Thursday, September 11, 2008 56 Comments

America: vampire of the world (part 2)

The title is inflammatory. And do we need that? In retrospect, "US foreign policy unplugged" might have been a better choice. But there is already a part 1, and it's too late now.

In the last part I described propaganda as a sort of magic trick. Good propaganda, if it depends at all on lies, uses them very sparingly. Lying is crude and inartful. The magician's art is to make your eyes see one thing, and your brain see another.

A fine example - almost a pons asinorum for 20th-century history - is the case of USG and Israel. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, which side does USG support?

The savvy, experienced UR reader knows this is a trick. But she also knows she's supposed to say "Israel," like 99.99% of the educated people in the world. And even like some of the most skeptical and independent commentators - such as Steve Sailer.

As far as most of us are concerned, USG's support for Israel is simply a fact. Other facts in the same category include water, which flows downhill; Hitler, who is dead; and disco, which sucks. La Wik, which as we all know is nothing but factual, has a fine discussion of our fact. And it is a matter of public record that every year, USG sends billions of dollars in cold, hard cash and bodacious military hardware to Israel. If this isn't "support," what is?

The lady, in other words, has been cut in half. Her head is over here. Her legs are over there. Your brain says: they cannot possibly be connected. You saw the chainsaw pass between them. And yet - and yet, when we analyze the video, something puzzling appears.

What do we actually mean by "support"? We mean that USG is on Israel's side. That it is pro-Israeli. That its actions in the Middle East tend to strengthen Israel's position, and weaken the position of its enemies.

Logically, therefore, if USG switched from being pro-Israeli to being neutral, Israel's position in the conflict would be weaker, and the Palestinians' position would be stronger. Obviously.

Obviously. But what is this word "neutral?" What do we mean by "neutral?" Well, in the last episode, we acquired a very handy and compact definition of "neutral," courtesy of John Quincy Adams' Monroe Doctrine:
Our policy, in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power; submitting to injuries from none.
Compare to Grotius' definition:
Again, according to what was said in a preceding part of this book, it is the duty of those, who profess neutrality in a war to do nothing towards increasing the strength of a party maintaining an unjust cause, nor to impede the measures of a power engaged in a just and righteous cause. But in doubtful cases, they ought to shew themselves impartial to both sides, and to give no succour to besieged places, but should allow the troops of each to march through the country, and to purchase forage, and other supplies.
Carlyle puts it somewhat more poetically:
And at all times, and even now, there will remain the question to be sincerely put and wisely answered, What essential concern has the British Nation with them and their enterprises? Any concern at all, except that of handsomely keeping apart from them? If so, what are the methods of best managing it?--At present, as was said, while Red Republic but clashes with foul Bureaucracy; and Nations, sunk in blind ignavia, demand a universal-suffrage Parliament to heal their wretchedness; and wild Anarchy and Phallus-Worship struggle with Sham-Kingship and extinct or galvanized Catholicism; and in the Cave of the Winds all manner of rotten waifs and wrecks are hurled against each other,--our English interest in the controversy, however huge said controversy grow, is quite trifling; we have only in a handsome manner to say to it: "Tumble and rage along, ye rotten waifs and wrecks; clash and collide as seems fittest to you; and smite each other into annihilation at your own good pleasure. In that huge conflict, dismal but unavoidable, we, thanks to our heroic ancestors, having got so far ahead of you, have now no interest at all. Our decided notion is, the dead ought to bury their dead in such a case: and so we have the honor to be, with distinguished consideration, your entirely devoted,--FLIMNAP, SEC. FOREIGN DEPARTMENT."--I really think Flimnap, till truer times come, ought to treat much of his work in this way: cautious to give offence to his neighbors; resolute not to concern himself in any of their self-annihilating operations whatsoever.
So, on the Arab-Israeli conflict, in our imaginary world with its neutral USG, Flimnap, Grotius, and Adams concur. "Our decided notion is, the dead ought to bury the dead in such a case." I'm not quite sure what this means in the exact literal sense. But surely the poetic gist is clear.

Ie: without USG, the Arabs and Israelis will have to settle the question themselves, using the old-fashioned methods. "Clash and collide as seems fittest to you." And what would be the result of such a clash? Obviously, by "clash" we mean "war."

So this question resolves to: which side has the strongest military, the Arab or the Israeli? The question is prejudiced slightly by the American military hardware provided under the aforementioned program, but Israel is certainly capable of producing its own hardware. It is rather difficult to imagine Syria, Egypt, or Iran with any such capabilities, let alone Israel's immediate opponents: Gazastan and Westbankistan.

Given this disparity in indigenous military capacity, we Flimnaps would expect any disputes between Israel and its neighbors to be settled to the advantage of the former. War is, above all, a practical endeavor. The weak do not cause trouble for the strong. If they do, they demonstrate that they are dangerously irrational, like a rabid poodle, and need to be put down.

At present, however - that is, in the real world, where USG supports Israel - the expectation appears to be that all disputes will be resolved via Israeli concessions. The only dispute appears to be on the magnitude of these concessions. "Land for peace" is a fairly normal way to end a war - for example, France in 1870 accepted the proposition of "land for peace," ceding Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. On the other hand, France in 1870 had been defeated. Whereas Israel in 1967 was, at least according to all reliable experts, victorious.

So we arrive at a peculiar conclusion. On the one hand, USG supports Israel. On the other hand, if USG ceased to exist, at least for the purposes of the Middle East, Israel's position seems as if it would become much stronger. A conclusion that would seem to indicate that USG opposes Israel. But then, why would it give Israel billions of dollars and fancy weapons?

We are left to conclude that (a) USG both supports and opposes Israel; (b) the magnitude of the opposition exceeds the magnitude of the support (implying net opposition); and (c) the support is overt and obvious, whereas the opposition is somehow... more subtle.

In other words, we are in the position of an astronomer who sees light being bent away from a large visible object. The astronomer must conclude that unless the laws of gravity are reversed in the vicinity of this object, there is an even larger non-visible object on the other side of the light. The latter can be detected only by inference, but the detection remains unambiguous.

Israel makes a great pons asinorum because in this case, the diplomatic dark matter is not at all hard to find. Perhaps it is best explained by the title of this book, which I saw in a window somewhere. According to the author or at least his title, USG is acting as a "dishonest broker" in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Ie: "justice" in the conflict favors the Palestinians more than USG's actions today reflect. Ie: USG is pro-Israel, but not in the sense that USG's interventions in the Middle East are a net positive for Israel. Actually, they are detrimental to Israel. But if "justice" were served, they would be even more detrimental.

So if I sue you for $100,000 and the judge awards me $20,000, I might say that the judge is biased in favor of you. Because you still have $80,000 that is rightfully mine. On the other hand, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the judge forced you to pay me $20,000. Which is $20,000 you'd have and I wouldn't, if there was no judge at all. An interesting kind of support.

America, you see, is not really the vampire of the world. The analogy is inexact in two ways. One, a vampire is nourished by the blood of his victims. They grow weak and sickly, while he thrives in ruddy good health. Two, it is always easy to know that a vampire has been eatin' on you, because there are fang-marks on your neck.

America is more the arsonist of the world. As well as the fireman. Wherever fires break out, Uncle Sam is there to pour gasoline on them. The fireman assures us, of course, that he is only setting a backfire to defeat the main blaze. But why is this always the right strategy? Why was he the first one on the scene? Why do his hoses always seem to get tangled, whereas his gas can never runs dry? And why have there been so many more fires since he came to town? But the TV audience sees none of this. All they see is the fireman, fighting the fires.

To justify this imaginative metaphor, let's untangle the interesting complex of assumptions behind the "dishonest broker" theory.

First, how did USG become the broker, honest or dishonest, in the Arab-Israeli dispute? It is difficult to remember these days, but USG is still nominally constituted to serve the interests of American citizens, ie, not Arabs or Israelis. If all the Arabs and Israelis need is an indifferent third party, an independent arbitrator, have they considered, for example, Nepal? Although I'm afraid that these days even the Nepalis may have strong feelings about the Middle East.

Second, it's obvious that Nepal won't do. Because USG is acting not as an arbitrator with whose rulings the Arabs and Israelis voluntarily agree to comply, but as a judge who both decides and enforces. When A settles the dispute of B and C and enforces the settlement, A is more than a broker. A is a governor.

If you heard a Hitler say: "the swastika is the flag not only of Germany, but of the world," you would doubtless be a little concerned. You might think, gee, this Mr. Hitler doesn't mind sounding like he wants to conquer the entire friggin' planet.

But when you hear that the Stars and Stripes "is the flag not only of America, but of humanity," you have a slightly different reaction. And not because you're a gun-totin', God-lovin', truck-drivin' red-state American. Quite the contrary, in fact. Here's the full quote:
My dream is that as the years go on and the world knows more and more of America it will also drink at these fountains of youth and renewal; that it also will turn to America for those moral inspirations which lie at the basis of all freedom; that the world will never fear America unless it feels that it is engaged in some enterprise which is inconsistent with the rights of humanity; and that America will come into the full light of the day when all shall know that she puts human rights above all other rights and that her flag is the flag not only of America but of humanity.

What other great people has devoted itself to this exalted ideal? To what other nation in the world can all eyes look for an instant sympathy that thrills the whole body politic when men anywhere are fighting for their rights?
Couldn't this almost be Barack Obama? But, of course, it's another progressive, Woodrow Wilson - on July 4, 1914. Wilson is expounding the policy that has become known by his name, and which in part 1 we called "foreign policy C."

