Get PJ Media on your Apple

‘The CIA Did It’: Conspiracy Theories in the Service of the ‘Common Good’

Obama is fully invested — as is Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and bin Laden — in old KGB lies about CIA "imperialism." The realities of the post-Cold War world are causing them problems. (This is part six of a series. Read parts one, two, three, four, and five.)

by
Oleg Atbashian

Bio

August 30, 2009 - 12:05 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Sticking with the tradition, Chavez’s friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is also blaming Iran’s turmoil on the CIA. Factual or not, the propagandistic value of this charge is obvious. The CIA conspiracy card never failed to mesmerize the left-leaning Western intellectuals, especially those involved in producing the most powerful propaganda vehicles of all: Hollywood movies.

The latter are an especially easy target. Hollywood stars such as Redford, Stone, Clooney, Penn, Soderbergh, and many others may style themselves as unconventional rebels, but their political creativity is limited strictly to the reshuffling of worn-out propagandistic conventions. No matter how entertaining the patterns in their political kaleidoscope may appear, looking at the world though a mirror tube filled with one and the same set of colored pieces hasn’t yet helped anyone to understand the reality of existence. If you disagree, try and talk politics to a “truther.”

Those who believe that America, not the Soviet Union, was the engine behind the Cold War conflicts are not equipped to understand the current change in world dynamics.

Indeed, if the USSR was not the driving force, then its disappearance shouldn’t bring any change. And yet change is significant — but since it doesn’t fit their template, it is being axiomatically dismissed as the result of American interference.

If in the past they believed that the Soviet menace was fiction, today this logic leads them to believe that Islamic extremism, Iran, and the 9/11 attacks are merely a new fiction designed to replace the old fiction — all, of course, invented by the CIA and the military-industrial complex in order to justify their existence and perpetuate U.S. imperialism — which is the only absolute, transcendental force in the universe.

The Iranian expatriate author Amir Taheri wrote a spectacular analysis of Syriana – a geopolitical blockbuster starring George Clooney, who also produced it. Made in 2005, the film describes an imagined CIA assassination of an enlightened Arab prince, who was also a progressive reformer. He was killed only because his oil contract with China had displeased Texas oil interests that control the U.S. government.

Leaving out the obvious economic absurdity of the premise, Taheri focuses on the arrogance of the self-loathing American filmmakers who “reduce the Arabs to the level of mere objects in their history.”

The elitist Hollywood clichés, Taheri writes, even deny the Arabs “credit for their own terrorist acts as Syriana shows that it is not they but the CIA that decides who kills whom and where. This view denies Arabs not only intellect and free will, it even denies them their history. Pretending to be sympathetic to the ‘Arab victims of American Imperialism,’ the film is, in fact, an example of ethnocentrism gone wild. Its message is: the Arabs are nothing, not even self-motivated terrorists, but mere puppets manipulated by us in the omnipotent U.S.”

J. Michael Waller echoes this verdict in his analysis of the leftist perception of Latin America:

American liberals take such a patronizing, paternalistic attitude toward Latin American countries that they can’t fathom the fact that most poor Latinos are anti-socialist and anti-communist. The campesinos just want to keep what little land they have, and keep the fruits of their labor. They don’t want handouts. Nobody works harder than a Central American peasant. It is part of their character, and no foreign do-gooder or socialist is going to take that away from them.

It borders on racism for liberals to think that Latin American political leaders are incapable of defending their own countries against socialist subversion of constitutional government and rule of law, and that the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress — including former President Zelaya’s own political party — needed CIA support to oust a president who was violating the constitution.

This is the new reality of the post-Cold War world: without the threat of a Soviet-led intervention, free nations no longer require help from the CIA to resist leftist sedition. But reality is beside the point to dogmatic practitioners of the Cold War faith system, whose myths and legends have always supplied them with easy answers quickly identifiable culprits, and required the trashing of the CIA in order to improve their karmas and score points with fellow practitioners.

It doesn’t even matter that in the modern day, in the words of Taheri, the CIA has become “little more than a costly leaking device used by rival groups within the U.S. establishment to lump accusations and counter-accusations at one another.” What matters is the role assigned to the CIA by the old leftist template; no actions by the agency today can change that. For as long as the template exists, the CIA will be automatically perceived as the enemy of “progress” and suffer regular, mandatory beatings by the left — from foreign dictators to Hollywood filmmakers to mainstream media to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the left-leaning members of the U.S. Congress.

One can only imagine the cognitive dissonance in the heads of believers in leftist myths who have campaigned their way into the U.S. government and are now discovering the real world at CIA briefings.

To sum up this series, President Obama’s foreign policies reveal a clichéd vision of the world, consistent with anti-American stereotypes disseminated by the Soviet propaganda during the Cold War, which he may have absorbed in his formative years.

A radical departure from American values, this vision compels him to correct what he perceives as America’s “wrongs” by regressing to Cold War-era mythology and re-imagining the world as it might have been without America.

All the while, he stays in denial of the real changing world that longs to be rebuilt as it might have been without the Soviet Union.

Obama’s approach objectively makes the world a more dangerous place, but it also unintentionally discredits the very leftist assumptions on which it is based — above all, the insinuation that any revolt against collectivist, statist oppression is the result of a U.S.-led conspiracy.

Without this and other Cold War-era dogmas misleading the world, it should now be obvious that the desire to live as free individuals in a democratic society is universal and that people of the world are eager to pursue it, with or without American help.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR, is the author of Shakedown Socialism, of which David Horowitz said, "I hope everyone reads this book."  In 1994 he moved to the U.S. with the hope of living in a country ruled by reason and common sense, appreciative of its freedoms and prosperity. To his dismay, he discovered a nation deeply infected by the leftist disease of "progressivism" that was arresting true societal progress. Oleg is the creator of a satirical website ThePeoplesCube.com, which Rush Limbaugh described on his show as "a Stalinist version of The Onion."
Click here to view the 17 legacy comments

Comments are closed.