"The Authority"
June 3, 2003

RANT #190: Society & Politics
Rumplestiltskin
 
Summary:      The Authority does not like to be criticized. It's lackeys jump to its defense everytime it is. Those who dare speak out against it are quickly chastised and ostracized as fanatics, marginals.[BR]  ...
 
Full Text:

 
     The Authority does not like to be criticized. It's lackeys jump to its defense everytime it is. Those who dare speak out against it are quickly chastised and ostracized as fanatics, marginals.
    So far this might sound like the beginning of an anarchist manifesto, directed against 'authority' in the abstract, but this is nothing so radical. Rather, it is merely a reflection on the events of the past few months. "The Authority" doesn't refer to some abstract state power: it means the US and its faithful companion, the UK. And I didn't make that term up - the UN did. In the latest Security Council Resolution, a resolution which cedes administration of Iraq to the US (what else could it do?), the United States is refered to throughout as 'the Authority' - capital 'A'. I will do the same.
    Now, everyone's heard about the recent uproar over our beloved Prime Minister's criticisms of the Authority's economic policies. Politicians accross the board (Liberal backbechers, Conservatives and Alliance Party members, [including Joe Clark and Steven Harper], White House Reps. etc.) have been jumping up and down, complaining about Chretien's arrogance; how dare he contradict the Authority on economic matters? Presumably, the fact that he did this during a talk about the world economy which he was asked to give, is no excuse. You do not go against the word of the Authority at any time, on any subject.
     Foreign Policy, as we've seen, is another area where dissent is not to be tolerated. In these matters, according to the Authority's own  Mr. Rumsfeld, "Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem". Canada too, has been a problem, though less of one, since they have considerably less influence in the Security council. The problem, of course, isn't that they're doing anything illegal or aggresive, no fool would do that towards the Authority. The problem, rather, is that they have openly disagreed with the Authority. Obviously then, they are mistaken, and part of the "Old Europe", as Rumsfeld put it. The New Europe, according to him, supports the United States (I will here ignore the majority of public opinion polls taken on the issue, as they contradict Rumsfeld, one of the Authority's key spokesmen, and, as I hope I'm showing, contradicting the Authority is unacceptable).
     The line doesn't even stop at ideological differences; intelligence, for example, must also be in accord with the Authority's dictates -even intelligence from its own sources. When the CIA failed to produce evidence linking Iraq with Al-Quaeda, they were accused of actively trying to DISPROVE any such link, and a new intelligence agency was set up by Mr. Rumsfeld in the Pentagon, an agency which would produce intelligence pleasing to the Authority (intelligence such as Powell's secret 'evidence' which he presented to the UN - intelligence SO secret that it was in last month's New Yorker [the problem, of course, wasn't that it was secret, but it was just obviously made up and unbelievable - as even a number of ex-CIA officials have pointed out]).
     So the moral is: If you think bad thoughts about the Authority, keep them to yourself. Let the Authority take care of democracy for you, so you don't muddle it up - and get yourself in trouble in the process.
 


Add a comment to this rant: 0 comments



Disclaimer | Email Us | Dance!
Text, images, design, and our groovy mojo are ©
return to the top of the page