Note the particularly charming phrase "unless it feels that it is engaged in..." What Wilson really means is that [no government] will ever fear America unless [America] feels that [that government] is engaged in some enterprise which violates the rights of humanity.

In other words, USG will judge the world. In other words, USG will govern the world. In other words, USG will rule the world. In other words, USG will dominate the world.

The belief that judging is distinct from ruling, that one can "provide global governance" without "grasping world domination," is not a Wilsonian invention. It is a fundamental part of the American political tradition - the separation of powers. In this case, the separation of executive and judicial authority. One can be an honest broker, without being an imperial overlord.

Rationally - if the term applies - this depends on the concept of "natural law," ie, a theory of right and wrong which is self-evident to everyone honest. Since USG is always honest, being democratic, it and and any other honest, enterprising government will always agree on whether the latter is "violating the rights of humanity." And if they don't, it is. Ergo, USG is always right.

Thus, it is clear that when Serbia wishes to recover a seceded province, it is violating the rights of humanity, whereas when Georgia does the same it is defending them. The former fears America, and rightly so. The latter is helping it support democracy.

So USG, the universal democratic nation, may, indeed must, assert its jurisdiction over all. Which it just happens to have the military and financial power to enforce. And is this in the interest of America or Americans? Heaven forfend! From the same speech:
Our independence is a fact so stupendous that it can be measured only by the size and energy and variety and wealth and power of one of the greatest nations in the world. But it is one thing to be independent and it is another thing to know what to do with your independence. It is one thing to come to your majority and another thing to know what you are going to do with your life and your energies; and one of the most serious questions for sober-minded men to address themselves to in the United States is this: What are we going to do with the influence and power of this great Nation? Are we going to play the old role of using that power for our aggrandizement and material benefit only? You know what that may mean. It may upon occasion mean that we shall use it to make the people of other nations suffer in the way in which we said it was intolerable to suffer when we uttered our Declaration of Independence. The Department of State at Washington is constantly called upon to back up the commercial enterprises and the industrial enterprises of the United States in foreign countries, and it at one time went so far in that direction that all its diplomacy came to be designated as "dollar diplomacy." It was called upon to support every man who wanted to earn anything anywhere if he was an American. But there ought to be a limit to that.
Wilson, it appears, is not at all a fan of "foreign policy B." Nor am I, really - although my main concern is that it too often gets mixed up with policy C. For example, as Herbert Croly wrote in his biography of Willard Straight, regarding a railway loan the State Department was trying to place in northern China in 1910, to cement the Open Door Policy:
According to the subsequent critics of "dollar diplomacy" the connection was one which degraded the American government into the accomplice of private banking interests. The facts of the matter were precisely the reverse. It was the State Department which was trying to use a group of American bankers as the accomplice of the American government in China. The majority of these bankers had gone into the Group not because they were seeking Chinese investments but in order to oblige the administration.
This murky mixture is a hallmark of USG's foreign policy from day one. Vicarious, crusading adventures are presented as sound investments and/or prudent military strategies. And the converse as well - but not nearly so often.

Lest the odor of cynicism become overpowering, let's pause for a minute, and admit that there is evil in the world. More specifically, there are evil people. And it is a glorious thing, and good for all and sundry, to wrap a rope around their necks and pull the chair away.

The trouble is that if we truly despise evil, we hope to minimize the amount of it in the world. Wilsonism is not inherently evil. A Petri dish is not inherently bacteria-infested. There is such a thing as a sterile Petri dish. But the combination of world domination and profound self-righteousness is a bath of nutrients as nourishing as evil has ever found. And bacteria are not in short supply.

Why would evil not go abroad in the mask of good? Satan has no fear of masks. Wilson, a deeply mystical man, thought of democracy as a sort of antibiotic which ensured that his Petri dish would always remain pristine. It has not, in my opinion, worked out that way.

Wilson, of course, is not the original inventor. We discussed this a good bit last week, but let's get a quick grasp of the full history of the dysfunctional monstrosity that we now know as the "international community." (It's handy to remember, when reading the official press, that these words can always be replaced with "State Department" without loss of information.)

There was certainly no shortage of evil under the pre-Wilsonian Westphalian system of classical international law. Any prince was free to make war with any other prince, for any reason good or bad. And there was a fair bit of that. And war, certainly, is pretty nasty. Evil, even.

But there was also no single point of failure. The Westphalian system did not guarantee good domestic government, or peaceful international behavior. But it was also largely free of incentives for tyranny and devastation. For over 250 years, no European city was sacked, pillaged, or slaughtered in a Westphalian war. Countries that were well-governed prospered, those that were ill-governed declined. If you have been to Europe, you have seen the architectural legacy of Westphalia. You have also seen the architectural legacy of Woodrow Wilson. Which did you take more pictures of?

The Westphalian system was not perfectly stable, however. It is quite possible that its decline into the screaming horror of the "international community" was inevitable. Basically, it started as a multipolar balance-of-power system maintained by consensus, and evolved in the 18th and 19th centuries into a unipolar balance-of-power system in which one power held the balance: England. A single point of failure.

In the 19th century, after the defeat of Napoleon, England started to abuse its responsibility. As we saw in part 1, it decided that it was morally obligated to use its predominance to make the world a better place. While this spirit was not without its good effects - the abolition of the slave trade, for instance - it soon decayed into Canningism: the aggressive, and thoroughly illegal under Westphalian rules, promotion of international liberal revolution, spawning a small galaxy of satellite states with imitation-British political systems.

Walter Millis, in his Road To War: America 1914-1917, picks up the story for us:
The educated leaders of the New Freedom were steeped in British literature more deeply than the old-fashioned politicians. As a student of domestic government, President Wilson throughout his life had been profoundly influenced by English ideas and political institutions; while our rare experts in the elegant fields of foreign policy had modelled themselves for a generation upon the giants of British liberal imperialism. Our own imperialist adventure at the turn of the century had been largely in imitation of those romantic splendors; Mr. Kipling himself had sung us forward to 'take up the white man's burden,' and the statesmen of those years - Roosevelt and Lodge, Root, John Hay, Taft, Leonard Wood - had rejoiced to create an empire almost as glorious and perhaps even more righteous than that of Great Britain.

At the time of the Spanish-American War, Great Britain alone had supported us against what we believed to be a European cabal chiefly instigated by Germany; and as the Anglo-German rivalry developed in the years that followed, our high priests of foreign policy repaid the service by orienting the American attitude in accordance with the British interest. Twenty years before the League of Nations, John Hay, as Secretary of State, had dreamed of bringing the United States onto the international stage to guarantee a world peace based on the existing British predominance. [...] Many of our serious thinkers had come to believe with Page and House in an Anglo-American 'understanding' as the best basis of universal peace, and Great Britain's action in 1914 could not in any event have failed to sway profoundly all the most elegant and distinguished leaders of American opinion. But one circumstance gave to Great Britain a tremendous hold on American opinion itself. London was not only the cultural and social capital of our wealthier and more influential classes; so far as European events were concerned it was our newspaper capital as well.
Note that "existing British predominance." When you read German World War I propaganda, the one event they return to almost obsessively is Lloyd George's Mansion House Speech, in 1911:
Personally I am a sincere advocate of all means which would lead to the settlement of international disputes by methods such as those which civilization has so successfully set up for the adjustment of differences between individuals, and I rejoice in my heart at the prospect of a happy issue to Sir Edward Grey's negotiations with the United States of America for the settlement of disputes which may occur in future between ourselves and our kinsmen across the Atlantic by some more merciful, more rational, and by a more just arbitrament than that of the sword.

But I am also bound to say this--that I believe it is essential in the highest interests, not merely of this country, but of the world, that Britain should at all hazards maintain her place and her prestige amongst the Great Powers of the world. Her potent influence has many a time been in the past, and may yet be in the future, invaluable to the cause of human liberty. It has more than once in the past redeemed Continental nations, who are sometimes too apt to forget that service, from overwhelming disaster and even from national extinction. I would make great sacrifices to preserve peace. I conceive that nothing would justify a disturbance of international good will except questions of the greatest national moment. But if a situation were to be forced upon us in which peace could only be preserved by the surrender of the great and beneficent position Britain has won by centuries of heroism and achievement, by allowing Britain to be treated where her interests were vitally affected as if she were of no account in the Cabinet of nations, then I say emphatically that peace at that price would be a humiliation intolerable for a great country like ours to endure.
In other words: don't forget that John Bull owns the world.

The German line in World War I was that Germany sought parity with and independence from Great Britain, according to the letter of classical international law. Oddly enough, if you add the US to the equation, this was also the German line in World War II. The idea that this in fact represented a drive for Teutonic world domination certainly follows - as long as you agree with Lloyd George and his thinly-veiled "Highlander" rhetoric. But given that the Anglo-American axis (a) started out on top and (b) came out on top, doesn't it sound a bit like projection?

So we have our Necker-cube perspective of Wilsonianism. It is either (a) the judgment of angels in Washington, acting as an honest broker and supreme court to enforce peace in a world of free and independent states; or (b) world domination, with a healthy helping of horse manure.

We also have a clearer angle on the connection between Wilsonianism and world peace. World domination and world peace, after all, are practically synonyms. Thus the theory of democratic peace. If all these free, independent democratic countries are in fact better seen as American satellites, why would they fight each other?

