acuzat de implicare in 9/11, totusi de ce nu a intervenit sa preintampine tragedia? De ce i-a lasat pe membrii celulei Hamburg sa patrunda pe teritoriul SUA si, mai grav, de ce i-a lasat sa se urce in acele avioane?
Iata cateva intrebari cu raspunsuri pe care le vom afla peste 50 de ani dupa cum spunea Basescu despre o situatie asemanatoare… Oricum, autoritatile SUA aveau mare interes ca Bin Laden sa nu fie cumva prins de altii si judecat. Mai mult decat atat, el nu trebuia judecat nici de un tribunal occidental, cu presa calare. Acum, ca tribunalele insele sunt discret manipulate si atent directionate sa-l condamne pe Al Capone pentru altceva decat ar fi meritat, asta e alta problema. Bin Laden putea fi acuzat de multe atacuri teroriste, insa nu putea fi acuzat de organizarea atacurilor de la 9/11, si, cu atat mai putin, nu putea fi acuzat de doborarea turnurilor, dupa cum am spus in celalalt articol.
Cert este ca, daca s-ar fi procedat la fel ca si cu Milosevic, atunci un astfel de proces n-ar fi dat bine deloc la imaginea democratiei astazi. Daca Bin Laden ar fi fost adus in fata justitiei occidentale, atunci s-ar putea sa se fi vazut ca razboiul impotriva terorismului este de fapt o frauda.
La drept vorbind, daca a contribuit cu adevarat la planuirea atentatelor de pe 11 septembrie, eu cred ca Bin Laden s-a cait mult dupa. S-a cait nu pentru ca a ucis oameni, ci pentru ca a fost el insusi folosit de megaimperiul manipularii in asemenea hal, fara sa poata face nimic sa impiedice asta. Daca ar fi incercat sa se apere si sa apara in fata oricarui tribunal el era linsat imediat. Mesajele pe care le trimitea erau trunchiate de catre agentii CIA infiltrati peste tot prin lumea araba. Altele probabil ca erau fabricate in latura politica a Hollywood…
Daca candva va fi reusit sa inteleaga cu cine s-a pus, cred ca Bin Laden a regretat foarte mult orice implicare fie ea directa fie indirecta in evenimentele de la 11 septembrie. Pentru ca cinismul lui in a omori oameni nevinovati e mic copil pe langa cinismul capitalismului de a-l folosit apoi la nivel mondial drept sef al dracilor. Multi au acceptat colonialismul economic initiat de capitalism, si deghizat in cautare dupa Bin Laden, tocmai de frica diavolului. Terorismul lui e mic copil pe langa razboiul organizat pe care sistemul semitotalitar al capitalismului il poate crea. Terorismul sau amator nu are nici o sansa in fata profesionistilor terorii.
Bin Laden a fost un naiv cu o foarte mica putere politica. Nu stiu daca a reusit sa inteleaga ca nu putea castiga un razboi cu Occidentul. Termenul de comparatie e cel al polonezilor care raspundeau invaziei de tancuri germane la inceputul celui de-al doilea razboi mondial cu cavaleria... Timp de aproape 10 ani a fostaituit de arme digitale si demonizat de o intreaga masinarie propagandistica. Bombele sale mai mult sau mai putin artizanale sunt mai slabe proportional decat cavaleria poloneza in fata tancurilor lui Hitler. In urma unui asemenea arsenal mediatic si militar, Al Quaida s-a pulverizat cvasitotal. Recrutarea unor posibili noi membri a fost greu de facut in conditiile in care pe capul sau erau pusi 25 000 000 dolari. Se temea ca intre recruti s-ar putea afla vreun spion CIA. Dupa cum spuneam, a fost un naiv.
