Saturday, January 26, 2013

Disgusting Gambit: Neocons Trying To Shed Neocon Label!

You won't believe the latest move by those war-mongering Neocons! Keep an eye on this because there's a chance they might actually get away with it.

They're trying to extinguish the term "neoconservative" — which they themselves created — from the American lexicon. Why? Because it has acquired negative connotations. Well, boo hoo. The fact that it just might have acquired negative connotations because they are raging a** holes who dragged us into the Iraq war is apparently besides the point.

Yes, it seems the term they came up with to proudly describe themselves is now a threat to them, because, I guess... well... people can now identify them.

In a new video, notorious Neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer tries in his convoluted way to explain why the term should no longer be used. It short, he claims it has now become just a code word to disparage Jews. Ummm... right.

Let me just offer a humble suggestion. If they see the term "Neocon" as such a threat, I, for one, would be inclined for that reason alone to keep using it.

As it happens, a few days ago I was reading the Wikipedia entry on "Commentary Magazine." It turns out that recently, a person editing that entry tried erase the statement that Commentary magazine is/was a "neoconservative" publication. Their reasoning was similar to Krauthammer's. Another editor, fortunately, put a stop to this by supplying proof that Neocons invented this term to describe themselves... And Commentary magazine was the epicenter of the movement to do so. Go to the "talk" section of that entry if you want to read that interesting exchange.

By the way, here's a choice quote from Krauthammer in the above video, which you may want to keep in mind. He says, "I would ask you whenever you hear the word [to] challenge the person to describe and explain to you what a neocon is. And I guarantee you they will have no answer." Uh, huh. That'll work, Mr. Pseudo-intellectual warmonger.

OK, everyone, if anyone asks you that question, here is an answer that you can use accurately. A Neocon is the following five things (though the first two are probably the key points):

(1) A warmonger, and a member of a right-wing movement closely associated with those who pushed for the Iraq invasion.

(2) Usually an Israel-Firster, i.e. someone who defines Israel as such an important ally of America that Israel's desires come before America's interests. A Neocon/Israel-firster generally believes that America should go to war for Israel if that is want Israel wants. Neocons don't usually admit this flat-out but it can be easily inferred from their arguments. Neocons often work closely with, or directly for, right-wing "pro-Israel" lobbying groups, groups that have destroyed the careers of public servants who disagreed with them.

(3) A Neocon is usually someone with little or no military experience or expertise. A Neocon generally has no personal experience of combat, and no intention to actually fight, or send his children to fight, in the wars he so eagerly promotes. This is why neocons are sometimes called "chicken hawks."

(4) Historically speaking, the origins of neoconservativism are more or less as Krauthammer describes. It was a group of Commentary magazine writer/editors that shifted their political ideology from left wing to right wing around the Reagan era, and started to advocate a hawkish foreign policy. Neo-conservative means "new conservative." (Incidentally, I believe the Neocons did some good in that era. They sided with the U.S. against the Soviet Union. But that was another day, another time; the Cold War is over and that debate is of little more than historical interest now.) Commentary is historically a publication of the Jewish community, but as it stands, not all Neocons are Jews, nor all Jews (by a long shot) Neocons.

(5) Neocons frequently accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being anti-Semites, although Neocons are often themselves racist. They have aligned themselves with birthers, "Obama-as-Muslim" conspiracy theorists, etc. They frequently agree with the proposition that Arabs cannot handle democracy. Neocons also often accuse their opponents of "coddling tyrants," but consider it fine when one of their own coddles a tyrant (having been very comfortable in the past with dictators such as Hussein, Mubarak, etc.)

Is there one exact, perfect definition that will describe and neatly encompass every neocon? Of course not. There is no such definition for any political movement

To sum up: don't let the Neocons weasel out of the Neocon label! They created it, and it has taken on negative connotations because, well, they have -- so much so that even many conservatives now hate them.

Period. End of story. Don't let them get away with it.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Love'em: Queers Against Israeli Apartheid!

Nothing gets under the skin of hidebound traditionalists and narrow-minded bigots, more than a very visible clutch of out, loud & proud gay people.

Oh, wait. I spoke too soon. There is one thing.


A group called Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. I love these people. They're a very visible clutch of out, loud & proud pro-gay rights activists that also... get ready... campaign against human rights violations by the Israeli government!

Why are Israeli human rights violations such a central issue in our time? And why would gays, of all people, be getting involved? Because among many countries that violate human rights, Israel is the only one that does so systematically with the full weight of the financial, political, and moral backing of the Western industrialized world. Here in the USA, billions of our hard-earned tax dollars are shamefully diverted to support Israel's huge military machine and its subjugation of neighboring Arabs. The effect of this whole process is so corrosive—so malignant—that one Israel is worth 50 Myanmars in terms of what it can do to set back human rights worldwide.