Similarly, the puppet states of Hitler's New Order were remarkably amicable in their relations. Thus we have a matching theory of "fascist peace." Or Peru could conquer the world, thus producing a "Peruvian peace." The strange thing about our present era of American peace, however, is that it doesn't seem all that peaceful. Does this mean world domination isn't all it's cracked up to be? Vamos a ver.

Let's return to today's illustration, the Arabs and Israelis. The distinction between the Westphalian and Wilsonian interpretations should now be clear.

Under the Westphalian interpretation - classical international law - the Arabs and Israelis have a dispute, viz., both claim the same real estate. Since they are independent and responsible to no higher sovereign, they must settle their dispute by the ultima ratio regum, the last argument of kings: in a word, war. Unless they can work out something better.

Perhaps the most cogent and readable work of classical international law, Vattel's The Law of Nations, expresses this beautifully:
Since nations are free, independent, and equal — and since each possesses the the right of judging, according to the dictates of her conscience, what conduct she is to pursue in order to fulfil her duties the effect of the whole is, to produce, at least externally and in the eyes of mankind, a perfect equality of rights between nations in the administration of their affairs and the pursuit of their pretensions, without regard to the intrinsic justice of their conduct, of which others have no right to form a definitive judgment; so that whatever may be done by any one nation may be done by any other; and they ought, in human society, to be considered as possessing equal rights.

Each nation in fact maintains that she has justice on her side in every dispute that happens to arise; and it does not belong to either of the parties interested, or to other nations, to pronounce a judgment on the contested question. The party who is in the wrong is guilty of a crime against her own conscience; but as there exists a possibility that she may perhaps have justice on her side, we cannot accuse her of violating the laws of society.

It is therefore necessary, on many occasions, that nations should suffer certain things to be done, though in their own nature unjust and condemnable, because they cannot oppose them by open force, without violating the liberty of some particular state, and destroying the foundations of their natural society. And since they are bound to cultivate that society, it is of course presumed that all nations have consented to the principle we have just established. The rules that are deduced from it constitute what Monsieur Wolf calls "The voluntary law of nations"; and there is no reason why we should not use the same term, although we thought it necessary to deviate from that great man in our manner of establishing the foundation of that law.

The laws of natural society are of such importance to the safety of all states, that, if the custom once prevailed of trampling them under foot, no nation could flatter herself with the hope of preserving her national existence, and enjoying domestic tranquility, however attentive to pursue every measure dictated by the most consummate prudence, justice, and moderation. Not all men and all states have a perfect right to those things that are necessary for their preservation, since that right corresponds to an indispensable obligation. All nations have therefore a right to resort to forcible means for the purpose of repressing any one particular nation who openly violates the laws of the society which Nature has established between them, or who directly attacks the welfare and safety of that society.
Eg, by shooting rockets at it. The result of the conflict is therefore as follows. Gaza, or Hamas, or at least someone in Gaza - the distinction, under classical international law, being immaterial - shoots rockets at Israel. Israel, having much better hardware, applies whatever "forcible means" are necessary in order to terminate this attack. Perhaps this involves rounding up all the Gazans, shipping them to Egypt, and turning the Strip into an Israeli national park. So long as this is necessary, and nothing less drastic would work, it is permitted. According to Vattel, and all other classical authorities. And the war is over.

Under the Wilsonian interpretation, this right to judge has been removed from Israel and Gaza, and transferred to Washington, our honest - or, depending on your point of view, dishonest - broker. Our single global sovereign.

Result: Arabs persistently refuse any settlement, always involving concessions in their favor, which Israel will accept. As diplomats put it, they will "not take yes for an answer." Small wonder, as the conflict is essentially their national industry at this point. War continues for sixty years, on and off, and bids fair to go on for the next sixty.

Note that in none of this analysis have we considered the actual merits of the case Palestine v. Israel. We have simply observed that the old international law, generally perceived as brutal and bellicose, results in peace. And the new international law, generally perceived as civilized and humanitarian, results in war. This would not be the first such inversion.

War is, generally, more evil than peace. So our evil detector is going off. But we have only begun to scratch the surface of the evil in this case.

There is actually an English word which refers to the Palestinian case. The word is irredentism. The fit is perfect: "Irredentism is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged." The origin of the term is also worth a look. And irredentism can also be considered a special case of revanchism.

But you seldom see these terms used in relation to the Middle East conflict, because both have acquired a distinct odor of... evil. It's all too easy to understand how irredentism and revanchism are the polar opposite of peace. Peace means accepting the results of history. Irredentism means the Welsh Liberation Front, demanding the return of London from those notorious human-rights violators, the Saxons.

Moreover, one question too seldom asked is why irredentist violence occurs. After all, changes in borders, even mass population transfers, are ubiquitous throughout history. Focusing on our own era for a moment, we have the expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe, the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt, and the expulsion of the pieds-noirs from Algeria. In each of these cases, a population of millions was expelled at gunpoint from land they had lived on for generations, an enterprise blatantly inconsistent with "the rights of humanity." And resulting in a complete absence of irredentist violence, or even political organization. So far as I know, not a single pipe bomb has been detonated by any victim of any of these expulsions.

Why? Perhaps these particular peoples are just genetically docile. A racial characteristic. Or a cultural one, at least. Can these factors be ruled out? Of course not.

But there's another troubling factor, which is that none of the docile expellees enjoyed the sympathy of the "international community." For the Germans, this is obvious. The Jews and pieds-noirs were expelled by Arab nationalists - who, as we've just seen, did enjoy that sympathy. (Or see, for example, Suez.)

So we see that it's quite reasonable to say not only that the fireman has been pouring gasoline on the flames for the last sixty years, but that he in fact started the fire. It is not merely that the diplomatic "dark matter" of USG's intervention keeps the Arab-Israeli conflict alive. It's that Wilsonian (first British, later American) sponsorship of Arab nationalism essentially informed the Arabs that fighting - as opposed to either (a) accomodating themselves to the newfound diversity of Jewish immigration, or (b) leaving - was an option, and was likely to succeed. (Note that no one has informed white Californians that pogroms are an option for dealing with Mexican immigration, a small blessing we must nonetheless be thankful for.) If you doubt this story, it is set out in great academic detail in Elie Kedourie's The Chatham House Version, which is simply an essential work for anyone interested in the problem.

Worse: the Wilsonians lied. Because a substantial, if gradually weakening, faction in Washington does support the Zionists. Thus the billions of dollars, thus the bodacious hardware, and thus the failure in 1948 or since to drive the Jews into the sea. And thus the appalling and continuing suffering of the Palestinian refugees, unlike their German, Egyptian and Algerian counterparts, who have all accepted reality and gone on to have a life.

So, on one side of the battlefield, we have... Washington. Or more precisely, Foggy Bottom. And on the other side of the battlefield, we have... Washington. Or more precisely, Arlington. Cui bono? The Arab-Israeli war is a profession, providing employment for thousands of Americans, not to mention pretty much the entire population of Gaza and the West Bank. If "employment" is a word for parading daily with balaclavas and AK-47s for bags of government cornmeal. Is this healthy, boys and girls? And does it bear any resemblance to Woodrow Wilson's stoner Christian fantasies? I think he'd be the first to deny it.

The worst thing about Wilsonism, I think, is the relationship of sponsorship and dependency it creates between the "international community" and the "men anywhere fighting for their rights." The former are the users. The latter are the usees. But as with any dysfunctional relationship, the sickness goes both ways.

For example, the State Department recently declassified its knowledge that in 1973, Yasser Arafat personally ordered the murder of two Foreign Service officers. My father was an FSO, so I know how seriously this is taken. And how close did this come to ending State's sponsorship of the PLO? If you jump as high as you can, how close to the Moon do you get?

Sponsoring murderous bands of thugs around the world has been, for the last half-century, State's job. It's a dangerous job. Everyone knows it. Obviously, they would like the thugs to be as un-murderous as possible. Especially toward their own people. And obviously, they do not see the picture through these glasses. They do not understand that the "men anywhere fighting" fight not because their grievances are unsatisfied, but because State itself has offered them the prospect of satisfaction through violence. State sincerely believes that the gasoline is water.

And the effect on the thugs? Well, I care not for thugs. One, it's always fun to be a thug, and two, all thugs deserve death. But not all Palestinians are thugs, and I don't think the last 50 years have been an especially fun time to be a Palestinian.

It could be worse, however. One of the points that Kedourie cleared up for me was the origin of the Armenian genocide. Did you ever wonder why, exactly, the Young Turks decided to murder their Armenians? Did you think it was just because they were evil, or because they were Turkish, or because they didn't have an electoral college and a bicameral legislature?

Well, all three of these things may be true. But until I read Kedourie, I had only heard two sides of the story - the Turkish side, which is that it didn't happen, and the Armenian side, which is that it did. History, unfortunately, often comes with far more than two sides:
No means but insurrection: this was clear and it was meant seriously. The leaders of the Armenian nationalist movement had already decided that autonomy was their goal and they thought they had a strategy to achieve it. And these leaders took care that Armenians would not be found to help with the reforms. For it was not in vain that they surveyed the history of Europe from the French Revolution, and not in vain that they meditated on the liberation of Greece, Serbia, Rumania and Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke. They would make insurrection and they would bring the Armenian Question 'to the front'. Then the Powers would have to deal with it, and if they failed to deal with it according to the desires of the nationalists, why, there were always other means of keeping the Armenian Question 'to the front'.
[...]
The aim of nationalists is clear. It was to create 'incidents', provoke the Turks to excesses, and thereby bring about the intervention of the Powers. The British Blue Books of the period before the massacres are full of reports of attacks by Armenian agents or bands on Turks and Kurds, of the distribution of seditious prints, of the discoveries by Ottoman authorities of caches of bombs and arms, of demonstrations organized by Armenians in Constantinople and the provinces. In most cases, the incidents would have no immediate far-reaching consequences, but some of them, either owing to circumstances or to the ill-will of Ottoman officials, led to serious results. In Sasun in 1894, in Zeitun in 1895, the incidents led to armed risings by the Armenians of these localities which were, of course, bloodily suppressed. An outcry was the result, consular commissions were appointed to investigate, and the Armenian leaders had the consolation of knowing that another blow had been struck in the cause of Armenian independence.

