Response to Francis Boyle’s ‘2011: Prospects for Humanity?’ By Zahir Ebrahim

Response to Francis Boyle’s ‘2011: Prospects for Humanity?’ – Unlimited Imperialism and Nation-States but no Secret Rule by Oligarchy for World Government!

Zahir Ebrahim | Project

Friday, January 07, 2011

After reading Francis A. Boyle’s missive with the overarching title “2011: Prospects for Humanity?”, I now perhaps begin to fathom why the Ph.D. professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, author of two of my favorite books on informed activism from which I have learnt a great deal: “Protesting Power: War, Resistance, and Law” and “Biowarfare and Terrorism”, does not recognize the real prime-movers of hegemony and ‘unlimited imperialism’. By his own admission that he is a Hans Morgenthau protégé, the fog is gently lifting on why Dr. Boyle always only focuses on the state’s actions and crimes, never on those who control the state from behind the scenes with their hired front-men and errand boys serving only their narrow interests in the guise of Elected Representatives of the People.

I never understood this before, and wrote letters upon letters to Dr. Francis Boyle rationally pleading with him to focus on the prime-movers, to obviously no avail. Letters like these:

Well, it is now clear why Francis Boyle never responded to appeals to look behind the puppetshows of statecraft to directly spotlight the puppetmasters.

Hans Morgenthau, his teacher, principally saw nation-states as the key actors of power. The errand boys running the Pentagon and the White House and the Congress were deemed the real players of power projection. They were implicitly defined as the ruling elite in the military-industrial complex. The calculus of power realism therefore, was principally to be understood in the context of nation-states exercising ‘unlimited imperialism’ by these power-brokers alone, never the financial oligarchy ruling the super-power nation-state, the United States of America, from behind the scene for their own narrow interests which had nothing to do with nation-state’s best interests, let alone the nation’s people’s best interests.

A strategic omission?

Was this error in calibration of foreign policy calculus deliberate?

Well, where did Francis Boyle study? Chicago and Harvard of course. Do they mention the Federal Reserve System over there? Do they mention money as debt, or ever wonder why the hell does a super power have to pay private bankers the interest on the national currency? Do they mention the names of the Rockefeller family donors, unless laudatorily, as when David Rockefeller recently donated $400 million to Harvard? Do they mention the House of Rothschilds, heaven forbid, except when ordering their champagne by the cart full? Is there some on-going discussion at the Kennedy school of government, or in the political science departments of Chicago, Harvard, and Princeton, of how tax-exempt foundations hiding the immense wealth of the Black Nobility, whom I call the financial oligarchs, actually fabricate the policies for the elected errand-boys and appointed ministers at the Pentagon and the Treasury to execute? Policies which are designed at the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, at the AEI and the hundred think-tanks along the Potomac, to incrementally, and diabolically, lead to Global Governance by breaking up the United States and all nation-states by stages: “In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” And all this agenda wasn’t known in the aftermath of World War II? Not in the aftermath of World War I?

Oh really!

See my article:

And by Francis Boyle’s own interesting admissions elsewhere of his experience at America’s finest universities, it is all the more evident what imperial institutions pursue, and not pursue, in the service of empire. Why would students who study in these imperial institutions, and the professors who teach there, be any more immune from the core assumed axioms of empire which almost become second nature like the air we breathe, than the rest of the intellectuals, engineers, and scientists who willingly help construct empire in the rest of the vast military-industrial-thinktank complex of the West? All share common assumptions, assumption which they leave unexamined, or belittle when brought to the fore. Here is the latest example from the modern epoch, of a Harvard professor seeking greener pastures at Google, The Master Builders of the Technetronic Era – sharing common axioms wherever one looks, albeit at different levels of abstraction based on each individual’s role in the imperial system.