So it might be a surprise that a small group of people who already have no small amount of oppression of their own to contend with, would be willing to take up this fight as well. But this Toronto-based group, QUAIA for short, have not the slightest "qualm" about doing so. And that's why I love these guys. They are willing to shake up and offend ANY establishment, even the gay-rights establishment if they have to, in order to fight for full equality for all peoples across the world. Not just themselves—ANYONE.

By the way, one of the most repugnant things about Israel's human-rights violating establishment is that it trumpets Israel's relatively liberal gay-rights policies to deflect attention from Israel's vile subjugation (and yes, basically apartheid) against its Arab subjects. Thankfully, smart & brave folks like those at QUAIA see right through it and won't let themselves be used as pawns in this image-primping process by Israel (sometimes called "pinkwashing"—one of its preferred tactics for shushing criticism of its brutal regime, though the hands-down favorite is to scream "anti-semitism"!)

Last year QUAIA were disgracefully pressured to back out of participating in the Toronto Gay Pride parade. With extreme grace and generosity they eventually opted to withdraw in order to avoid creating headaches for some of their less thick-skinned comrades in the gay rights community.

This year, QUAIA has judged that the time is right to come back. Let's give 'em a round of applause! The parade is next month.

Toronto city officials threatened last year to withdraw funding from the parade if QUAIA participated. When I first read about that online, I chuckled inside. My first reaction: since when on God's green Earth do Gay Pride parades rely on government funding? I dunno, maybe that's a Canada thing. Point is, no parade should expect or rely on city funding! Especially not a human rights parade! For God's sake, what sort of human rights campaigners put themselves into a position of depending on governmental/establishment support in the first place??? These types of activists are supposed to be challenging establishments by their very nature. If some government decides to support you, great, but for God's sake don't hold your breath waiting for your next check. SO... if the city withdraws the funding from Toronto Pride, really, please, guys, tell them just where they can go stick their funding. Scale back the bells & whistles on that parade, and hold it. WITH PRIDE, the only bell & whistle you need. :)

The only equipment I've ever heard of being necessary for a parade is two feet, or a wheelchair if need be.

That said, feel free to donate to QUAIA. Check out their website here:

While some readers may cook up a rather comical image of QuAIA as a bunch of flamboyant queers waving "fabulous" signs for a hopeless cause, in reality this group is an enormously potent force, far out of proportion to its numbers. Why? Because they have powerful credibility. Unlike some other groups that might appear out of nowhere and start criticizing Israel, their motives perhaps unclear, any logical observer can conclude that gay activists as a whole have no particular axe to grind on the issue of Israel. And they indisputably know a thing or two about discrimination. Israeli authorities and their supporters understand both these things on a deep level. And it drives them nuts. Which is why QuAIA is getting substantial media coverage inside Israel. Plus, it certainly doesn't hurt that gay activists tend to attract media attention as a general rule.

I'll be surely writing more about QUAIA in the weeks and months to come. Follow the news for yourself by going to and typing in "QUAIA" to get a sample of the latest reports. Watch the sparks fly and when you get a chance, sign in to some of those news websites and post some comments at the bottom supporting QUAIA. These folks are fighting for all of us!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Now liberals can agree: It all started in the '60s

Now liberals and conservatives can finally agree on something that's been dividing them for half a century.

Things really did start going wrong in the '60s. At least from one crucial point of view.

How so? Because if the cultural phenomenon that generally goes by the shorthand "The '60s" hadn't happened, we wouldn't be locked in endless wars today. The logic is simple.

(1) Americans accept wars as the first and quickest solution to any international problem because they don't know their history. History offers a guide to smarter problem-solving and most importantly, lessons about what not to do.

(2) American's don't know their history because (arguably) of the 1960s. As John Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation, has written: "Many conservatives believe that American public education is in poor shape today because of cultural and social trends, most beginning in the 1960s, which destroyed classroom discipline, the moral basis for education, and a national consensus on what students should learn."*

It's crucial to add that the "Israel-Firsters" who've hijacked America exploit public ignorance of history as their No. 1 tool. "Israel-Firsters" teach a gullible public that America has always been a natural supporter of Israel (or the Zionist project that created it). In fact, this has been American policy for only a few decades, and the policy was either quite the opposite or at least neutral previously. The shift happened precisely because of the machinations of the Israel-Firsters. And since they're usually the ones pushing us into the wars, it's not hard to connect the dots.

Did the generation that protested Vietnam inadvertently, perversely, help foster the conditions that created the pretend War on Terrorism that plagues us today?

Well, before we go that far, let's agree on one more thing. It doesn't matter whether it all started in the 1960s. What matters is that we fix it.


* Hood goes on to add that he accepts this proposition only in part. I haven't been able to find any figures to prove or disprove it (they may not exist), but it has a ring of plausibility to me. Why? Take a look at some mass-circulation periodicals from before the 1960s. It looks clear to me that they're written for people with a higher level of educational attainment than the average Joe today. The statement quoted from Hood comes from his article "The Failure of American Public Education," in The Freeman, Feb. 1993.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

A Call to Arms and an Action Plan Against Israel Firsters

I made a post at the this morning which I think nicely encapsulates many of the views I've expressed before on this blog. I'd like to repost it here because it may actually be clearer and more well-condensed than the way(s) I have expressed these thoughts here previously.