The Blue Books also record another class of incident, quite as large as the first, created by the nationalists, but this much more sinister. It seems that the nationalists had to convince not only the Ottoman government and the Powers of the wisdom of satisfying their desires, they had to convince the generality of the Armenian people as well. This must be the explanation of the attack organized by them on the patriarch as he was officiating in the cathedral of Koum Kapou at Constantinople in July 1890, as a result of which he had to resign his office; of a subsequent attempt to assassinate another patriarch in 1894; of the recurrent reports of Armenians executed for being 'informers', for refusing to contribute to nationalist funds, for 'collaborating' with the Ottoman government. Nor did the nationalists try to hide or excuse these activities. Here is a passage from a revolutionary placard posted in Sivas in December 1893:
Osmanlis!... The examples are before your eyes. How many hundreds of rascals in Constantinople, Van, Erzerum, Alashkert, Harpout, Cesarea, Marsovan, Amassia and other towns have been killed by the Armenian revolutionaries? What were these rascals? Armenians! And again Armenians! If our aim was against the Mohamedans or Mohamedanism, as the government tries to make you think, why should we kill the Armenians?
The Armenians were forced to be free.

What did the Ottoman government have to say to all this? Its attitude was as clear as that of the nationalists: this agitation would have only one result, to invite Europe to meddle again in the affairs of the Ottoman empire. This was not to be tolerated; the Armenians had to desist or they would take the consequences.
[...]
And the incidents continued to be organized. In 1897, just after the massacres of 1895-6, and in 1905, there are records of minor insurrections also leading to massacres. And on the eve of the Young Turk coup d'etat of 1908, there was still the same tension in Ottoman Armenia fed and tended by the revolutionaries. This the American ambassador in a dispatch of 5 August 1907 speaks of 'a considerable degree of disaffection and revolutionary movement on the part of a portion of the Armenian population in the district of Van. Several cold-blooded murders have been committed even in the streets of that city and a certian feeling of apprehension and unrest appears generally to prevail'; and in another dispatch he reports several more disturbances in Van, revolutionaries killing and wounding seventeen Ottoman soldiers, executing a 'traitor', and a considerable store of rifles, cartridges and dynamite seized. Later, when the catastrophe was final, complete, irredeemable, the nationalists were still indignant that their methods had had such untoward consequences. They could not understand why salvation was so recalcitrant in coming, why the easy path which the examples of so many European revolutions had promised should have proved so full of vipers and of nettles. The desolate wind of futility blows through the report the Dashnaks presented to the International Socialist Congress in Hamburg in 1923.
Every time that, through the irresistible force of things, the movement of Armenian emancipation expressed itself in revolutionary action, every time that the party of the Armenian Risorgimento tried, at the head of the conscious elements of the country, to draw the attention of the world, by armed insurrections or peaceful demonstrations, to the intolerable fate of the Armenian people, the Turkish government threw the Armenian masses, peaceful and disarmed, to the mercy of its troops, its bachi-bazouks and of the Turkish and Kurdish mob.
There is a surprised air about the statement.
I'll bet that when I dragged out the word "evil" you thought it was a bit of an overstatement. Do you still think so? What about the arson metaphor? Does it still strike you as over the top?

56 Comments:

Blogger Aaron Davies said...

whatever else you can say about UR, it certainly is mind-expanding (and by this i mean "an adequate replacement for LSD")

September 11, 2008 at 2:52 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I have to side with Sailer (if not AmericanGoy). Does part of Washington "sponsor" the Palestinians? Measured in how many dollars? Is it more than we give Israel? And it's not like one faction in D.C supports Israel and the other opposes it, both parties kiss the ring at AIPAC. If any significant power in Washington had it in for Israel, catching their agents spying on us or attacking one of our ships should set them roaring in retaliation (not something I'd advocate but that they could easily get away with if it were any other country). MM simply asserts that in the absence of U.S interference Israel's position would be improved (not an impossibility nor a certainty in my view) acting on the assumption that somehow Jabotinsky has risen from the grave and become der Fuhrer des Judenstaat. It's not America that would restrain Israel but Israelis themselves. I also don't know how you can complain about Anglo-American meddling without mentioning the CREATION of Israel itself (as well as Palestine).

An interesting paper I recently read on the downsides of U.S support for Israel is Bryan Caplan's Terrorism: The Relevance of the Rational Model. I haven't read Walt/Mearsheimer's Israel Lobby yet (which got them blacklisted from the supposedly anti-Israel NYT) but after I finish Sacred Causes and Triumph Forsaken I plan on picking that up along with de Tocqueville's Old Regime and the French Revolution.

Also, the French Algerians did resort to terrorism. OAS and all that.

September 11, 2008 at 8:00 AM  
Anonymous M said...

TGGP: There's a LOT more of this if you search around.

"A major donors conference to raise funds for the Palestinians has gone beyond expectations, with donors pledging $7.4 billion to help build a Palestinian state, organizers said Monday."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/17/palestinian.conf/index.html

This is a good read:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/60396.pdf

September 11, 2008 at 8:10 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

One way to find out whom and how the US is supporting would be to see what happen if Israel did in fact move all the Palis to the Sinai Peninsula, build a DMZ to put the Korean one to shame, convert Gasa and West Bank into Israeli national parks (nice touch, MM!) and credibly cowed its neighbors into not to meddling.

What would happen? Woud the US interfere, Serbia-style?

September 11, 2008 at 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Lugo said...

The Westphalian system did not guarantee good domestic government, or peaceful international behavior. But it was also largely free of incentives for tyranny and devastation. For over 250 years, no European city was sacked, pillaged, or slaughtered in a Westphalian war.

Say what? If we take the Westphalian era as 1648 to 1914, then there were most definitely efforts to obtain "tyranny" in Europe. Louis XIV was a would-be tyrant, in my opinion, as was Napoleon. Their ambitions extended well beyond control or domination over French territory, and embraced, in Napoleon's case, all of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. As for European cities not being sacked, pillaged, or slaughtered in the Westphalian era, an incomplete list would include Coblenz, Heidelberg, Oppenheim, Worms, and Mainz (1688), numerous cities in Belgium and northern Italy (1700-1714), Prague (1741), numerous cities in Germany (1756-63), numerous cities in Spain (1808-14), Moscow (1812), Copenhagen (1807), and Paris (1870).

We have simply observed that the old international law, generally perceived as brutal and bellicose, results in peace.

From wiki:
* 1667–1668 War of Devolution
* 1667–1683 Great Turkish War
* 1688-1697 War of the League of Augsburg
* 1700–1721 Great Northern War
* 1701–1713 War of the Spanish Succession
* 1718-1720 War of the Quadruple Alliance
* 1740–1748 War of the Austrian Succession
* 1756–1763 Seven Years' War
* 1789–1799 French Revolution

19th century

* 1792–1815 Napoleonic Wars
* 1830 Ten Days Campaign (following the Belgian Revolt)
* 1830-1831 Polish-Russian war
* 1848-1851 First Schleswig War
* 1848–1866 Italian Independence wars
* 1848–1849 First Italian Independence War
* 1859 Second Italian Independence War
* 1866 Third Italian Independence War
* 1854–1856 Crimean War
* 1864 Second Schleswig War
* 1864 January Uprising
* 1866–1866 Austro-Prussian War
* 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War
* 1877–1878 Russo–Turkish War
* 1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War
* 1893–1896 Cod War of 1893
* 1897 First Greco–Turkish War

on one side of the battlefield, we have... Washington. Or more precisely, Foggy Bottom. And on the other side of the battlefield, we have... Washington. Or more precisely, Arlington. Cui bono? The Arab-Israeli war is a profession, providing employment for thousands of Americans, not to mention pretty much the entire population of Gaza and the West Bank. If "employment" is a word for parading daily with balaclavas and AK-47s for bags of government cornmeal. Is this healthy, boys and girls? And does it bear any resemblance to Woodrow Wilson's stoner Christian fantasies? I think he'd be the first to deny it.

Perhaps this model applies since 1989, but it has to be acknowledged that over the full course of the Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948 to now, there were other actors besides Washington. In 1948, Israel's principal supporter was the USSR. From about 1950 to 1967, Israel's principal supporters (suppliers of arms and aid) were Britain and France. From 1950 until the late 1970s, Egypt and Syria's principal supporter was the USSR. One of the engines of conflict in 1956, 1967, and 1973 was Soviet arms to Egypt and Syria. The 1956 and 1967 wars would likely not have occurred if the Soviets had not armed the Arabs (these wars were preventive from an Israeli standpoint - they needed to attack before Soviet-armed Arabs got too strong), and the 1973 war would most definitely never have occurred without Soviet arms supplies that enabled the Arabs to attack. Thus, viewing the conflict only through the lens of Foggy Bottom vs. Arlington is simplistic and misleading.