Al Quaida a fost si inca este supradimensionata ca organizatie tocmai pentru a justifica razboiul. Iar razboiul este un instrument esential in functionarea neosclavagismului (salarial) practicat de capitalism. Fiind un totalitarism vopsit sau un sclavagism cosmetizat, democratia nu poate exista fara sclavi. Iar cel mai direct mod de a face sclavi este razboiul. Asa ca democratia nu poate exista fara razboi pentru ca asta este elementul sau definitoriu, de fapt: „kratos”, care inseamna Putere. Puterea este abilitatea de a-i comanda celuilalt sa faca ce vrei tu, prin amenintarea cu armele sau chiar punerea in practica a acestei amenintari, respectiv uciderea celui care nu se supune si nu-si accepta statutul de servitor. In oligarhie Puterea o au doar privilegiatii. In tiranie Puterea e detinuta doar de despot. In democratie Puterea e detinuta de majoritate (demos). Insa crima Puterii este aceeasi, respectiv aceea de a-l forta pe cel cucerit sa accepte ordinele tale. Diferenta e ca in democratie Puterea se imparte de la centru in periferie si sunt chemati mai multi sa se infrupte din beneficiile sclavagismului… Spre deosebire de tiranie si oligarhie, care isi manifesta deschis si cinic intentia si dorinta de a subjuga si de a trai din furt macrosocial, democratia o cosmetizeaza. Acest furt infaptuit de catre Putere este justificat prin diabolizarea tintei de subjugat. Vreau ceva de la tine, si daca nu imi dai de buna voie, atunci iti gasesc un cusur, un nod in papura care sa imi justifice un jaf la adresa ta prin care sa te deposedez de acel bun. Avem in acest caz un adevarat „mecanism de aparare al Eului” de care vorbea Freud si pe care eu le-am considerat intotdeauna „strategii de cucerire”. Aviz psihanalistilor: vedeti originea „identificarii cu agresorul” !
Aici e problema cu democratia care mereu cade in demagogie, asa cum spunea batranul Aristotel. Omul de rand, educat in spiritul cinstei si al respectarii legilor, nu poate accepta faptul ca organizatia din care face parte merge sa jefuiasca. Daca tiranul si aristocratul fura produsele plebei fara nici o remuscare, nu la fel se intampla si cu demosul care e educat in spiritul „moralei de sclav”. E pacat. E injust. Nu poti sa te duci sa iei petrolul irakian fara un 11 septembrie si nu poti sa intri in al doilea razboi mondial fara Pearl Harbor. Dupa al doilea razboi mondial URSS si comunismul au constituit obiectul de proiectie al justificarii razboiului. De vreo 20 de ani insa, democratia nu mai are pe cine da vina, si nu isi mai poate justifica actiunile totalitare. URSS s-a destramat si s-a transformat in capitalism. China insasi a devenit teatrul celui mai feroce capitalism vazut vreodata. Pana si vechile gherile marxiste sud-americane s-au apucat de afaceri cu droguri. Doar in infima si muribunda Cuba sau in insignifianta Coree de Nord mai palpaie a comunism. Prea putin pentru nevoia democratiei de razboi. Noroc cu terorismul lui Bin Laden, caci altfel nu mai poate fi cumva justificat razboiul
Or fi ei cetatenii de rand multi si prosti, dar totusi justificarea oferita de administratia Bush n-a mai folosit pentru acceptarea razboiului. Treptat, in constiinta publica au inceput sa patrunda usor dar sigur aceste idei „conspirationiste”, desi presa, ca un caine fidel, si-a facut treaba si a prezentat unilateral doar punctul de vedere oficial. Totusi, pe masura ce razboiul din Irak inghitea din ce in ce mai multi bani, si pe masura ce soldatii americani ucisi ajungeau la numar dublu, si chiar triplu fata de numarul mortilor in atentatele de la 11 septembrie, opinia publica a cam inceput sa-si puna intrebari delicate.
