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.

YES.

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: http://queersagainstapartheid.org

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 news.google.com 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!

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.

A Call to Arms and an Action Plan Against Israel Firsters

I made a post at the dailypaul.com 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."

ACTION IDEA

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.

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.

One Extra Troop for Every 17 Yards

I came up with this statistic through a quick calculation a few days ago.

If every American soldier came home from abroad -- where they are mostly on assignments that range from useless to counterproductive -- and was put to work on the U.S.-Mexico border, we'd have one extra soldier to patrol every 17 yards of border. Seems like that should suffice to get comfortable visual coverage of the whole area.

To reach that figure, just divide the number of yards in the border (about 3.4 million) by the number of US troops stationed abroad (a bit over 200,000, according to Wikipedia).

You don't need to look much further than that one statistic to see that our leaders are more interested in protecting foreign countries than U.S. soil.

Just to clarify, I don't have a problem in principle with the judicious use of U.S. power abroad. My position is that our leaders are not capable of the requisite judiciousness. So let's bring the boys home until we have a generation of leaders who are.

Pushing Hard, With Broken Legs

The United States has expressed disappointment, disgust and (feigned?) surprise that Russia and China today vetoed a UN resolution calling for the downfall of Syria's murderous regime.

The United States has pushed that resolution from the beginning. But it pushes with broken legs.

Why? Because the U.S. itself has essentially adopted Russia and China's position hundreds of times, and has never apologized. Specifically, the U.S. has vetoed hundreds of U.N. resolutions calling for Israel to stop stealing land from and killing Palestinians. In each of these cases, the U.S. stood utterly alone in its veto, obstructing the entire world (unlike Russia and China which at least are a duo). There is only one explanation for the bizarre and sordid U.S. behavior in these cases, and that is the massive Israel lobby in the U.S.A.

What goes around comes around. The United States has allowed a deep, pervasive moral rot to overwhelm it thanks to its relentless military aid to Israel. The U.S. has lost all its moral standing in the world as a result of pandering to the Israel Lobby.

Yes, Syria's regime is awful. But the world is not unreasonably asking itself, is this resolution just yet another U.S. scheme to promote Israel, the same way invading Iraq was? Syria being, of course, along with the former Iraqi regime, an enemy of the Jewish state. Virtually every recent U.S. action in the Middle East, "humanitarian" or otherwise, has been an obvious gambit to either promote Israel's well-being, and/or to clumsily and unnecessarily expand American influence in the area (usually again goaded on by Israel). The skepticism of U.S. motives at the U.N. is deafening and it's understandable. Even nations that have cynical reasons for undermining U.S.-backed resolutions, now have a convenient pretext to do so.

So there is no reason for the United States to be surprised for today's result at the U.N. When the United States pushed this resolution, it pushed from the beginning with broken legs.

Is loyalty something that can be enforced? Should it?

It’s time to start “naming and shaming” Americans who give their primarily allegiance to Israel.

We obviously have a huge problem in this country with loyalty, or more precisely the lack of it. The Israel-Firsters, financed and goaded by the Israel Lobby, retain a massive and disproportionate influence on our democratic institutions. These people show through their words and actions that their primary allegiance is to Israel, not the United States. This is obvious, I repeat, not through any calumnies being spread about these folks (e.g. “anti-Semitic” propaganda), but through their own actions.

Let's not mince words. They are traitors.

Enough said on that front. The title of this post addresses the next logical question: what can honest Americans do about this?

The ancient Romans used to throw traitors off an 80-foot cliff called the Tarpeian Rock. Is this a solution to treason? There’s a problem with it, and I’m not just talking about the fact that death by chucking would be considered a cruel and unusual method today. The larger issue is that there is a huge conceptual problem with “convicting” and “punishing” someone for treason in the traditional sense because, except in a few obvious cases, deciding what is treason and what is not is more of a judgment call than a straightforward decision of fact, like deciding who murdered someone. Something that appears disloyal on the surface may in fact be a patriotic act; conversely, what seems at first glance to be loyalty may in fact be treason. I haven’t the slightest doubt that many of the people cast off the Tarpeian rock in their day were not so much disloyal to Rome, as irritating to a particular emperor or public official. Likewise, England’s Henry VIII made execution for treason his chief method for dealing with political enemies.

So the “emperor,” or the government, cannot necessarily be trusted to decide what is treason. Of course, our justice system can and does do exactly that; but it generally gets involved in extreme and relatively straightforward cases involving espionage or collaboration with enemies to commit violence on U.S. soil.

The case of the Israel-Firsters presents a less obvious or prosecutable sort of treason. If you agitate for calling up U.S. kids and draining U.S. taxpayers to launch a new war, claiming it’s for U.S. national security, when in your heart you know your real motivation is to help out Israel—is that treason? Yes, but it’s hard to prove the motivations of any single individual. If you supported Israel’s prime minister when he humiliated the U.S. president following a policy dispute between the two governments, is that treason? To me, right now, it is. Yet the Israel-firsters are themselves adept at turning broadly similar arguments against their enemies, often using some modern analogue of the argument that disagreement with the Emperor equals treason against country. Therefore, when you have suspicions of treason not involving some sort of simple, provable conspiracy, getting the authorities involved would create a dangerous precedent and a slippery slope.

Many common sorts of treason, therefore, are for practical purposes unprosecutable.