September 11, 2008 at 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Blode said...

I liked the post but I'm worried that the some of moldbug's assertions are going to cause sideshow disagreements. Most reactionaries/ libertarians/ etc. can agree on isolationism (even if, like me, they think it's a silly term for what it describes). Moldbug's point - that international meddling on behalf of democracy or liberal revolutions or "nation building" - is a bad thing and should be stopped, is well-taken and should be acknowledged, no? If you disagree, tell us more about your overall stance.

Moldbug's other point, that the Peace of Westfalia peace was better than League of Nations peace (Pax Wilsonica or whatever), is also well-taken. As usual, Moldbug makes some implausible assertions, like the "no European cities" during the Westfalian era point. (Though, in fairness, I don't think struggles between Christendom and the Ottoman Empire count as counterxamples; AFAIK Westfalia was between the nations of Christian Europe and didn't bind the Ottomans at all.)

It's fine for everyone to correct moldbug's inaccurate points; I am just concerned that I'll lose sight of which readers agree with his salvoes against Wilsonian/neocon world policemanship. If someone wants to step up to the plate and make an independent case for or against international military intervention, I'd be interested.

September 11, 2008 at 9:57 AM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

I disagree about Israel and the U.S. Without the U.S., I don't think Israel would be any more likely to engage in full-blown war in Gaza or the West Bank. Moreover, I think they're right not to.

The existing situation with small numbers of people on both sides getting killed by the other every year appears to me to be the optimum (i.e. least-bad) situation there.

Western democracies can't just go around doing massive ethnic cleansing and/or genocide, and short of those, nothing will improve the situation from Israel's perspective. The best thing, strategically but with an eye to what their people would have the stomach for, that they can do is enforce the barriers and engage in aggressive counterterrorism.

One example where the USA certainly helped Israel is Carter's involvement in the peace with Egypt. We can argue about how much influence Carter really had, but I don't think anyone can say the result wasn't good for Israel (and for Egypt! Not everything's zero-sum, especially war and especially when it arises more out of ethnic hatred than anything else.)

September 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

Western democracies can't just go around doing massive ethnic cleansing

They do it all the time. They just don't call it that.

September 11, 2008 at 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

The mention of Kedourie's "The Chatham House Version" brings to mind one of the early luminaries of Chatham House, John Buchan. His autobiography. "Memory-Hold-the-Door" is one of the few frank accounts of "Milner's kindergarten" and the early years of the RIIA. It was supposed to have been one of John F. Kennedy's favorite books. I had not heard of Millis's book before but it should be interesting to compare with Buchan and with Carroll Quigley's "The Anglo-American Establishment."

Buchan's "Greenmantle" is still an entertaining read, and - in suitably fictionalized form - is an account of European machinations in the Ottoman empire. Peter Hopkirk's several books on Asia before, during, and immediately after World War I provide a good factual background from a British point of view.

The Westphalian system seems to me to have broken down because continental European powers began concerning themselves with acquiring territory not from each other (as had always been the object of previous European wars) but outside Europe, where the old rules did not apply. Germany, a nation in the modern sense only since 1870, was a latecomer to the imperial game as compared to Britain. Wilhelm II's interest in acquiring overseas territories was one of the reasons for his parting of ways with Bismarck. It brought Germany into competition with Britain, as can be seen in the history leading up to World War I as it played out in the Near East. We're still dealing with the consequences of that war 90 years after it ended.

September 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One example where the USA certainly helped Israel is Carter's involvement in the peace with Egypt. We can argue about how much influence Carter really had, but I don't think anyone can say the result wasn't good for Israel

In fact, it wasn't. Israel gave up the Sinai, and in return got a paper peace that left both Israel and Egypt dependent on the USA, not a real peace. Gee, it's almost like Uncle Sam doesn't want real peace in the region, because then nobody would need him...

September 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

anonymous:

In fact, it wasn't. Israel gave up the Sinai, and in return got a paper peace that left both Israel and Egypt dependent on the USA, not a real peace. Gee, it's almost like Uncle Sam doesn't want real peace in the region, because then nobody would need him...

Not a real peace? Have I missed the Egypt-Israeli wars since then?

September 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM  
Blogger Zimri said...

You're right, the Ottoman Empire is not bound by Westphalia. Cannot be so bound; in its intended form, it is not a Turkish state but an Islamic vanguard complete with caliph.

Islam is universal. There cannot be a stable peace with and independence with Islam, any more than there can be peace with and independence from the US today.

September 11, 2008 at 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'"Land for peace" is a fairly normal way to end a war - for example, France in 1870 accepted the proposition of "land for peace," ceding Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. On the other hand, France in 1870 had been defeated. Whereas Israel in 1967 was, at least according to all reliable experts, victorious.'

Surely it was the Germans who gave up land for peace in 1870. In the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War they occupied - what, half? two-thirds? - of France. In return for peace they retreated from all but the merest sliver of very rightfully German territory, (or so they argued).

Effectively the Arabs are in the position of France, 1870. As far as they're concerned the Israeli presence is pure military occupation on both sides of the Green Line. They are asked to cede a portion of that territory to Israel de jure in return for Israel ceding de facto control over the rest. The terms that might plausibly be offered them are much worse than those offered France in 1870, but, then, the Arabs are neither powerful nor skillful.

The Israelis are in the Germans' position (Bismarckian, not Hiterite Germans, of course). They have the advantage of knowing that France's de jure concession of Alsace-Lorraine didn't mean a damn thing politically.

intellectual pariah

September 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM  
Anonymous c23 said...

How has Israel lost the right to do whatever they want to the Palestinians? Suppose they deported all of them to Jordan and established national parks in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Would the US really stop them? The Zionist lobby in the US is still powerful enough that there probably wouldn't even be any sanctions (which would probably not be enough to stop a determined Israel), let alone military action.

Israel's failure to "grasp the nettle" is its own. Progressivism infects Israel too, so you could just is well say that Israel supports Israel, but Israel also opposes Israel.

September 11, 2008 at 9:37 PM  
Anonymous m said...

"Would the US really stop them? The Zionist lobby in the US is still powerful enough that there probably wouldn't even be any sanctions (which would probably not be enough to stop a determined Israel), let alone military action."

The answer is: yes, the US would stop them. Israel gets all of it's foreign aid from the U.S. - it provides 30% of Israel's annual military budget. Israel gets the vast majority of it's equipment from the U.S., and is protected to a degree (not a large degree) in the U.N. by the U.S.

If Israel tried to do anything, all of these things would END - have no doubt about it. Israel would rapidly become the next South Africa and fall. Israel relies on Progressives far too much both within and outside of the country. It's hands are tied, bigtime.

September 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not a real peace? Have I missed the Egypt-Israeli wars since then?

If there were real peace, the US would not have to bribe both sides with BILLIONS of dollars to keep them from tearing each others throats out. If there were real peace, it would not be true that the overwhelming majority of Egyptians hate Israel ("92 percent of Egyptians see Israel as an enemy nation [and] Only 2 percent call Israel friendly nation despite longstanding peace").

The only reason there have not been Egyptian-Israeli wars since 1973 is that the US doesn't allow it, and exerts its power to ensure that this does not happen. Is this a condition of "real peace"? No. With real peace, nations do not have to be bribed and coerced not to attack each other.

September 12, 2008 at 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Westphalian system seems to me to have broken down because continental European powers began concerning themselves with acquiring territory not from each other (as had always been the object of previous European wars) but outside Europe, where the old rules did not apply. Germany, a nation in the modern sense only since 1870, was a latecomer to the imperial game as compared to Britain. Wilhelm II's interest in acquiring overseas territories was one of the reasons for his parting of ways with Bismarck. It brought Germany into competition with Britain, as can be seen in the history leading up to World War I as it played out in the Near East. We're still dealing with the consequences of that war 90 years after it ended.

Nah. Colonial competition was a symptom, not a cause, of Anglo-German conflict, just as it was a symptom, not a cause, of Anglo-French conflict from 1688 to 1815.

September 12, 2008 at 7:03 AM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

Anonymous:

Don't redefine "peace." If there's no fighting, it's peace, regardless of who hates who and who's bribing who.

September 12, 2008 at 7:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't redefine "peace." If there's no fighting, it's peace, regardless of who hates who and who's bribing who.

So in your view, there is no difference in the "peace" between France and Germany (or Britain and Germany) that prevailed from 1918 to 1939 and from 1945 to now? And no difference in the "peace" between the US and Russia from 1945 to 1991 and from 1991 to today? They're all "peace" and there is no meaningful distinction that any intelligent person can draw between them? In my view the idea that there is only one type of peace ("not fighting") is absurd and simplistic. A "peace" in which at least one party would gladly kill the other if not restrained from doing so is a fragile stasis at best, and a far cry from a real peace in which conflict between the two parties is essentially unimaginable (as is now the case with France and Germany).

September 12, 2008 at 9:22 AM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

anonymous:

No, obviously there are different kinds of peace. But they're still all kinds of peace.

September 12, 2008 at 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So my original point stands - real peace does not obtain between Israel and Egypt now!

September 12, 2008 at 11:15 AM  
Anonymous c23 said...

m, a little googling shows that we give Israel about $3 billion/year, and they have a GDP of a little under $200 billion. Loss of that aid might be somewhat paiful, but it isn't going to break them. They may have our protection in the UN, but what is the UN going to do to them anyway? Send guys in blue helmets to watch impotently as they cleanse the Strip?