Bin Laden a devenit paravanul de manipulare pentru continuarea razboiului din Afganistan, si apoi Irak. La ce putere de manipulare au autoritatile americane nu m-ar surprinde deloc sa se demonstreze fara dubii in viitor ca grupul de atentatori de la 11 septembrie a fost chiar initiat de vreun agent CIA care s-a dat fundamentalist islamic si a atras niste frustrati pe langa el. Vorba poetului: „Bin Laden n-a existat… A existat doar un imperiu dornic de petrolul arab in schimbul povestilor de la Hollywood…”. Bin Laden a fost creatie occidentala si la propriu si la figurat. La propriu pentru ca a fost partener de afaceri cu apropiati ai familiei Bush. La figurat pentru ca imaginea de monstru ce i s-a facut s-a facut din interese pur economice. Inasprirea conditiilor sociale pe timp de razboi, si scaderea protectiei sociale, conduce la o productivitate mai mare a sclavului infricosat de perspectiva mortii. Autoritatile pot da apoi vina pe razboi, pe URSS sau pe Bin Laden pentru faptul ca poporului ii merge atat de rau, si ca nu-si poate plati lucrurile elementare. Tocmai dupa aceasta perdea ideologica, omul de rand, sclavul este astfel mai eficient exploatat de catre capitalism. Nu pacalirea sclavului muncitor prin plusvaloare este motorul exploatarii capitaliste, asa cum credea Marx. Motorul exploatarii capitaliste este ademenirea lui spre a consuma si a munci mai mult decat ar trebui si decat este disponibil psihic si fizic sa o faca. Dupa cum spuneam in articolul precedent – avantaj corporatii, Rockefeller, Bilderberg …
Bin Laden putea fi capturat de mult. Insa, cu el capturat, razboiul in Irak si Afganistan era mult mai greu de sustinut. Iata o dilema absolut aporetica! Transformarea lui in Ba-bau a mers un timp care, iata, s-a epuizat in final. Alaturi de alti factori, aceasta inginerie sociala a derivat intr-o criza economica ce s-a manifestat in primul rand intr-o criza de incredere in valori, institutii si sistem. Cert este ca, dupa 10 ani de razboi, lumea civilizata s-a cam saturat de democratie (sclavagism mascat) si iata ca, in loc de o crestere economica tipica, ne-am trezit cu o criza generalizata.
Inginerii sociali au testat pe pielea lor faptul ca democratia nu poate fi fortata la infinit. Or fi ei cetatenii de rand multi si prosti, dar daca se dovedeste ca n-au alternativa in optiunea politicianista, s-ar putea sa nu mai vina la vot si ideea de democratie si libertate sa isi arate adevarata fata: o iluzie. Iar aici riscul este prea mare. Lehamitea fata de sistem care a cuprins ultima parte a mandatului lui G. Bush jr. a fost factorul decisiv pentru aparitia crizei economice in care inca ne aflam. Si atunci s-a inventat Obama, o masinarie care arata cum e libertate, cum e echitate si cum poti ajunge presedinte indiferent de sex, rasa, culoarea pielii etc. daca muncesti din greu. Americanii de rand au aceasta cultura a muncii din greu, fara insa sa ii inteleaga implicatiile psihopatologice pe termen lung. Imaginea lui Obama comunica faptul ca poti ajunge sus daca accepti sa fii jos (sclav), ceea ce este insasi emblema sclavagismului moderat al democratiei. Initial acest Obama a facut senzatie, dar iata ca treptat el se transforma intr-un alt G. Bush, si asta nu prea face bine la sistem. Americanii s-au prins ca traditionala munca grea facuta pentru ridicarea din saracie si implinirea Visului American este un fel de joaca la loterie si ca vasta majoritate a "muncitorilor infernali" raman la acelasi nivel social. Disparitia lui Bin Laden este o alternativa la aceasta amenintatoare criza. Americanii de rand au vrut razboiul din Irak oprit. Asa ca, in conditiile in care imaginea de diavol a lui Bin Laden atragea cu sine pe cea de diavol a lui G.W. Bush, el nu mai era folositor pentru continuarea razboiului.
