Update II: 'The Narcissism Revolution'

America,Democracy,Foreign Policy,History,Intelligence,Iran,Old Right,Propaganda

Richard Spencer of Taki’s Magazine makes astute observations about the cloying American coverage of what he dubs “The Narcissism Revolution.” “The blogosphere has been far worse. If Republicans are saying, ‘We’re all Iranians now!’ then with the bloggers it’s, ‘The Iranians are all Americans now!’ It’s the Narcissism Revolution, and everything that happens in Tehran is, pretty much, all about us.”

Richard captures the self-absorption madness. To apply his whipping words to McCain (they were meant for Jonah Goldberg): “Hate to break it to [you], but [Iranians] don’t like you, they really don’t like you.”

Does anyone think Iranians are hanging on the words of the sanctimonious moron who let loose with the ditty, “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran”? I don’t think so.

I don’t get the National Geographic Channel. My impression is that it’s stacked with skirts such as Lisa Ling, transmitting the propaganda du jour, as they travel through “dying” forests and straddle “dissolving” icecaps.

Now that Ling is preoccupied getting her sister free after the latter was caught nosing around in North Korea, they’ve allowed an intelligent man, in-the-know, to impart to a mind-numbingly ignorant people something of the history of American interference with Iran.

I believe Michael Scheuer is associated with “Iran and the West,” although I can’t see his name among the list of credits.

It should be worth watching.

Update I (June 22): “The Narcissism Revolution” is in full swing. Glenn Beck, indistinguishable from the neocons on foreign affairs, entertained a guest on his show, from one of the Spread Democracy think tanks. The man said, and I paraphrase, “the Iranians are holding up signs in English; they are speaking to us.” As Spencer observed, “It’s all about us.” The same contention I’ve heard made repeatedly by the Republican Mullahs.

Update II (June 23): A good post by Prof. Bainbridge, who conjures Russel Kirk in support of the paleo-libertarian, in my case, (paleo-conservative in Buchanan’s case) mitts-off approach to Iran:

Of Bush 41’s war on Saddam, Kirk wrote that: “Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous; but so are nearly all the masters of the “emergent” African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?” To which one might now add Hamas in Gaza.

Kirk pointed out that the policies of Bush 41 resulted in a situation in which, “in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems.”

Bush 43 made that situation even worse by trying to impose democracy by military means.

And that’s what paleos despise.

Concludes Bainbridge: “I’ve changed my mind in recent days about Obama’s handling of this issue. On this issue, I think he’s being remarkably prudent in Kirk’s sense of the word.”

5 thoughts on “Update II: 'The Narcissism Revolution'

  1. Myron Pauli

    I suggest that Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain, Jonah Goldberg, and Charles Krauthammer all get some Ak-47’s and head over to Tehran and lead their fellow Iranians to victory! Ayatollah Goldberg – I like the sound of it!
    Somehow, it goes beyond the neocon mentality to stand back and see if the Iranians themselves can organize, demonstrate, hold general strikes, engage in civil disobedience and change their government WITHOUT OUR “HELP”.

    Switching topics slightly, while perusing Richard Spencer, I did spot this from Taki’s magazine:


    which completely ignores the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands and is exceedingly one sided against Israel. I was wondering about your (Ilana) take on that article in that you are a staff member of Taki’s magazine.

    [My position on Israel is loud and clear. See my extensive archive. I don’t read every article on the site and I am not responsible for any but my own views.]

  2. Virgil

    I just finished watching “Iran and the West” and thought it a fair, though somewhat sparse, review of Iranian-American relations over the past 30 years. The picture presented is of two sides which have come close on several occasions to finding some middle ground, only to have one side devise some excuse not to go forward with negotiations (yes, Iran has its own version of neocons it would seem). Unfortunately they didn’t cover the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Mohammed Mosaddeq and how this would affect later relations, but I realize that two hours allows for only limited information.

  3. Andrew T.

    The entire point of the mainstream media distortions (if I do not repeat myself) in reporting on Iran–and the general overexposure–is to reinforce our power elite’s prophecy that something is inherently wrong and inevitably dangerous about that country. No state mythology can be sustained without resorting to the scare tactic of an imminent, powerful Other enemy state. Today it is Iran, yesterday it was Al-Qaida and (unrelated, of course) Saddam’s Iraq, and the yesterday before it was the Communists.

  4. Andrew T.

    To expand on my above post, any seasoned libertarian is well aware that such a scare tactic is but one card in the larger statist deck. The statist elite resorts to many other arguments to distort public opinion in its favor, not the least of which are: the exploitation of economic fallacy which champions the cheap, the socially amoral, the immediate, the politically expedient, and the narrowly utilitarian results above any long-term, broad, holistic considerations. Characterizing as radical and irrelevant those political opinions which do not neatly fall within the respectable spectrum of opinion, such as those of a Ron Paul or Ralph Nader; reduction of complex issues to simple, easily referenced dichotomies (D-R/liberal vs. conservative) which have the effect of caricaturization opinion itself; and of course, exertion of influence over big media.

Comments are closed.