September 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM  
Anonymous m said...

c23: there's a lot of areas in international law that I don't know very well, but Israel's not one of them. The money that we give to Israel is important (30% of Israel's annual military budget), but much more important is the equipment that the U.S. provides - everything from F16's all the way down to M16's, which the government sells to Israel for $1 a pop. If the U.S. cuts off military aid, and continues to supply it to Israel's enemies (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, probably Iraq) it's going to be in big trouble - not to mention that Syria and Iran are being supplied to an unprecedented extent by Russia.

What would the U.N. do to Israel if the U.S. didn't protect them? Why, the same thing they did to South Africa and Rhodesia - comprehensive economic sanctions. We see hints of it now with the British university boycott - remember, in a democracy those that shape public opinion have the power...

Anyway, Israel's too small for the big boys to care about if they aren't controllable, especially when the Arabs have trillions of dollars in oil wealth that they're dependent on.

Lastly, Israel has only one longterm option if it wants to survive - Jabotinsky's Iron Wall. By this I mean a complete cessation of foreign aid (despite what I said above), the eviction of Arabs from Israel, self-sustainability in economic production, and the complete removal of Progressives from control of the university system, the Israeli Supreme Court, and especially the media. Unfortunately, at this time non-Progressives are in no position to challenge the system in such a manner, and therefore, until such change occurs, the best we can hope for is continued American assistance and the continued frustration of the so-called Peace Process (really, the War Process).

September 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

I believe anonymous of Sept. 12 @ 11:15AM is confusing peace with comity between nations. Peace is simply the absence of international violence. It may exist because of genuinely friendly relations between the countries in queestion, or because one or the other (or both) fear the consequences of open warfare. There is a parallel here to the reasons why individuals obey the laws of the states in which they live. They may obey them because they believe that doing so is morally right. They may obey them because they fear the consequences of disobedience. Or they may obey them because it is simply the easiest thing to do and they have never thought of doing otherwise. Their motives for abiding by the law make no difference to the effect of their behavior.

Anon. of 7:03AM, I probably should have said that the Westphalian system began to break down "when" rather than "because of" the competition for overseas territories between Britain and Germany. Cause is hard to assign. The fact is, in any event, that Britain and imperial Germany maintained friendly relations well into the reign of Wilhelm II - who was, after all, the grandson of Queen Victoria. Wilhelm's burgeoning colonial ambitions marked the beginning of rivalry and of British fear of Germany. This was well developed several years before World War I began, to an extent that many perceptive observers questioned not "if" but only "when" the two countries would go to war. There is an identifiable genre of pre-WWI British literature on this point. Notable examples in the fiction of the period are Buchan's "The Thirty-Nine Steps" and Saki's "When William Came."

September 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM  
Anonymous c23 said...

m: interesting points, especially about the cheap weapons from the US. I still think the Israel lobby is powerful enough in the US to prevent us from doing much to them, including economic sanctions, but maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, progressivism will fall someday. If Israel can survive that long, it'll be in a position to force some sort of real settlement with the Palestinians. If you're right that the progressives would destroy Israel, then the Israeli position is sort of analogous to their position in the second century, when they challenged, and were defeated, by a declining empire. If they had held off for a century, which they could have done, they could have gotten their country back without an 1800 year diaspora.

September 12, 2008 at 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe anonymous of Sept. 12 @ 11:15AM is confusing peace with comity between nations.

I'll ask you the same question I asked him - was there any difference in the "peace" between France and Germany (or Britain and Germany) that prevailed from 1918 to 1939 and the peace that prevailed between them from 1945 to now? Is there any difference in the "peace" between the US and Russia from 1945 to 1991 and the peace from 1991 to today? Do you really think there is no meaningful distinction between them? I certainly think there is. The peace between France and Germany from 1918 to 1939 was not "real peace" - nor was the relationship between the US and the USSR from 1945 to 1991 "real peace" - nor is the relationship between Israel and Egypt from 1973 to now "real peace".

The English word "peace" may be inadequate to describe all the different types of peace, and peace is not simply the absence of violence.

September 12, 2008 at 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I probably should have said that the Westphalian system began to break down "when" rather than "because of" the competition for overseas territories between Britain and Germany.

Then you must explain why the Westphalian system did not begin to break down when Britain and France competed for colonies from 1688 to 1815 (a competition that was far more vicious, and for far higher stakes, than the Anglo-German colonial rivalry after 1870).

September 12, 2008 at 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Anon: there certainly are different types of peace. The point is that peace is not necessarily comity between nations. It may be based on fear or simply upon indifference.

A Russian-speaking friend of mine once observed that the Russian word for peace, "mir," was typically used to describe a situation in which Russia (or its successor the Soviet Union) had prevailed over its enemies. Hence one had to understand what was meant by propaganda phrases like "the peace-loving Soviet people," etc.

Why "must" I explain why the Westphalian system did not break down during conflicts between Britain and France? It is sufficient to know that it did not. Britain and France were hereditary enemies. They had fought long before their competition for colonies began. British monarchs did not drop their pretension to the throne of France, which dated from the Hundred Years' War, nor did they cease quartering the flowers-de-luce of France in their arms, until the time of the Congress of Vienna. Yet that event, as we know, honored the Westphalian system and - as best it could - restored the status quo ante the French revolution and Buonaparte.

Let's observe, though, that the Anglo-German colonial rivalry did not extend only to their respective possessions in Africa, etc. The colonial ambitions of both powers encompassed the dismemberment of the decaying Ottoman empire, particularly those portions where oil was known to be present. See Hopkirk's books. The importance of oil, both strategically and economically, was already well understood before WWI.

September 13, 2008 at 12:49 PM  
Anonymous m said...

I think Michael S. is being silly and pedantic in his arguments about the word peace.

September 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM  
Blogger Statsquatch said...

MM did himself a disservice by mentioning Israel since it distracts from his conspiracy theory which is much more interesting than the run of the mill elders of Zion, neo-con, Der Strumer variety.

Speaking of an interesting conspiracy did anybody see the article "American Revolutionary" in Saturday's WSJ
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122127204268531319.html?mod=hps_us_pageone)?

Mr. Gene Sharp is a former sociology professor at Harvard, draft dodger, and son of an itinerant protestant preacher who writes hand books on how "non-violence” can bring democratic government to various wayward states (Burma, Zimbabwe, Ukraine, etc).

This is the real conspiracy to rule the world.

September 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why "must" I explain why the Westphalian system did not break down during conflicts between Britain and France?

For the obvious reason that you argue that colonial rivalry caused the system to break down. Colonial rivalry between Britain and France was much more severe and protracted from 1688 to 1815 than from 1880 to 1914, so if such rivalries were going to destroy the system, they should have done so sooner.

It is sufficient to know that it did not.

It is not sufficient to know that it did not if you want to provide a compelling, logically consistent theory for the breakdown of the system.

Let's observe, though, that the Anglo-German colonial rivalry did not extend only to their respective possessions in Africa, etc. The colonial ambitions of both powers encompassed the dismemberment of the decaying Ottoman empire, particularly those portions where oil was known to be present.

So what? The previous Anglo-French colonial rivalry spanned the entire globe, and encompassed the dismemberment of each other's North American empires as well as efforts to steal strategic portions of other European empires. Again, if extra-European rivalry was going to cause the system to break down, it should have done so during the Anglo-French struggle.

September 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM  
Blogger mtraven said...

Statsquatch: This is the real conspiracy to rule the world.

Gene Sharp came up on this thread at tggp's blog awhile back. Interesting fellow, so thanks for the link to the WSJ article. Here's some more. He seems to be getting criticized from both the left and the right, which is usually a good sign.

Mr. Sharp seems to have pissed off the regimes of Iran, Venezuela, Burma, Milosevic's Serbia, China, and Zimbabwe, among other places. If he is ruling the world as a result, or is even connected to a shadowy conspiracy to rule the world, it's not very evident. But let's say he is. After all, he's got an association with Harvard. So, the question is, would you rather the world be ruled by Harvard-linked democracy activists, or by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Milosevic, the Burmese military junta, and Robert Mugabe? I know it's supposed to be an axiom here that democracy is the worst thing ever, but I'd like to hear people come out and say that they prefer the above alternatives. Is the prospect of rule by Harvard elitists so terrible that you prefer rule by murderous thugs?

Let me guess at the answer -- both the thugs and Mr. Sharp are somehow the fault of the worldwide, centuries-old progressive-puritan-communist-Harvard-Quaker conspiracy, and the only solution to is to return to the reign of all-powerful, all-wise god-kings. Well, good luck with that.

September 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the only solution to is to return to the reign of all-powerful, all-wise god-kings.

No, a classic law-and-order nationalist like Pinochet will do.

September 14, 2008 at 6:41 PM  
Blogger mtraven said...

Anonymous: OK, you like the torturing, murdering, theiving> Pinochet, who you call a "law-and-order nationalist" despite the fact that he seized power in a military coup and organized thousands of extra-judicial acts of violence. Fine. Apparently a good third of Chileans liked him as well. Can you tell me why? I'd really like to understand this mindset better. Why do people like rulers like Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, the Shah of Iran? Are you sure that they are going to use their power to torture and murder your enemies and not you? Are all the alternatives worse?

September 15, 2008 at 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do people like rulers like Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, the Shah of Iran?

Because they did a damn good job of keeping UnAmerican Activities in check in Chile, Philippines, Nicaragua, and Iran!