Fireste, CIA e datoare sa incerce si alte stratageme… Obama a promis retragerea soldatilor americani din Irak dar se cam pare ca si-a cam uitat de promisiune. In al treilea an de domnie, Obama s-a facut ca ploua cu privire la aceasta promisiune facuta americanilor. Mai mult decat atat, a inceput el insusi (ma rog… nu el ci cei din spatele lui, el doar executa ordinele lor) un razboi in Libia. Treptat publicul american incepe sa se cam prinda de minciunile lui Obama. In scurt timp, la fel ca si G.W. Bush, nici el nu cred ca va mai avea tupeul sa iasa intr-un local public sa manance si sa se dea om din popor, pentru ca s-ar putea sa-l jupoaie pacalitii. Cum anul viitor sunt alegeri in SUA, sistemul i-a oferit aceasta bombonica cu Bin Laden capturat pentru poporul american. Intr-un an de zile poporul are timp sa o ingurgiteze si sa ramana cu ideea ca Obama i-a scapat de Osama, si astfel sa castige alegerile in 2012. S-ar putea ca plebea sa uite ca Obama a promis retragerea trupelor din Irak in schimbul acestui praf in ochi ale eliminarii lui Bin Laden. Ce-i drept, presa il sustine…*
Imi vine in minte valul de simpatie obtinut de Ronald Reagan dupa eliberarea ostatecilor americani din Iran in 1981 si, de ce nu, aceeasi poveste imitata la inceputul mandatului lui Basescu de SRI, care inca invata sa se desparta de povara grea a iesirii din vechea „Securitate”. Fiind la inceput de drumocratie, SRI a imitat asa cam kitschos povestea rapitilor de pe timpul lui Reagan, dar cu rezultat destul de evident la acea data pentru publicul electoral needucat din Romania. Dupa criza ostaticilor din 2005, Basescu ajunsese pe la vreo 80% simpatie! Sa vedem cat de naiv e publicul american!
Principala tinta a sistemului e sa ajunga inapoi la increderea pe care cetatenii o aveau in el pe timpul lui Bill Clinton sau Reagan. Prin destramarea mitului Bin Laden autoritatile incearca astazi alte planuri pentru motivarea sclavilor. Asta e… daca oamenii nu mai vor razboi… Nu mai tine cu terorismul. In loc de „razboiul contra terorismului” cu care G.W. Bush isi pavloviza poporul, iata ca Obama si-l pavlovizeaza cu masina electrica si cu alte surse de energie decat petrolul arab. Si iata si miscarea menita sa opreasca razboiul contra terorismului (in traducere – petrolul arab) : s-a descoperit Bin Laden. Ok, nu mai avem terorism, acum hai la munca! Sa vedem insa daca si merge!
Merge pe moment. Numai ca s-ar putea sa nu fie chiar atat de simplu. Pe termen lung, cei 10 ani de petrol ieftin s-ar putea sa fie platiti inzecit. Chiar daca e constituit din profesionisti in manipulare si in psihologie, totusi aparatul propagandistic capitalist s-a lasat influentat de profitul maxim fara sa mearga mai profund cu intelegerea sufletului omului simplu. Treptat, acesta a inceput sa se identifice cu Bin Laden si sa-l dispretuiasca pe Bush impreuna cu statul si institutiile sociale. Cu cat autoritatile au investit in mitul Bin Laden ca diavol insetat de sange, cu atat omul de rand ii construieste mitul de Bin Ladenul haiducul. Bin Laden a ajuns eroul omului simplu, care pupa mana si dosul patronului ziua, insa care totusi parca noaptea l-ar tampona in trafic… Antipatia fata de banci si bancheri, cu practicile lor pradatoriale inumane, il face pe omul simplu sa gandeasca ca o bomba e cam ceea ce ar merita. Raportul de forte intre megaputerea militara si propagandistica a capitalismului si bombele legate cu sarma, impreuna cu camerele neperformante de luat vederi cu care isi inregistra mesajele, reitereaza raportul de forte intre omul simplu semianalfabet si civilizatia care il exploateaza. Exista nik-uri cu numele Bin Laden pe forumuri, exista adrese de e-mail cu acest nume ceea ce atesta ca popularitatea sa pe internet a ajuns la cote incredibile. Lumea e pe punctul de a face o noua Revolutie Franceza. E foarte probabil ca „razboiul contra terorismului” sa fi fost o greseala mult mai mare decat au ajuns in sfarsit corporatistii sa vada…
(actualizare ulterioara: intre timp documentarul The New Pearl Harbor a clarificat totul )
* Pana la urma, soldatii americani din Irak au fost retrasi in decembrie 2011. Obama a castigat la limita alegerile din 2012, prin voturile cetatenilor, cu 51.1%.