Thus, in the dissent-space located in Hans Morgenthau’s axiomatic world of which Francis Boyle is evidently a zealot member by his own admission, when nation-state’s international policies go awry, become criminal, as in America’s many senseless wars of evidently imperialism but with little national gain except to the military-industrial complex coffers due to military spendings, the elected representatives of the people are the first criminals, along with the overt bureaucracy and the visible officialdom. Thus, the analyses of just those visible imperial policies gone awry, and the criminal actors enacting them, in just that singular context of nation-state’s “negotiating” their power-interests on the Grand Chessboard, is deemed sufficient to explain the entire calculus of hegemony in that worldview.

But is that really sufficient? Or, like the iceberg that shows, is it merely the 10% agenda visible above the surface?

All the examples of imperialism cited by Prof. Francis Boyle in his missive above, from ancient Alexander-Roman-Muslim empires to America’s wars today, exactly reflect that principle of officialdom and visible rulers, kings and monarchs, being the main ruling elite of the empire. The overt rulers of empires in all of history that Francis Boyle refers to, were almost always indeed their main ruling elite. They were not like the iceberg. Thus the Hans Morgenthau world of dissent could be applicable to them – if it was permitted to exist at the time under the absolutist powers of the kings.

But is that really the case for the sole-superpower, the United States of America, where “democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”, where “deception is the state of mind and the mind of state”, where pretexts for imperial mobilizations are diabolically fabricated and shrewdly harnessed, where the freedoms of Orwell, of Machiavelli, of manufactured consent and manufactured dissent, of social engineering, is their prized gift to mankind?

Only in absurdities, and only for intellectual savants living in the vast immanent spaces of academe with no bearing in empiricism which can otherwise see them terminated of their over-rated services for which they are paid aplenty as professors spitting in the same plate which feeds them; i.e., critiquing the very empire they draw their lucrative salaries from. Dissent of professors on the payroll of empire – can they ever penetrate the semi-transparent veil to reveal the real corridors of power, by definition, except in enacting the shadowplay as in Plato’s cave?

And can those living in that Plato’s cave ever figure out the reality of what’s going on by studying the shadowplay being enacted on the screen for their benefit?

That’s what the noble jurist Francis Boyle’s life’s work has evidently been focussed on – the visible puppethsows enacted on Plato’s cave and bringing those actors to justice!

Noam Chomsky easily comes to mind as the one who most closely resembles Francis Boyle when I read statements like these in “2011: Prospects for Humanity?”: “By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention.” Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system – oil and gas.” – but I don’t think Chomsky’s teacher was Hans Morgenthau.

I suspect Noam Chomsky is almost entirely self-taught in his controlled and very measured dissent, especially of 9/11, that it was an invasion from abroad, directly echoing the Pentagon’s core-message, with soulful inspiration of dissent drawn from the likes of atheist like Bertrand Russell and the fabians, anarchists, and every brand of rebel except the one who can spell Rothschild, Rockefeller, ‘inside job’.

And like the distinguished Noam Chomsky, “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, the much respected Francis Boyle among the dissent crowd, too evidently pretends by way of omission that such evergreen statements of the Rothschild’s: “give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws” is merely folklore at best, and of no immediate pertinence in comprehending the real calculus of real power-projection of nation-states for ‘unlimited imperialism’ from behind the scenes, because, as it’s now clear, his mentor, Hans Morgenthau, too acted in precisely that way, obviously sharing in the same pretenses that nation-states are the principal prime-movers in the exercise of hegemony, and teaching his students the same sense of justice as he had.

Indeed, un-remarkably, all three lauded intellectual savants, Morgenthau, Chomsky, Boyle, share the same core-axioms regarding power inflexion – all deny, by omission, the hidden power of the oligarchic elite which piggy-backs upon the facade of Representative Government to pursue their own private globalist agenda. The following paper by Ola Tunundar of Oslo quotes Hans Morgenthau presenting an ostensibly empirical, but in my view a rather distorted model of the American governance system characterized as such by what it omits more than what it actually states:

After September 11, the US ‘democratic state’ (characterised by openness, legal procedures and free elections) is forcefully supported by or rather subsumed under a US ‘security state’ (characterised by secrecy and military hierarchy). Much of public life is ‘securitized’12 and the president and his close advisers are focused on the War on Terror, not on civilian matters. ‘I am a war president. I make decisions … with war on my mind’, President Bush said.13 The security aspect of the state is invading the public sphere as if we were entering a creeping state of emergency. ‘Emergency power’14 is used to direct the policy of the democratic state. In 1955, Hans Morgenthau wrote about a US ‘dual state’ in a study of US State Department.15

According to Morgenthau there was both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’, or what I will call a ‘security state’ (in some countries called ‘deep state’16) that acts in parallel to the former, while it monitors and controls the former. The latter ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state, to quote Morgenthau.17 The ‘democratic state’ and the ‘security state’ always ‘march side by side’,18 and while the ‘democratic state’ offer legitimacy to security politics the ‘security state’ intervenes if necessary by limiting the range of democratic politics.

Others would argue that the activity of the ‘deep state’ or ‘security state’ not just concerns the veto of democratic decisions but also the ‘fine tuning of democracy’,19 for example by ‘fostering’ the war or the limited war in order to externalize conflicts and provide internal stability. The ‘security state’ is able to calibrate or manipulate the policies of the ‘democratic state’.

The ‘security state’ decides over life and death, it is always present, and it will act in case of ‘emergency’. This apparatus defines when a ‘state of emergency emerge’. This is what Carl Schmitt would call the ‘sovereign’,20 and by ‘securitizing’ the political life, the democratic state looses its influence.

After September 11, the US administration has securitized what used to be public and tilted the balance in favour of the ‘security state’. To many Europeans, the new US policy is difficult to understand. The Guardian and BBC say that the ‘Big Brother will be watching America’.21” — Ola Tunundar, 2004, The Use of Terrorism to Construct World Order

Even in that admission of ‘security state’, there is no admission of an oligarchy. Is it even implied that it exists, and works in its own private interests, as opposed to the nation’s it piggy-backs upon? That entire construct is visibly absent from Hans Morgenthau’s formulation, just as it is absent from his student’s formulation, that a ruling oligarchic power works for its own private agenda, openly proclaiming at the Council on Foreign Relations: “In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” (See Hard Road to World Order, Foreign Affairs, 1974)

The apparatus of ‘security state’ in Hans Morganthau’s world is still only nation-state driven, which, in order to effectuate unpopular policies – because “democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization” as per Zbigniew Brzezinski’s grandiose insights noted in his Grand Chessboard – engages in acts in the nation-state’s own imperial interests by resorting to non-democratic means of its ‘security state’.

Furthermore, Morganthau presumes like every other patriotic American imbued with the spirit of Americanism, that the democratic state itself is genuine: “The ‘democratic state’ and the ‘security state’ always ‘march side by side’,18 and while the ‘democratic state’ offer legitimacy to security politics the ‘security state’ intervenes if necessary by limiting the range of democratic politics.”. Not wanting to write a Ph.D. dissertation here, if there is any doubt that American Democracy, whether as the ‘democratic state’, or the ‘security state’, is entirely stage-managed by the errand boys of the oligarchy for their own private agenda, dutifully enacting the policies handed them by the privately funded, unelected, tax-exempt foundations and myriad think-tanks of the oligarchs, please see my analysis and advocacy written before the 2008 elections which examines this virtuous presumption of the scholars of empire spanning the gamut of Left and Right: Not-Voting is a ‘YES’ vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy!.

In these constrained formulations of Hans Morganthau, all these are very nuanced but significant omissions. Permit me to enumerate their import lest it be lost on the ‘likkha-parrha jahils’ of modernity (uber-educated Ivy League morons):

1) These omissions entirely distort the picture of reality because they fail to identify the real prime-movers who run the superpower under varying abstractions of democracy which the academic pundits, and political scientists, love to write their lofty theses on. Witness Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations for instance, which carries the same bogus spirit of America is a ‘democratic state’.