Are all the alternatives worse?

In many cases, yes. Pinochet better than Allende. Somoza better than Sandinistas. Shah better than Mullahs.

September 15, 2008 at 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the question is, would you rather the world be ruled by Harvard-linked democracy activists, or by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Milosevic, the Burmese military junta, and Robert Mugabe?

This is an "either-or" question? Chavez, Ahmy, Milo, Mugabe, and countless other thugs are the direct result of exactly the sort of meddling Sharp engages in! Harvard (and the rest of the Cathedral) is exactly the engine that produces thuggery and poverty.

September 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

I'd really like to understand this mindset better.

In very general terms, the Right Wing orientation seeks to preserve a particular people and a way of life.

The Left Wing orientation aims to build an improved new world order in place of those particular nations and ways of life.

September 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Anon, you'll recall that I wrote it would have been better to say that the Westphalian system began to break down "when" rather than "because" the colonial competition between imperial Germany and Britain had begun. That rather well avoids the question of cause and effect, does it not? And the fact remains that this was the sequence of events. The view that the Anglo-German conflict behind World War I was a competition between an old, established colonial power and an ambitious new one was the judgment of some contemporary observers - H.L. Mencken, among others.

Perhaps the reason the system did not break down during earlier colonial conflicts was that France, Spain, and England were both geographically and diplomatically peripheral to the Westphalian system, whereas Germany was central to it. France and England were not directly involved in the Thirty Years' War; Spain was only to the extent that it was ruled by a branch of the Habsburg family, another branch of which was party to the conflict. James I refused to come to the aid of his son-in-law Frederick V, whose grab for the Bohemian crown started it all. Cardinal Richelieu believed the interests of France were served by playing both parties to the war against each other as long as possible, and so that prince of the Church subsidized the Protestant champion Gustavus Adolphus in his fight with the Catholic house of Habsburg.

The effect of the peace of Westphalia was to stabilize Germany. That stable structure endured until Buonaparte rolled across the continent, but was swiftly restored after his fall. The real destabilizing step may well have been the unification of the German empire under the kings of Prussia in 1870.

Another point is that the previous colonial conflicts did not have the economic significance of the intended division of the Ottoman empire, particularly its oil-rich parts. Whether France or Britain prevailed in Canada, for example, did not clearly make one or the other the master of a strategic resource. Whether Germany or Britain prevailed in the Near East assuredly did. If you don't believe that people back then were aware of the importance of oil, study Admiral Lord Fisher on that subject.

September 15, 2008 at 1:13 PM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

On Mtraven's Pinochet question, it might be worthwhile to quote Evelyn Waugh:

"If I were a Spaniard, I should be fighting for General Franco. As an Englishman I am not in the predicament of choosing between two evils. I am not a Fascist nor shall I ever become one unless it were the only alternative to Marxism. It is mischievous to suggest that such a choice is imminent."

I suspect the Chileans who supported Pinochet did so because he appeared to be the only alternative to Marxism, while those outside Chile who sympathized with him reasoned as Waugh did about Franco.

Let's also remember that Pinochet came to power in Chile only after a lengthy period of social conflict. He did not just rise up one day to depose a government that had been ruling over a peaceful and orderly state. The historical parallel to Pinochet was not his namesake Augustus, but rather the earlier dictator Sulla, who put an end to the Social Wars. Like Sulla, Pinochet was not just a despot - both instituted conservative reforms, and both laid down power voluntarily. It was Sulla's good fortune to die early in his retirement; Pinochet's bad luck to live long enough to suffer some measure of retribution from his enemies.

I am always astonished at how many leftists describe Pinochet as evil incarnate whilst fawning over Fidel Castro. Pinochet ruled for a relatively briefer period and killed fewer people. He voluntarily relinquished power after an honest plebiscite. Castro clung to power and when too feeble to do so, relinquished it only to his brother, who apparently has no plans for free elections any time soon.

I conclude that leftists are mostly unhappy with Pinochet because he thwarted the establishment of a communist regime in Chile. They are not really bothered by killing, torture, and other dictatorial tactics as such - only by their use for purposes contrary to the advancement of collectivism. When such tactics are used by a collectivist like Castro, they fall silent about them, or change the subject to gush over the supposed high literacy rate and universal health care he has brought about - according to his own propaganda.

I've never been to Cuba and doubt at this point in my life that I shall ever be. I did travel in Spain before Franco's fall and in eastern Europe before the demise of communism. Spain was definitely better off under Franco, at least by the early '70s, than Hungary or Poland were under the communists. Still I was and am glad that we don't have to choose between such evils here, yet.

September 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM  
Blogger Statsquatch said...

Mtavern,
Thanks for the link new Pixar movie…”finding neocon.” You asked a good question:

"So, the question is, would you rather the world be ruled by Harvard-linked democracy activists, or by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Milosevic, the Burmese military junta, and Robert Mugabe?"


I am not an expert on UR-logy but following that line of thought (as anonymous) we may actually have both. In the case of Mugabe it is fairly clear that he is a creature of the “centuries-old progressive-puritan-communist-Harvard-Quaker conspiracy. A Bircher would make a good case for China too.

As for non-violence the UR-logical answer is, I believe, that non-violence only works when it is backed up by silent threats of greater violence. That is, Ghandi would not have succeeded unless the US was ambivalent about the bankrupt British Empire and MLK would never have won the day if the USG had not federalized the National Guard. Plausible?

Maybe, regardless though, you have to admit that the theory of the “centuries-old progressive-puritan-communist-Harvard-Quaker conspiracy” is preferable to the elders of neo-con Zion theory going around. Heck, it might be good enough to serve as the institutional nemesis in one of those Dan Brown like anti-illumaniti books. If MM could work JFK, Mary Magdalene, and the Loch Ness monster into the narrative he could make a fortune.

Note, some of my best friends are Harvard elitists but they are not able to rule with out indulging murderous thugs so I see no reason to fall in line. Besides the odds of the Cathedral lasting past 2030 seem slim, so why back a weak horse?

September 15, 2008 at 5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, you'll recall that I wrote it would have been better to say that the Westphalian system began to break down "when" rather than "because" the colonial competition between imperial Germany and Britain had begun. That rather well avoids the question of cause and effect, does it not?

Are you trying to emphasize the banality and unimportance of your argument? If you don't have an explanation for why the system broke down (what were the causes), then the observation that certain other things happened at the same time as the breakdown of the Westphalian system, but did not cause that breakdown, is a trivial one at best.

And the fact remains that this was the sequence of events.

If your claim is "X happened after Y but not because of it" - then so what? It is also a fact that the Westphalian system broke down after the Second Opium War, but unless one believes the Second Opium War caused the breakdown of the Westphalian system, then this "sequence of events" is factually true but totally uninteresting and irrelevant.

The view that the Anglo-German conflict behind World War I was a competition between an old, established colonial power and an ambitious new one was the judgment of some contemporary observers - H.L. Mencken, among others.

And the judgment of contemporary observers is invariably correct?

The fact is that the colonial disputes between Britain and Germany were relatively trivial and easily capable of resolution without world war. Modern observers (e.g. Paul Kennedy) conclude that these disputes were the consequences, not the cause of, Anglo-German rivalry over more important matters such as economics and the balance of power in Europe ("the real reasons for British estrangement from Germany in the years before 1914 lay in the North Sea and along the river Meuse, not in Central Africa and the Euphrates valley").

Perhaps the reason the system did not break down during earlier colonial conflicts was that France, Spain, and England were both geographically and diplomatically peripheral to the Westphalian system, whereas Germany was central to it.

Um, what? You say that the two most powerful and important nations in Europe were not "central" to the preservation of the international system prior to 1815? It is axiomatic that the "international system" at any given time is what the most powerful countries agree that it is.

France and England were not directly involved in the Thirty Years' War [etc etc]

You are obviously confused about what the Westphalian System was. It entailed the principles of state sovereignty, legal equality between states, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. The system of states that agreed to those principles was not limited to states that fought in the Thirty Years War and signed the Treaty of Westphalia. Even the European states who did not fight in that war and did not sign the treaty accepted the above principles while the system prevailed (as indeed many states in the world still do today).

The effect of the peace of Westphalia was to stabilize Germany. That stable structure endured until Buonaparte rolled across the continent, but was swiftly restored after his fall. The real destabilizing step may well have been the unification of the German empire under the kings of Prussia in 1870.

OK, so now you admit that the real reason for the end of the Westphalian system was not colonial rivalry, but the destruction of the balance of power in Europe! If you had made that claim up front, instead of your original claim about the breakdown originating in colonial rivalry, you would have avoided a lot of your long-winded flailing.

Another point is that the previous colonial conflicts did not have the economic significance of the intended division of the Ottoman empire, particularly its oil-rich parts. Whether France or Britain prevailed in Canada, for example, did not clearly make one or the other the master of a strategic resource.

Obviously wrong. Colonial resources in the 1700s had as much (if not more) economic significance as did oil in the late 1800s / early 1900s. Canada, India, and the Caribbean had enormous economic significance to Britain, as did the loss of the United States (the French goal in the American Revolution was to deny Britain this "strategic resource" which had proven its value in the Seven Years War). Britain could not have beaten France in any of the wars between 1700 and 1815 without her colonies.

Whether Germany or Britain prevailed in the Near East assuredly did.

No. Britain would have beaten Germany in WW1 without the Middle Eastern oil. You vastly overstate the importance of the Near East before 1914.