Obama versus Osama 3.
The Bin Laden myth
I argued in the previous two articles that the two towers and building 7 collapsing is unlikely to be caused solely by the planes that crushed into them. In this case, Bin Laden could not be condemned for them. In this article I will explain the authorities’ interest to show a devil image to Bin Laden and make him responsible for the 9/ 11 tragedy.
Even if we accept the authority assumption, later transformed into certainty, how that happened on September 11 2011 is caused by all those suicide bombers, then Bin Laden still could not be fairly convicted in a rule of law Western court. This justice hole happened to another big wanted, Slobodan Milosevic. He was brought to the International Tribunal but had great chances to be found not guilty, because nothing could be proved against him. This was the case with Al Capone, the big American gangster that just could not be convicted for murder, as he was guilty. He was convicted only for small crimes like tax evasion and others like that. Saddam Hussein was not finally been convicted for trying to start a chemical war against the West (as was said at the beginning of the war), but also for nonsense like that. As have said here before, I would bet a 50% that Milosevic did not die when the media “soldiers” said that together. I bet he was proposed a deal to disappear somewhere in Latin America in order I do not see how he could be sentenced to evolve as his trial. I bet you made a deal with him to disappear somewhere in Latin America, just because he could not be convicted after the way his trial evolved. All charges against him seemed to be legally unfounded. The world was started to see him as a victim and sympathized more and more with him.
Well, if Milosevic could not be found guilty, having proofs from a whole mechanism of the system organization chart, then how could a specific rule of law court find Bin Laden guilty, since he left no specific documents to the official state records in that time? Bin Laden might have been spoken on the phone to the 9/11 hijackers (dubious thing, anyway, as argued here: http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-contra-osama.html ) that is not at all a proof for taking part of these attacks. That is a hoax provided by see eye earth (CIA) for morons. If a person calls someone, who later commits a crime, that is not an evidence to make it responsible for the crime. This is what the law says. In the worst case scenario, if there are clear evidences that that person knew about the plan crime, only then it could be charged for concealing it. But, in this case, the things are also unclear because that there could not be proven that Bin Laden knew about these attacks. It is really hard to believe that someone could call him on the phone and say it out loud that is going to commit that attacks. And if the CIA, FBI or whatever secret (un)services listened his phone, that later accused him of involvement in 9/11, then why did not prevented the tragedy? Why were the Hamburg cell members allowed to enter the US and, more seriously, why were they allowed to get into those planes?
These are unanswered questions. However, the US authorities had big interest that Bin Laden would have been caught by others and took to court. Moreover, he should not be sent to any Western court, with press allover. We know that the courts themselves are discreetly handled and carefully targeted to condemn Al Capone for other crimes than he deserved. Bin Laden could be accused of many terrorist attacks, but could not be convicted of organizing the 9/11 attacks, and, so much the less, he could not be convicted of taking down the towers, as I said in the previous article. The fact is that, if a Bin Laden trial would have been going the same as the Milosevic’s, then that would not look so good for today’s democracy image. If Bin Laden would have been brought to justice, then the war against terrorism would risk to be perceived actually as a fraud.
