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.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)