Ouch …

Iraq War and the American Peasant
By Christopher King
Redress, January 8, 2007

Christopher King explores the phenomenon of the American peasant – that segment of US society which, through suspension of all critical faculties and indifference to the truth, defy logic and evidence by supporting the war against Iraq.

The peasant is a type who has disappeared from Western Europe with excellent effects both socially and politically. The American peasant however has a lot to answer for. This is most vividly shown in the public’s judgment about the rightness of the Iraq war where views are sharply divided between Europe and America.

The historical peasant was an agricultural worker who was poor, uneducated and usually worked so hard he had no time or energy for anything else. Any opinions or judgments that such a man might make would necessarily be of poor quality. In America, the land of plenty, opportunity and electronic information which has never seen a peasant class of this sort, how can the peasant possibly exist and indeed be blamed for his judgments?

I wish to discuss here one strand, but an important one, of many that made the Iraq war possible. Others for example are those of the Rumsfelds who were in it for the money, the Condoleezza Rices and Colin Powell who were careerists and the Richard Perles together with sundry Zionist supporters and collaborators for whom Saddam was their worst enemy. We can easily understand them and their self-interests. Everyone got what s/he wanted except for Colin Powell whose unwise United Nations performance in identifying mobile chemical factories will make him a joke far beyond his lifetime. I am not concerned about these. I am interested in the major segment of quiet peasants who believed uncritically what they were told and supported the war by their compliance. I am speaking of a peasant state of mind. We cannot blame our historical peasant for poor judgment or lack of knowledge. He cannot help his position. The American peasant has no such excuse.

The infallible test for identifying a peasant is whether he believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. It is an unarguable fact, widely known for years, that Saddam was not behind it, yet large numbers of Americans to this day think that he was. In linking Saddam with 9/11, President Bush simply lied, for reasons that seemed good to him, but his lies are not my concern. I am concerned that he never produced evidence and it was widely publicised at the time that there was no such evidence, yet much of the country believed him. The highest proportion of believers were, and still are, Fox News viewers. Fox News, the principal channel to assert a link between Saddam and 9/11, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a Jewish Zionist. From a Zionist perspective, that was clever misinformation, aimed at an audience that would accept it. But why would anyone accept it? Only by suspension of all critical faculties, curiosity about American society, the wider world and indeed, one’s information provider. I would also add indifference to the truth, which is crucial in matters of warfare and the lives of men. The American peasant cannot protect his country as he believes he is doing because by his indifference, ignorance and credulity he cannot differentiate truth from falsehood. He is as indistinguishable from our traditional peasant as if we were to take that worthy individual, dress him in a suit, sit him for the day before a television screen showing Fox News in a suburban house with new car in the garage then in the evening, ask his opinion on world events.

Read all of it here.

This entry was posted in RagBlog. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.