Eschew obfuscation: thoughts on Feinstein's Shadow World

            Recently read the chapter “Buckling to Bandar” in Shadow World by Andrew Feinstein.  Definitely provided some pertinent food for thought re: ethics.  My questions can relate to any/current instances where governments change the rules for those they owe their power to.  Or I mean those that the government serves.  Ah ethics, what a beguiling subject.  Consider an arms deal that began in that magical decade of the eighties:

            What does it mean when a gov’t as large as the United Kingdom’s buckles to business interests?  At issue is a multibillion pound arms contract with the gov’t of Saudi Arabia that saw delivery of materiel in exchange for oil begin in the eighties.  The most recent contract in the ongoing deal began in 2006.  The industry and gov’t both stressed how important the deal was for jobs and for security.  On the flip side, the investigators – the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) – said their mandate went beyond such considerations.  So what about national interest, said the SFO: they were investigating in the name of a higher principle.  The gov’t and the Defenc(s)e contractor involved, BAE, felt national interests superseded this principle.

            Allegedly Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia communicated to the UK that if the investigation was not halted his state would reject the deal causing 1) UK workers to miss out on jobs, 2) forcing SA to shop elsewhere which wouldn’t be difficult, and 3) potentially allowing would-be terrorists to take hold in the momentary vacuum where SA was without the latest technology therefore not allowing them to pull the strings they usually do in the Middle East.

            So, I know, minutiae of overseas corruption.  It is interesting just to consider as an ethical case though – and set aside how the US could be doing (does do?) similar things.  In the al Yamamah deal discussed above (and yeah, Margaret Thatcher’s son was involved (getting paid) and the deal has been called “who’s your mama?”) the gov’t seemed to re-write a subscribed to ethical system that had had seen the creation of the SFO.

            What does it mean when an ethical system is revised or when it comes with an asterisk?  What if your continued existence as a person or a country is put in jeopardy if you or your nation can’t allow a little wiggle-room in matters ethical?  Does it change one to not live up to self-decided ethical standards?  Or is it just a needed revision?  Maybe the ends justify the means and staying alive trumps any way of life that could extinguish that life, however disreputable it makes one.

            Where does the appeal to ethics come from?  Well, religions supply many ethical systems.  Considering how religion can set such high standards it is perhaps understandable why people and people acting through gov’t fail to comply. 

            To conclude I would argue that re-establishing one’s ethical guidelines does change one.  As I’ve discussed before I am not exactly speaking from a religious perspective.  But I believe that is why asking forgiveness is a built-in feature of (at least) Christianity.  The new person, or state, no longer agrees that the old ethics are correct and therefore do not need to seek forgiveness for a wrong never committed.

Paging Drs. Chomsky and Greer

When we democratize these technologies and allow them to be available throughout the world, we will have to put a seat at the geo-political table for the people of Africa, the people of India, the people of China, the people of Southeast Asia, the people of Central America – all around the world.  And there are people who don’t want to share that power.

 – Dr. Steven Greer, "The Promise of New Energy"

 

            I think there is a connection between what may however pejoratively be called left wing ideas and the ideas of a gamut of conspiracy theorists.  I think they are both going after core injustices, just from different perspectives.  At first glance it is easy to say that some on the left are dealing with facts, while conspiracy people – not having or not understanding or not willing to engage with facts – must use metaphor: the amorphous realm of the Illuminati is in point of fact the global corporations with their interlocking directorates and their revolving doors intimately linking them to halls of political power.  Instead of the government covering up extraterrestrial technology that could cleanly alleviate an energy crisis and feed the world’s poor what the government does hide it hides in plain sight – legislative decisions aiding entrenched interests, government policies enacted on the sly that only members of the left versed in such tactics understand and try to communicate to the society at large.  In many respects what those on the left and those espousing conspiracy popularly receive is the same: inattention or ridicule.

            Is this unfair to conspiracy people – me saying that they are unable to deal with facts and have to resort to a WWE-like description of reality?  To counter I would say that conspiracy-people’s willingness to think so far outside of the norm is a boon.  I think some researches are on to some topics that even the left are unable to conceptualize.  Steven Greer’s ethics are comparable to Noam Chomsky’s when it comes to compassion for the world- and domestic-poor and the desire to provide them a fair chance.  Both outside of the mainstream, Dr. Greer’s solutions are rooted in pragmatism as much as Dr. Chomsky’s are, albeit Greer is calling on government disclosure of all in know re: ETs and ET technology that would enable us to provide energy for the world at relatively no cost.

            My favorite thing, and the thing that makes me feel vindicated, is when there is a cross-over between the left and the so-called conspiracy theorists.  Chris Hedges showing up on Alex Jones’ show and having them come the same conclusions was terrific to watch.  Russia Today’s Max Keiser sort of blurs the line to some degree: esp. see his blueprint for bringing down JP Morgan – "the biggest financial terrorist on Wall Street”. 

            In the end both camps try to live in truth as they understand the truth to be.  Perhaps it is the various backgrounds of the various people involved and their respective, sundry followers simply having different capacities for conceptualizing the world.  I think the two sides may learn from each other – why not?  An even more holistic approach can only make them stronger.