However, if really helped with planning 9/11 attacks, I believe Bin Laden regretted a lot after. He regretted not because he killed people, but because he himself was so used by Western manipulation mega empire in such a manner, without being able to do anything to prevent it. If he would have had tried to defend himself and appear before any court, then he have had immediately been lynched. The messages he sent were truncated by CIA agents, infiltrated all over the Arab world. Others were probably made in the political side of Hollywood ...
If someday he was able to understand who challenged, I think Bin Laden very much regretted any either directly or indirectly involvement in the 9/11 events. That is because his killing innocent people cynicism is a nothing compared to capitalism cynicism that worldwide fabricated and used his image as master devil. Many have accepted the capitalism economic colonialism, as disguised in Bin Laden searching for, just by the fear of the devil. His terrorism is poor compared to the half totalitarian organized war that capitalism system can make. His amateur terrorism stands no chance against the terror professionals.
Bin Laden was a naive little power politician. I do not know if he failed to understand that he could not win a war with the West. The proportion is the Polish army who responded with cavalry against the German tanks invasion at the beginning of the Second World War... For almost 10 years he was hunted by digital weapons and demonized by a whole propaganda machine. His more or less handmade bombs are proportionally weaker than Polish cavalry against Hitler’s tanks. After such a military and media arsenal, Al Qaeda was almost entirely wiped out. Hiring new members was hard to be done since his head was priced for 25 million dollars. He was afraid that, among recruits, could be a CIA agent. He was naïve, like I said.
Al Qaeda has been and still is oversized as an organization in order to justify the war. And the war is an essential tool for the capitalism system new (wage) slavery. Being a painted totalitarian or embellished slavery, the democracy can not exist without slaves. And the most direct way to gain slaves is the war. So, the democracy can not exist without war because this is its main characteristic, actually: "kratos", which means power. Accordingly, the power is the ability to give somebody an order to do what you want, under the weapons threat or after the implementation of this threat, by killing those who disobey and do not accept servant status. In the oligarchy the Power belong to the privileged ones only. In tyranny the Power is held by the despot only. In the democracy the Power is held by the majority (demos). However, the Power crime is the same in all of these cases, respectively forcing the conquered to accept your orders. The difference is that, within the democracy, the Power is shared from the center and the periphery, so that many are called to “enjoy” the benefits of slavery ... Unlike tyranny and oligarchy, which openly and cynically show their intention and desire to rule and live by the rule of the jungle, the democracy hide it strategically. The Power crime is justified by demonizing its subdued target. I want something from you and, if you do not willingly give me that thing, then I will find a blemish, pick a hole in your coat so to justify a robbery against you, and still that good from you. Here is a genuine "ego defense mechanism" that Freud spoke, that I have always considered it as "conquest strategy".
The psychoanalysts must see, thus, the "identification with the aggressor" origin!
The problem with the democracy is that it always falls into demagoguery, as the old man Aristotle said. The common people, educated in the spirit of honesty and respect for the law, can not accept that the organization which he or she belongs is going to rob. If the tyrant and the aristocrat steal low classes products without remorse, this is not the “demos” case, as educated in the spirit of "slave morality". It is a sin. It is unfair. You can not go take Iraqi oil without a 9/ 11 and you can not get into the Second World War with Pearl Harbor. After the Second World War, the USSR and communism became the projection subject for war justification. But for about 20 years now, the democracy can no longer blame others, and can no longer justify its totalitarian actions. USSR collapsed and turned into capitalism. China itself has become the theater of the most ferocious capitalism ever seen. Even the old Southern American Marxist guerrillas have started drug business. The communism is apathetically flickering only in the insignificant North Korea or in the dying Cuba. This is too little for the democracy need for war. Luckily, there is Bin Laden's terrorism that can somehow justify the war and, thus, save the economy ... Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are magic! (Sic!).
The ordinary people might be foolish, yet the Bush administration's justification for accepting the war eventually ceased to work anymore. Gradually, inside the people mind slowly but surely began to penetrate these "conspiracy" ideas, although the press, as a faithful dog, has done its job and unilaterally broadcasted the official point of view. However, as the Iraqi war swallowed increasingly more money, and as the American soldiers killed came to double and even triple the number of the 9/ 11 attacks deaths, the public opinion begin to ask delicate questions.
