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.