2) These omissions mask the real causes of world wars, the real causes of ‘clash of civilizations’ and other dysfunctions, and the real purpose behind the apparatus of the national ‘security state’ which can freely employ extra-constitutional means when the ‘democratic state’ reaches its limits of operation, as they ‘march side by side’.

3) These omissions entirely mask the diabolical baby-steps undertaken by both flavor of ‘state’ in synchronous lockstep to achieve only a common agenda, the ‘democratic state’ by signing treaties and enacting laws and statutes, and the ‘security state’ by creating international pretexts and controlling domestic politics.

And what is that common agenda? Is this such a state-secret that brilliant academic savants need a plebeian to inform them?

Since each of the two state abstractions work for the same oligarchy, their common purpose is primarily the implementation of the oligarchic agenda.

Empiricism confirms that it is for destroying the existing world order in systematic stages through domestic and international crises creation – “what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times” as David Ben Gurion explained the Jewish theft of Palestine and the key Machiavellian modus operandi for all unpopular transformations, re-echoed by PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses as “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” – in order to seed a new world order exclusively controlled by the bankster oligarchy!

It was the ‘democratic state’ which enacted in the United States the abhorrent Federal Reserve System in 1913 after the manufactured banking crises of 1900s in the name of banking reform. That gave away the store to the banksters, as per their own admission: “give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws”. It was the ‘security state’ which carried out the 9/11 false-flag operation upon its own nation, like Hitler’s ‘operation canned goods’, in response to which the ‘democratic state’ declared war on the world with “either you are with us, or with the terrorists” and enacted police-state laws labeled ‘Patriot Acts’ to fight terrorism. But the real purpose of such “revolutionary times” is betrayed in Bertrand Russell’s Impact of Science on Society where, as the preeminent scholar of the oligarchs, he glibly created justifications: “World government could only be kept in being by force.”

As one can glean from this brief deconstruction, it is only to serve the oligarchic agenda of diabolically seeding World Government, and not the national interest of the nation-state’s politics, which drives the ‘security state’ and the ‘democratic state’ to ‘march side by side’.

Evidently, this lesson has been well un-learned by the student of Hans Morganthau.

Continuing further with the listing of common grounds among these intellectual savants, all deny, by omission again, the existence of black-ops and false-flag events employed to deceive the peoples of the world in order to mobilize for the agendas of the oligarchic elite which often has nothing to do as the long-term best interest agenda of the superpower nation-state itself. From the off-shoring of jobs to the criminal wars since 9/11, all leading America to enormous debt, moral and physical bankruptcy, laid at the helm of the White House! But the terrorist act of 9/11 itself? Oh, that was the foreign invasion because of which America had to hunker down into Fortress America! And whom is Francis Boyle pursuing for Justice? See his Bush To The Hague campaign for War-Crime: Extraordinary Rendition, noted in my letter. Whom is Chomsky calling criminal? That’s right, only the White House and the Pentagon for their imperial war-making upon Afghanistan and Iraq – and making a fair buck peddling the 9/11 fiction of blowback invasion from abroad in the true spirit of enterprising capitalism. See Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist by Peter Schweizer at the Hoover Institution.

Finally, all deny, by omission once again, that the superpower merely acts as the vassal of the elite, just like the neo-colonized developing nations run by petty dictators and the facade of electoral democracy, act as the vassals of the superpower! Hans Morgenthau, like George Kennan, did not recognize that the Soviet Union was a fabricated Hegelian Dialectic. See George Kennan’s PPS 23 for how he staged the Cold War principles in 1948, which later came to be called the Truman Doctrine. But when one reads Antony Sutton and W. Cleon Skousen, as many others including Carroll Quigley, one begins to understand the National Suicide and Communism-Capitalism nexus being run by the same oligarchy attempting to create World Government along Karl Marx’s manifesto! Never learnt these aspects from Chomsky, even though I learnt of George Kennan’s PPS 23 from his writings. Half-truth telling in narratives is a characteristic trademark of these scholars. Recalling my favorite sociologist and novelist Aldous Huxley’s insights on crafty silence from his Brave New World:

The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative.’ — Aldous Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11

Similarly, today Chomsky and Boyle not recognizing 9/11 was another staged ‘operation canned goods’ to seed another World War, a lifetime of perpetual war, the World War IV, and continually holding that Islamofascism attacked America from outside, but that America, in its unbridled imperialism, “By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire …”, make them out to be cut from the same imperialist cloth as Morgenthau.