Bin Laden could have been captured long time ago. But, as captured the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was more difficult to sustain. Here is an absolute no way out dilemma! Its devilish image was working for a while, but finally it was over. Among other factors, this social engineering derived in an economic crisis that acted primarily in a crisis of confidence in the values, the institutions and the system. The fact is that, after 10 years of war, the civilized world has had enough of (masked slavery) democracy so that, instead of a typical economical growth, we ended up with a generalized crisis.
The social engineers tested on their own skin that the democracy cannot be pushed beyond its limits. The ordinary citizens might be stupid, but if they find no alternative in official political options, then they might not come to vote anymore so that the democracy and freedom ideas will show an illusory face. And this risk is too great. The disgust towards the system that people felt in the G.W. Bush last part mandate was the deciding factor for the economic crisis emergence that still continues today. And then Obama has been invented, as a machine that ensures about freedom, fairness and the fact that anybody can become president regardless of sex, race, color etc., if you work hard. Ordinary Americans have this culture of working hard, without understanding its long term psychopathological implications. Obama image communicated that you can get up if you accept to be down (slave), and that is the slavery moderate emblem of democracy. Initially this Obama caused sensation, but he gradually turns into another G.W. Bush, and that's not too good for the system. Americans eventually figured out the traditional hard working mentality for getting out of poverty and reaching the American Dream is a kind of lottery playing, so the vast majority of “hard workers” don’t improve at all their social level. Taking Bin Laden off is an alternative to this threatening crisis. The ordinary Americans wanted war in Iraq stopped. So, as the Bin Laden devil image started to associate with the G.W. Bush himself devil image, he was not useful anymore for continuing the war.
I remember the sympathy wave that Ronald Reagan received from after releasing the American hostages from Iran in 1981. We will see how naïve is the American public! The system main target is to get back the trust that people had during Bill Clinton or Reagan presidency. After the Bin Laden myth collapse, the authorities try other plans for motivating today slaves. That is it... since people do not want war anymore ... The terrorism doesn’t work anymore. Instead of "war on terror" that GW Bush pavloved his people, it is clear that Obama also pavlove it with the electric car project and other energy sources than the oil Arab. And here it is the movement designed to stop the war on terror (meaining – the Arab oil): Bin Laden was found. Ok, there is no terrorism anymore, now let's go to work! Let see if it works!
It works for the moment. But that might not be quite that simple. On long-term, the 10 years of cheap oil could be tenfold paid. Even if it is build up by manipulation and psychology professionals, still the capitalist propaganda machine was caught inside the maximal profit without going deeper in understanding simple human soul. Gradually, the common people began to identify with Bin Laden and abhor Bush among the State and social institutions. The more the authorities have invested in the Bin Laden myth as bloodthirsty devil, the more the common people built its own Bin Laden myth as a new Robin Hood. Bin Laden became the simple man hero, who kisses the employer’s hand and the back, but who would very much like to crush in the night traffic... The antipathy towards banks and bankers, with their inhuman predators practice, makes common people think that a bomb is about what they deserve. Balance of power between military and propaganda capitalism megapower and wire tied bombs, with cheap cameras that recorded their messages, reiterates the power balance between ordinary half non-literate people and the oppressive exploiter civilization. There are Bin Laden avatar names on web forums as there also are e-mail accounts with that name, which indicates that his popularity on the Internet has reached incredible levels. The world is on the verge of a new French Revolution. It is very likely that the "war on terror" have been a much bigger mistake than corporatists finally came to see ...
(later edit : in the meantime there was released the documentary The New Pearl Harbor that clarifired everything )
* Eventually, the American soldiers were withdrawn from Iraq in December 2011. Obama won the 2012 elections, by the citizens’ votes, with 51.1%.
