Thursday, March 18, 2010 59 Comments

Divine-right monarchy for the modern secular intellectual

UR is one madman's search for existential anomalies in conventional belief systems. An anomalous belief is one that everyone, or at least everyone sane, believes, which is simply wrong. The anomaly is existential if it entirely invalidates the entire belief system - or, at least, that field in which it resides.

If you discover such an anomaly, there are two possibilities. Either you are effectively insane, or everyone else is. For example, if you discover that our President, B. H. Obama, is in fact a giant alien predatory lizard, you are insane or everyone else is.

Fortunately, UR is not dedicated to critical analysis in presidential xenobiology, or quantum physics, or even mere philosophy. Rather, it restricts itself to economics, verse, programming, and 20th-century history. Mainly the last. And, of course, that your 20th-century history is bad does not mean your 19th-century history is any damned good. It probably isn't. And don't even start me on the 18th.

Let me throw a quick anomaly at you to explain where I'm coming from with this.

Globally, who is the most revered political figure of the present era? If you ask this question of a random sample of Americans, Americanized Europeans, etc, etc, a significant percentage will say: "Nelson Mandela." Moreover, and more important, almost all of those who chose someone else will agree that, yes, "Nelson Mandela" is a perfectly good answer to this question.

Try this experiment: get a friend of yours to agree with this statement. Then say: "okay. Now, pretend I'm an alien. To Planet Earth, I have just now come! And I don't know anything about Nelson Mandela. Really. Nothing at all. You say: Nelson Mandela is the most revered figure of the present political era. So tell me: who was Nelson Mandela? And what did he do?"

Although this objection may produce some elaboration, the odds are overwhelming that the first answer you receive will be phrased in entirely magical terms. For example, your friend might say: "Nelson Mandela led his people to freedom."

This sentence, which though wilfully egregious is not at all atypical, can be divided into four fragments: "Nelson Mandela," "led," "his people," and "to freedom." The first fragment is phrased in historical terms: "Nelson Mandela." The other three are entirely magical.

It is safe to assume that, by "Nelson Mandela," me, you and your friend mean the same historical individual. We can state as a definitive matter of history that some process somehow involving this individual, Nelson Mandela, brought about a transition in the government of South Africa, to wit: the transfer, in 1994, of effective sovereignty from the Nationalist Party, dominated largely by persons of Afrikaner descent, to the African National Congress, dominated largely by persons of sub-Saharan descent. Surely you, I, and your friend can agree on these facts.

Which is easy to take for granted. But absent in the case of many other magical figures in history - Romulus, Lycurgus, the Yellow Emperor, etc. The people who believed in Lycurgus and the Yellow Emperor, and there were many, did not even know if such individuals had ever existed. Or if they did - we don't. So Nelson Mandela certainly earns his first point in this category. He exists. He is therefore entitled to be mentioned in a history of the 20th century, and not just in the chapter of its public myths.

But in order to even begin to assess the magical parts of the claim, we have to interrogate the rest of the statement. For instance: "led." What was Nelson Mandela's personal responsibility in the movement to end apartheid? Was he, individually, the person Nelson Mandela, a figurehead, or an administrator, or both? He was certainly at least the first - Without Nelson Mandela, would apartheid still be firmly in the saddle? Or might some other figure have sufficed for the same purpose? Can an accurate account of history really canonize Nelson Mandela, or anyone, without asking basic questions of this sort?

Moreover, if we were to perceive that movement behind Nelson Mandela, without any particular interest in Nelson Mandela himself, how would we characterize it? The anti-apartheid movement does not mind being called by that name, but it was clearly in no way sui generis - for instance, it had substantial overlap with the antiwar movement, the green movement, etc; and nor is it restricted to the present, but extends indefinitely into the recent past.