But I could not ever comprehend how some stellar scholars of high moral conscience become controlled dissent spewing red herrings – cleverly cultivated by empire to head-off all efficacy in protests by having them focus on the ‘effects’ and not the prime-mover ’cause’, or, identifying the causes incorrectly or somewhere lower in the hierarchy than the root – despite the fact of the matter that they often appeared to be employed and handsomely paid from the same military-industrial-academe coffers they dared to call criminal, and thus, obviously enjoying the quid pro quo!

Now I finally begin to understand, at least in Dr. Francis Boyle’s case, why almost all of this moral jurist’s public quests for justice remain so severely emasculated. And why does he persist in fingering only the visible flag-bearers of the hidden-only-in-plain-sight-oligarchy who can forever comfortably remain behind the scenes as always, secure from his and everyone else’s legal and conspiratorial scrutiny.

Finally I seem to have penetrated the dark mystery of why such a distinguished, moral, and fearless professor, Dr. Francis Boyle, can exhibit such severe myopia that he begins to resemble my former professor Noam Chomsky.

The key which has surely unlocked that transparent door past which I could not see earlier: Dr. Francis Boyle had Hans Morganthau as his main teacher in life:

‘So I commenced my formal study of International Relations with the late, great Hans Morgenthau in the first week of January 1970 as a 19 year old college sophomore at the University of Chicago by taking his basic introductory course on that subject. At the time, Morgenthau was leading the academic forces of opposition to the detested Vietnam War, which is precisely why I chose to study with him. During ten years of higher education at the University of Chicago and Harvard, I refused to study with openly pro-Vietnam-War professors as a matter of principle and also on the quite pragmatic ground that they had nothing to teach me.

In the summer of 1975, it was Morgenthau who emphatically encouraged me to become a professor instead of doing some other promising things with my life: “If Morgenthau thinks I should become a professor, then I will become a professor!” After almost a decade of working personally with him, Morgenthau provided me with enough inspiration, guidance, and knowledge to last now almost half a lifetime.’ — Francis Boyle in 2011: Prospects for Humanity?

Would it be rude to suggest: Dr. Francis Boyle – get some new teachers!

Lest this cynical Realityspeak injure priceless sensibilities, appear arrogant, not exude enlightened moderation, nor be deferential enough, it might help one to remember who is daring to speak up while others applaud the dissent-chiefs – the ‘untermensch’ whose devastated nations and peoples are bearing the full brunt of the moral silence on the first-cause primemovers of all crimes against humanity. Silence on the prime-movers is not only a betrayal, but makes one complicit in the continuation of crimes against humanity and the elongation of the suffering of the victims. By focussing on the effect, the errand boys, and leaving the first-cause, the puppetmasters, entirely occulted from scrutiny for whatever reasons of expediency, only enables more war-mongering, and more crimes against humanity to be committed by the new set of errand boys to come on stage after the current ones have served their term. This is entirely empirical going from President Bush to President Obama.

And where has Dr. Francis Boyle laid his justice eggs at the International Criminal Court? Right – chasing the old retired errand boys, and for what crimes – Extraordinary Rendition – never mind indicting the new ones perpetrating new abhorrences as we speak, forget ever mentioning the puppetmasters, and 9/11 as an inside job orchestrated to create the right sequence of crises to launch the oligarchs’ transformation towards Global Governance. If calling these absurdities of lauded dissent-chiefs which make a mockery of the pursuit of justice, ill-mannered, then, so be it – it is the least a plebe can do as no one who is someone pays any attention to the prime-movers who keep on bleeding the ‘untermenschen’ to death!