The post is basically a call to arms and a proposal for action against "Israel Firsters" in America. It reads like this:

* * *

Hi friends,

I wanted to (1) explain why I believe that "Israel Firsters" are the No. 1 scourge of our society today, and (2) propose an action plan to marginalize these vermin from the public discourse.

I apologize that this post is a bit long. I start out in the next two paragraphs by explaining some things that may seem obvious to some of you, but not to everyone. For those that feel that stuff is obvious, feel fee to skip the next two paragraphs.

I've long believed that U.S. aid to and military alliance with Israel is not merely one of the evils identified by Dr. [Ron] Paul; it is also at the root of most of the others. We have a huge cadre in this country of "Israel Firsters" who are more interested in the well-being of Israel (as they perceive it) than of the USA. The other evils that Dr. Paul has identified flow from this. For instance, the junk money printed by the government is designed so that it can become worthless in our hands; but it does in the meantime help to fund endless wars on behalf of or instigated by Israel, which would not be possible with honest money. Furthermore, the progressive loss of civil liberties in America follows from those wars.

As I argue on my blog, it is incorrect to call Israel-Firsters misguided or wrong. The correct description is that they are traitors. Putting another country's interests ahead of your own is not merely treason; it is the very definition of treason. However, not all types of treason are possible or appropriate to prosecute legally. The government cannot always be trusted to distinguish treason from mere criticism, for instance. Therefore, the most appropriate solution to this problem is in the hands of the people. I believe social pressure and ultimately, ostracism is the best tool to deal with committed "Israel Firsters."


Although "Israel-Firstism" has infected almost the whole government, we have some legislators that are worse than others. An awful Florida Rep. named Ileana Ross-Lehtinen (sp.?) comes to mind as one of the most egregious offenders. The memorable Anthony Wiener was another, and I believe so is his replacement, whose name I forget.

My proposal is to get a hold of the public events schedule of these most repulsive people, especially any sorts of town halls or campaign appearances, and to attend with large groups of Ron Paul supporters. At the event, one or more of us will be assigned to ask the offending candidate uncomfortable questions about their Israel-first voting record. The question will conclude with a emphatic request (demand?) that the candidate forswear all further "Israel-First" behavior. The candidate will be asked to unequivocally commit to this. Any response containing less than a clear pledge will immediately be met with a chorus of boos from the Ron Paul contingent, plus optionally a series of "America First" chants.

Is this polite? No, not at all. Do traitors deserve politeness? I think that question answers itself.

The idea behind this is that while we might not have the money to immediately boot all Israel-Firsters from office, we can at least make their lives as uncomfortable as possible. We can also use the opportunity of these events to spread literature to enlighten other voters.

Of course, legislators need not be the only target of our America-first campaign, but it just seemed to me that the above plan is one fairly obvious avenue to follow.

Please, offer any feedback! I'm not married to this idea in this exact form, but I do feel that something should be done.

Now we have to pay the ransom

The referral to criminal trial of dozens of Americans, some of them prominent, in Egypt today is just another example of America's declining (squandered, to be exact) world influence.

You can trace a line directly from the activities of the Israeli lobby in the United States to this decline in influence, and to today's news of the Americans in Egypt.

The events of course mean that Congress will have to drop all thoughts of cutting off aid to Egypt. That annual aid is now the ransom. Of course, if we had refrained from both the aid and the meddling in the first place, we wouldn't be in this pickle, now would we?

All these sorts of events are just more examples of the foreign-policy "blowback" Ron Paul has been warning us about for years. The denialists try to counter this argument by simply calling these events something other than blowback. This helps them keep living in their bubble world for just a little while longer.

It should come as no surprise to people who've been paying attention that these Americans abroad aren't quite as innocent as the media portrays them to be. Pat Buchanan has a good post on this from a few days ago: Our Innocents Abroad?

Also no surprise, of course, to learn there is an AIPAC connection.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

We gave it away

In the 18th century, we won our freedom from the British.

In the 21st century, we gave it away.

That's not part of the standard history curriculum in American schools, as far as I'm aware, but it should be. Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon. Well, there's always home schooling.

Why teach kids such a depressing thing? Well, first of all because it's true; but also because unless we inculcate the next generation with an awareness of what we lost, there might be no attempt to get it back. Americans of good will need to teach their children what we have lost, and why, and what to do about it. If you feel you lack the requisite information to teach them these things, there are sources of information out there. Try some of the links on the right column of this page. Or read this blog :)

Gold Standard

All my posts so far have been about foreign policy, but economics also attracts my interest. In a future post I'll explain why I like Ron Paul's call for a return to the gold standard -- and why the lack of such a standard has aided and abetted all the treachery I've denounced in my previous posts.