If you don't believe that people back then were aware of the importance of oil, study Admiral Lord Fisher on that subject.

They were aware of the importance of it, but this does not establish that this resource was more important economically to Britain from 1870 to 1914 than colonies were to Britain from 1700 to 1815, or that this was the engine of Anglo-German conflict (among other things, competition for oil began well after the Anglo-German rivalry was under way).

September 16, 2008 at 3:55 AM  
Anonymous m said...

anony: he's mentally masturbating. He's best ignored, or at least poked with a stick.

September 16, 2008 at 7:24 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Anon: you cite Paul Kennedy for your reasoning, but I suggest you take a look at Peter Hopkirk's several excellent works about German/British rivalry in the middle East. He supports the belief that it was important to the onset of World War I and possibly central to it. The Kaiser began cultivating friendly relations with the sultan Abdul Hamid when the latter was a pariah in the eyes of the rest of Europe. Wilhelm sought access to middle eastern oil and to a warm water port in the Persian gulf. He attempted to use the caliphate to destabilize the Muslim population in India. This was a German version of the "great game" that Russia had also played with Britain.

Anglo-German rivalry was not significant before the accession of Wilhelm II. Even the Prussian deposition in 1866 of George V of Hanover (the senior heir-male of the Hanoverian dynasty, and duke of Cumberland in the British peerage) did not seriously disrupt relations. George's father Ernst August had never been popular in Britain and Queen Victoria did not get on with him. On the other hand, the Princess Royal Victoria, daughter of the British queen, was Wilhelm's mother, and his father the kaiser Frederick III was very favorably disposed towards Britain. Bismarck was not so, but he was cautious about conflict with Britain. Only after Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck and began his personal rule did a serious rivalry start.

The Westphalian system did not prevent European wars. There were certainly a plenty of them between 1648 and 1914. However, those wars were resolved in a manner that preserved the system, which was not the case in 1918. Surely the war's great cost, and the huge loss of life, had something to do with its geographical extent and the importance of the stakes involved.

September 16, 2008 at 10:24 AM  
Blogger George Weinberg said...

Michael, anon, could you guys maybe make it a little clearer what points you are trying to establish?

As I understand it (and I know this is wrong, because it is so obviously absurd) under the Westphalian system "we object to the way you are governing your citizens" is not considered to be a legitimate cause for war, but "we think we can win" is. Mencius at least seems to have endorsed it.

September 16, 2008 at 7:45 PM  
Anonymous Libra said...

Michael S-

Mencius has in the past made the point that the rise of universal suffrage played a large role in making World War I & II so nasty. The argument is that demagogic politicians gained power by demonizing the other countries, and the illusion that government is of the people creates a cult of state that makes people more willing to fight. Thus World War I had many of the chacterstics of the other two great democratic wars ( the Civil War and the French Revolution Wars). Do you buy this argument?

Mencius-

Despite Iraq and Palestine, the past three decades have probably been even more peaceful than the convert of Europe. Stable military equilibrium's are hard to find in history. Might WashCorp be worth keeping around for this reason alone?

September 16, 2008 at 9:47 PM  
Anonymous m said...

libra - IMO, the longer the unnatural forced peace lasts - which is what I think we have under this system - the worse things will be when things fall apart. For example, I'm predicting at least a regional and possibly a global nuclear war within the next 5 years (could be as much as 10, I suppose).

This is kind of a parallel to my argument against globalism - it's great for the involved parties when times are good, but the more intertwined we are the greater the amplification of the negative effects when times go bad. Look out below!

September 16, 2008 at 10:32 PM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

George Weinberg:

I think you've actually got it exactly right. Well, I'd couple "we think we can win" with "we think we will gain by it," but you've got the idea. "We object to the way you are governing your citizens" never ends until we've conquered and converted every last heathen on Earth, and then I suppose we'll have to start on the heretics.

September 17, 2008 at 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Libra and George, both your points are good and I agree with them.

The Westphalian principle that "we object to the way you are governing your citizens" is not an adequate basis for making war on a country was never in question in (for example) the various wars between Britain and France. Those wars were about territorial and dynastic claims. While the Terror of the French revolution and the massacre of the Vendéens horrified the British government, by themselves these were not the cause of warfare between the two countries. Neither was the way that Buonaparte later ruled France.

Later in the nineteenth century, however, British politicians increasingly appealed to moral idealism in the formulation of foreign policy. An example of this is seen in Gladstone's early Parliamentary speeches against the supposed despotism of the Neapolitan Bourbons, who had been allies of Britain in the Napoleonic wars. Of course this was demagogy - a predictable consequence of the Parliamentary reforms that had expanded the franchise. By the late nineteenth century the appeal to public outrage over a foreign ruler's treatment of his subjects (including his colonial subjects) was commonplace. As an illustration, the pressure of international public opinion forced Leopold II to relinquish his personal rule of the Congo. This would have been inconceivable a century earlier. At the beginning of the twentieth century, popular portrayals of the brutality of Ottoman and German rule were a journalistic and literary staple in Britain. They served, at least in part, to justify British public opinion that British colonial rule was of a morally superior nature.

The peril of such a stratagem was shown by the treatment of Brig. Gen. Reginald Dyer shortly after World War i. Just as it is but a short step from unitarianism to atheism, so it is but a short step from moralizing about one's enemy's treatment of its unwilling colonial subjects to moralizing about the treatment of one's own. Dyer employed no more deadly force in Amritsar in 1919 than (say) Roberts had done in Kabul in 1879; yet Roberts was given a GCB and made a baronet, while Dyer was censured by the House of Commons, his brevet rank of brigadier was revoked, and he was retired as a colonel.

It was not international public opinion that forced French withdrawal from Algeria or British withdrawal from Kenya, but the squeamishness of popular government in France and in Britain about exercising the force necessary to rule in those colonies. Of course, both descended into savagery far worse than French or British colonial rule when they were abandoned to their native populations. But at least the moral daintiness of the former colonial rulers has been satisfied. The lessons to be drawn with respect to American presence in Iraq ought to be obvious.

September 17, 2008 at 11:23 AM  
Blogger Zimri said...

The interesting thing about Leopold II is that he'd got the go-ahead for his takeover of Congo precisely from the international community. Leopold was going to free the Congo of its primitive savagery and barbarism and heathenism and whatnot.

Congo was to be the "Free State". That's what was on all the maps anyway.

September 17, 2008 at 11:15 PM  
Blogger master_of_americans said...

I don't understand this bit about "accepting the results of history". History doesn't have a result until you're dead. Things keep happening. For a long time, the "result of history" was that the Turks had swallowed southeastern Europe whole. All I can say is, thank God for the Greek revolution and long live free Greece.

September 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM  
Blogger  said...

A片,A片,成人網站,成人漫畫,色情,情色網,情色,AV,AV女優,成人影城,成人,色情A片,日本AV,免費成人影片,成人影片,SEX,免費A片,A片下載,免費A片下載,做愛,情色A片,色情影片,H漫,A漫,18成人

a片,色情影片,情色電影,a片,色情,情色網,情色,av,av女優,成人影城,成人,色情a片,日本av,免費成人影片,成人影片,情色a片,sex,免費a片,a片下載,免費a片下載

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣

A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,.18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人網站,成人圖片,AV女優,成人光碟,色情,色情影片,免費A片下載,SEX,AV,色情網站,本土自拍,性愛,成人影片,情色文學,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人貼圖

視訊聊天室,辣妹視訊,視訊辣妹,情色視訊,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊交友90739,美女視訊,視訊美女,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友網,視訊交友,情人視訊網,成人視訊,哈啦聊天室,UT聊天室,豆豆聊天室,
聊天室,聊天,色情聊天室,色情,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,柔情聊天網,小高聊天室,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,中部人聊天室,成人聊天室,成人,一夜情聊天室,一夜情,情色聊天室,情色,美女交友

January 15, 2009 at 8:51 AM  
Blogger 信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

January 31, 2009 at 9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,

February 12, 2009 at 1:38 AM  
Blogger 清朝美女 said...

(法新社倫敦四日電) 英國情色大亨芮孟的公司a片昨天a片下載說,芮孟日前去世,享壽八十二歲;這位身價上億的房地產開發商,曾經在倫敦av女優推出第一情色視訊成人影片脫衣舞表演。色情
av情色電影
情色
芮孟的av女優財產av估計達六億五千萬英鎊(台幣將近四百億),由日本av於他名下事業大多分布在倫敦夜生活區蘇活區,因色情影片成人擁有「蘇活之王」的稱號。成人網站


他的公司「保羅芮情色孟集團」旗下發行部落格多種情色雜誌,包成人網站括「Razzle」、「男性世界」以及「Ma部落格yfair」。


芮孟成人電影本名傑福瑞a片.安東尼.奎恩,父親為搬成人光碟運承包商。成人影片芮孟十五成人網站歲離開學av女優校,矢言要在表成人演事業留名,起先表演讀成人影片心術,後來成為巡迴av歌舞雜耍表sex演的製a片作人。


許多評論家認為,他把情色表演帶進主流社會a片,一九五九年主持破天荒的脫衣舞表演情色電影,後來更AV片靠著在蘇avdvd活區與倫部落格敦西區開發房成人電影地產賺得色情a片大筆財富。

色情
有人形容芮孟av是英a片下載國的海夫色情納,地位等同美國的「花花公子」創辦人海夫納。

February 17, 2009 at 4:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

March 2, 2009 at 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

March 2, 2009 at 10:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home