If we wanted to describe this entire activist complex, perhaps across the entire 20th century, what would we even call it? (I have a name: "New Exeter Hall.") Surely, if you're going to canonize Nelson Mandela, you must first define and evaluate the cause of which he was a part. Anything can appear as good, if the good parts are defined without the bad. Somehow I suspect you have not heard from the prosecution in this case. (Perhaps the prosecutor was shot in a police-station bathroom.)

And then we have "his people." Whose people are Mandela's - and whose ain't? Please be specific. Or "to freedom." Which individuals have gained which life options from the transition from Nationalist to ANC rule? What were the oppressed peoples of South Africa allowed to do in 1995, which they weren't allowed to do in 1993? Please be specific. More broadly, who has experienced improved quality-of-government from this transition?

Surely, if Mandela is the greatest political leader of the era, through his own personal initiative he must have brought much better government to millions of people. Surely, if one sought an objective determination of the effect of changes in government on some group or groups X, you would say: did group or groups X experience better government under the old regime, or the new regime? Furthermore: was this result, if surprising, surprising to the entirety of humanity? Or were there some predicted it? If so, who were these accurate predictors?

Anyway. Nelson Mandela is not the subject of this post. But the point is: your friend actually knows nothing about Nelson Mandela, the historical figure. He cannot answer any of these questions.

What he knows is Nelson Mandela, the magical figure. He is experiencing history via magic. Nelson Mandela is not really a historical figure to him; Nelson Mandela is simply a saint in his TV-age religion, which like all major religions practices magical thinking. I urge you to cease and desist from this practice. It is detrimental to the neurons. You will feel much better when you are all done with it.

UR does not urge you to correct your historical interpretation of Nelson Mandela. (If you want to, start here. This book is not at present available in the United States. But it looks quite riveting.) UR does not urge you to replace your TV-age religion, at least not with another TV-age religion.

UR urges you to finish entirely with the TV age - and the radio age, and the penny-newspaper age, and even the pamphlet age. The 21st is a new century. It will think for itself. The digit change is arbitrary, I admit. But what excuse does the open mind need?

To be a rational human being, and to think about Nelson Mandela - or any other individual whose picture your children might find in their friendly local kindergarten - in the old, magical way, is simply to neglect your civic responsibility as a literate and civilized adult. A child acquires judgments by osmosis and keeps them by default. Adults can make an effort.

What we find when we abandon magical thinking in our interpretation of the 20th century is that we know nothing at all about it. The magic is merely a veil. It is of no importance at all. What matters is the absolute and unrelieved ignorance which your TV-delivered reality conceals. This ignorance is to be approached with great humility and respect; in it lies the lives of many men. Who, like Nelson Mandela, existed. Who, unusually for the historian, are living today.

No, this is not another South Africa post. Really. But I'd still like to mention a comment I saw recently, somewhere out there on the hairy-backed Boersphere. The poster, who I'll bet was a bit of a Nazi himself, recounted that he'd been talking to his aged father, who had flown with the RAF in World War II. "Son," his father said, or words to that effect, "I've finally realized what the problem is. I was fighting for the wrong side."

I don't believe this. Honestly, I don't believe any of the 20th-century wars were good wars on any side. I would have tried to stay out of them, on all sides.

Nonetheless, a British author has collected the perspectives of a large number of living World War II veterans, few of whom go quite so far as the aforementioned Afrikaner - but few of whom live in the new South Africa. If the selection is honest, almost all of those still living are amazed and horrified to see the results of the victory they fought for.

This reaction, however righteous or wrongtious (surely, old people are not always right, just because they're old - maybe they just don't get it) puts a blunt new twist on the latest blitz of World War II nostalgia. There is a terrible dishonesty in worshipping those of the past who would condemn you if they lived, and a still more terrible brazenness in doing so while some do live. This brazenness is in itself an existential anomaly. No one notices it. Who would?

This is the blindness of the migraine: a sparkled spot that does not not exist, until you look at it. And fail to see whatever was behind it. Surely something was? Ah, many whorls hides the spot. They can spill out, and cover a hemisphere. They will. Woe! Woe is us! Deeply-woven is the lie. It has no name until you name it.

