THE U.S. IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE EAST TO SECURE CHEAP OIL BUT TO MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE
by G. Edward Griffin 2006 September 8
Alex Jones is one of my favorite guerilla journalists. He goes where the timid will never be seen. And he is in a hurry. He shoots from the hip, which means that once in a while he may not get the facts entirely right; but, most of the time, he hits the bull’s-eye with his first shot. He is loud. He is crude. And he has done more to awaken the sleeping masses to the truth than anyone else on the scene today. I really like Alex Jones. So it is with great misgivings that I venture to say anything negative about him; but, in the case of the substance of this analysis, I have no choice because important strategic and ideological principles are at stake.
On June 19, 2006, Alex interviewed Greg Palast on his radio show. Greg is author of Big Oil and the Armed Madhouse. It is an excellent interview because it exposes one of the greatest myths of our time. The myth is that the United States, under the influence of the large oil companies, has invaded the Middle East to capture its vast oil reserves with the goal of lowering the price of oil to America. The reality is just the opposite. It is true that the United Sates has invaded the Middle East to capture its vast oil reserves, but the goal is, not to hold down the price of oil, but to limit its production so that the price can rise. Palast produces documents proving that the official government policy is to strengthen the oil cartel known as OPEC so it can limit production and increase profit margins. Saddam had violated OPEC production limits and had to be eliminated. The public must be made aware of these facts because, otherwise, even those Americans who are not happy with the war in the Middle East will tolerate it on the false assumption that, at least, their government is acting in their best interest. That is the reason we are posting this video interview.
But the plot thickens. About a third into the interview, we learn that Palast visited Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and finds him to be an acceptable ally against OPEC and the Bush-Big-Oil alliance. He uncritically accepts the alleged humanitarian motivation of the Chavez regime and praises his achievements since coming to power. He says he traveled with Chavez and personally witnessed the large turnouts at his political rallies, but made no mention of (or perhaps failed to see) the Communist Party organization that generated those crowds. In other words, Palask unwittingly serves as a propagandist for the Leninist branch of world collectivism. When a lady called in to say that she had lived in Venezuela and felt that the listening audience should know that Chavez was far from the humanitarian that he was being portrayed, Alex cut her off, saying that criticism of Chavez was not relevant because he was opposing the Bush-OPEC alliance. And Palast agreed.
I was dumbfounded. This was essentially the same as George Bush saying: “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” But this time, it was: “Either you are with Chavez or you are with Bush.” Once again, we are being herded into a two-chute coral. As usual, we are presented with two variations of collectivism. We are asked to choose either the Nazi model or the Soviet model. If we don’t like the Nazi model in the U.S., then we must agree that the Soviet model in Venezuela is better or at least acceptable, and we mustn’t say anything negative about its leaders or its failures or especially about its ultimate goals being the same as the Nazi model.
I don’t know if Jones or Palast have thought this all the way through or if they are even aware of the deeper conflict between collectivism and individualism. Perhaps they were just so filled with disgust for Bush and Company that they were in no mood for analysis. However, since I am recommending that you take the time to listen to this important interview, I feel obligated to caution you about this false choice.
Here is the link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3641043830777908106&q=911.