Protesting Power: War, Resistance, and Law” is surely a categorical imperative of all moral men and women when power is instantiated criminally.

But, solely paying attention to the henchmen and the trigger-pullers while ignoring the prime-movers, is the core unsolved problem. It is what makes protest futile. it is what lends zero efficacy to all moral activism for justice and peace. See “Who is more guilty of monumental war crimes – the prime-movers or trigger pullers?”. This same blindsight is what makes all attempts at meaningful reform destined to fail so long as the prime-movers are left intact to protect their turf. See “Letter to Bill Still – Director of The Secret of Oz – How”.

Now, just imagine, if only for a fleeting moment, moral and upstanding citizens, scholars and jurists, activists and rebels, statesmen and congressmen, seeking justice and reforms to benefit all ‘untermenschen’ and not just their own particular clique and clan, all focussing solely on the prime-movers for a change, each according to their expertise and capacities! I dare say we might yet have an even battlefield. We might be minnows, but, as nature demonstrates to us humans repeatedly: sharks need minnows more than minnows need sharks.

Thank you.

Submitted as comment for article: (Cached)

N.B. April 13, 2013

Also see Why does Iran need the help of an American Lawyer to file charges at ICJ?

The following statement of Hans Joachim Morgenthau (February 17, 1904 – July 19, 1980) sums up the RealitySpeak behind his prized protégé Francis A. Boyle’s moral activism visible in the above deconstruction: “The statesman must think in terms of the national interest, conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman’s thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil.” (wiki)

It is a tad convenient that ubermensch Hans Joachim Morgenthau did not perceive the elephant in the bedroom – the puppetmasters behind the scenes – in his amoral calculus of power, as most of them post World War I and II down to today, in fact ever since the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, happen to be the Jewish banking power, Morgenthau himself being a Jew. Even a cursory read of Colonel Edward Mandell House’s fable “Philip Dru: Administrator; A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935” would have revealed to both Morgenthau and his brilliant law protégé from Harvard, that statesmen and politicians in modern America are mere puppets of the financial oligarchy, the so called Money Trust – even if empirical data of hard reality, never mind that establishmentarian academics like Caroll Quigley themselves boldly revealed the behind the scenes power nexus, was lost upon them. Among other matters Morgenthau taught his prized student goy, were the following “Six Principles of Political Realism” (from wikipedia):

  1. Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.

  2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power, which infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political realism avoids concerns with the motives and ideology of statesmen. Political realism avoids reinterpreting reality to fit the policy. A good foreign policy minimizes risks and maximizes benefits.

  3. Realism recognizes that the determining kind of interest varies depending on the political and cultural context in which foreign policy is made. It does not give “interest defined as power” a meaning that is fixed once and for all.

  4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. Realism maintains that universal moral principles must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place, because they cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation.

  5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe.

  6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere; he asks “How does this policy affect the power and interests of the nation?” Political realism is based on a pluralistic conception of human nature. The political realist must show where the nation’s interests differ from the moralistic and legalistic viewpoints.”

Like teacher like student!. Dissent emanating from these brilliant American minds remain an integral part of engineering consent — as this type of dissent in Western society is ab initio designed to be a “collection agency”; to collect the ordinary dissenting popular mind “unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman’s thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil.”, around them. It is intended to be ineffective as a measure of democratic public opinion no differently than the palliative which only treats symptoms rather than root cause. To understand why dissent must be manufactured in realpolitik based democratic governance for the type-2 crowd who willingly follow any dissenting pied pipers with great moral glee even if on the treadmill of inefficacy, see the extensive case studies by this scribe titled Manufacturing Dissent.

Source URL:

Mirror URL:


The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at He may be reached at Verbatim reproduction license at

First Published Friday, January 07, 2011 | Updated 04/13/2013 15:15:25 5355 (N.B. Added)

Response to Francis Boyle’s ‘2011: Prospects for Humanity?’ By Zahir Ebrahim 14/14