However, they can still be contained—through social pressure.

Social pressure takes the judgment out of the hands of the government and puts it into the hands of the people, who must their apply their knowledge and common sense. In doing so, they may be forced to sort through what sometimes is a thicket of charges and counter-charges, and they may come to a wrong decision. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on everyone to make this mental effort, since the alternative is to accept turncoats in our midst.

Social pressure is precisely the weapon that Israel-firsters most commonly use against their own enemies. The Israel-firsters brandish the charge of anti-Semitism rather than treason, but the basic tactic is the same. You blacken your opponent's reputation in any way you can, through letters to the editor, columns, blog posts, demands for dismissals or resignations, or any number of well-known techniques. The Israel-first community even has a term for this tactic: “naming and shaming.” It has been extremely effective for decades, only starting to lose its potency in recent years, like a drug, thanks to its rampant over-use and abuse (as we know, the anti-Semitism bludgeon is used against anyone offering even the mildest criticism of Israeli policies.)

Israel-firsters have long realized that “naming and shaming” techniques needn’t necessarily achieve their stated objectives, such as the dismissal of a particular person, to be successful. They understand that the true goal of “naming and shaming” is the act of pressure itself—the sense of siege and intimidation created in its targets. Achievement of the stated objectives is just icing on the cake. Nor is it necessary that charges leveled through “naming and shaming” remain uncontested to be effective. Even if the targets fight back and find supporters, they are still affected, which is why Israel-firsters continue to brazenly target people. Even though the general reaction is increasingly just widespread laughter, in some circles and against some people it still works.

It's time for “America Firsters,” patriotic Americans, to start naming and shaming “Israel Firsters.” Why not start writing letters to the editor questioning X’s loyalty? Why not follow X to work with picket signs demanding their resignation for treason? Why not launch a letter-writing campaign to Senator X?

And why not start by targeting the leadership and board of AIPAC?

Commentary magazine exposes them, yet again

Just read a funny article in the Feb. issue of Commentary magazine, one of those publications that fascinate me for its consistent idiocy. This piece, a choice example, was entitled "The Big Lie: How Anti-Semites Are Asserting Their right to Define 'Anti-Semitism' -- and Why the Culture is Allowing Them to Do This."

The article is replete with absurdities and contradictions, but the most glaring is the circular logic embodied in its title. How do I know the people denounced in this title are really anti-Semites? Well, because the author is entitled to define "anti-Semite," whereas they are not. And how do I know they are not? Why, of course, because they're anti-Semites.

On a more general note about Commentary, I've been reading it for years and I find much of it riveting. I read many of their (usually long) articles from the first to the last sentence. Every word of it is B.S.

To restore American freedom, are extreme measures required or does moderation suffice?

Many freedom lovers in America are a bit on the fence, I think, as to whether extreme action is necessary today to protect our freedoms, or whether moderate action is enough.

It's fair to ask what I mean by "extreme" here. By "extreme," I am not talking about or advocating violence, but rather some nasty and merciless political fighting of an extremely harsh, personal nature; to put it another way, a type of campaign that would be expected to produce a strong backlash. (I do not rule out that violence might be justified at some future point, but I don't believe we're there yet.)

In deciding whether "extreme" action is justified, two key questions must be answered. (1) Is the situation desperate enough to call for it? (2) Will anything short of it lead to a solution?

I believe the answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to second question is no. In combination, these two considerations indicate that yes, extreme action is justified.

(1) Is the situation desperate enough to call for it?

Yes. America has been taken over by zealots whose primary interest is the protection of Israel. Many of our civil liberties are lost already. Not much more needs to be said.

(2) Will anything short of extreme action lead to a solution?

No. Zealots are by definition unpersuadable through traditional or moderate means. In addition, a large contingent of the people we are dealing with here are religious fanatics, an even more intransigent bunch. Moderation will by no means achieve results.

So yes, extreme action is necessary.

It is necessary to bludgeon the Republican party in order to save it

The U.S. Republican party was once a powerful guardian of liberty and American values. Yet today, at a time when those values are under unprecedented assault, the Republican party is arguably leading the charge.

America cannot be saved unless this development is reversed.

Many commentators within the party have to some extent, explicitly or implicitly, recognized the problem that I am pointing out. But their response has been far, far too timid. They are still in the main "loyal Republicans," convinced that through honest argument we can bring our brothers in the party to see reason. I believe there is no hope of this, in part because we are negotiating largely with religious fanatics.

My own conviction is that we must administer a severe beating to the Republican party in order to save it.

It is critical at this juncture not to mince words. The Republican party has been hijacked by elements that are disloyal to the United States, at least in effect if not intent. So there is no longer a question of trying to correct the situation using only the traditional, staid methods that basically center on honest debate. It is crucial to employ the political equivalent of street fighting. A full-scale rebellion is required.

There remains, of course, a patriotic core within the Republican party. This more or less consists of the Ron Paul followers, though one can certainly disagree with aspects of Paul's platform.

Followers of Ron Paul and other disaffected Republicans should, at this stage, refuse to vote Republican until the party is back on track. It is better to deny the Republicans a few election victories than to let functionally disloyal people take over the country.

The Democratic party may be harmful to the country in some ways, but it has not yet been infected by disloyal elements to the same extent that the Republican party has been.

In a later blog post I will elaborate on this proposal.