So that you'll acknowledge a gaping, blatantly mortal wound in the magical 20th century (that is, the tissue of quasi-mythical heroes and villains that forms your narrative of this period), I'm going to clock you with another brutal hardball from out of left field: Israel.

Last time we asked: are you pro-black, or anti-black? Your support for the incredible PR deluge under which the old South Africa knuckled, though you thought it was pro-black, and you remember it as pro-black, actually turned out to be objectively anti-black. As in: you thought your kneejerk PR response, which various good hearts were playing like a violin, would have a positive material impact on the existence on South African blacks. But it actually had a negative material impact.

Which is not to say, of course, that the end of apartheid had no positive impact on South African blacks. It had a significant positive impact on South African blacks: an emotional impact.

Of course, this is not exactly a defense! Presumably the emotional impact of the change of government was based on the belief that, under the new, improved, black-staffed government, their lives would improve - relative to the old, bad, white-staffed one. (Or more precisely, the old, bad Dutchman-staffed one.) Since, on average, their lives did not improve and in fact got worse, you have compounded your mistake with the even more sinister act of deception.

But the winners write history. For now. And you celebrate your victory, which is nominally the victory of your client - "a man and a brother." However, suppose the net effects of this struggle, for whatever reason, leave said man and brother far worse off, in all measurable capacities and by simple inspection, than if you'd never been involved. You feel pretty good, however. Your government has certainly not gotten any worse!

Have you aided him? Of course you've aided him! You've withdrawn him from the clutches of your enemies - typically, other white people. White people just like you, only worse. Needless to say, any ill that comes to the man and a brother, in the battle or after, is their fault.

Thus, for instance, colonial Africa was substantially demolished, with countless millions of deaths, in the end of colonialism. In all measurable capacities and by simple inspection, it has nowhere near recovered. Naturally, both these assessments of the present (which almost everyone acknowledges) are accompanied by the caveat that all destruction and decay, present or past, is attributable in some magical sense to... wait for it... colonialism.

I mean - imagine postcolonialism debating colonialism on the subject. The former would be laughed out of the courtroom. The attacker is prosecuting the victim. But postcolonialism need not argue. For colonialism is dead; for no such court is ever held. Gentlemen, this is not a way to settle history! Sooner or later, the past must have its voice. There are no Mausers in the stacks. All those who dispute are dead as each other, and the worms alone prevail.

So again, in the consensus interpretation of present world history, we see an irrevocable commitment to magical thinking. But I digress. Israel. Here again we find an existential anomaly in your present history. The Israel anomaly is not just exclusive to the present political left; it exists all along the spectrum, exclusively on the far left and often on the far right.

The question this time is: are you pro-Israel, or anti-Israel? Which seems like an easy question. However, as we'll see, there are two entirely different ways to answer it, both of which are apparently correct, and which almost always conflict.

The first answer is the conventional answer. That is, if you support conservative policies on Israel, you are pro-Israel. If you support liberal or progressive policies on Israel, you are anti-Israel. Somewhere between these must be a bipartisan center, neither pro-Israel nor anti-Israel. Perhaps this center is the habitual position of our own dear State Department. Or perhaps State's Israel policies are too pro-Israel; or perhaps they are too anti-Israel. But we can easily see who is for Israel, and who is against it; and there must be a center between them.

Unlike the nature of Nelson Mandela, this judgment is not obviously magical and democratic in nature. In fact, the Israel problem appears so dry and bureaucratic, not to mention unsolvable, that it is the farthest possible thing from magic. Nonetheless, as we'll see, the political conflict in the Middle East is an entirely magical one. That is: the narrative of this conflict, not only as believed by the audience but also by the players, is a magical narrative like that of Mandela. The actual history of the 20th-century Middle East has nothing whatsoever to do with this narrative, and is entirely unknown by almost everyone.

You can see this easily. Why? Because the center of the American political spectrum is simply defined as the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict spectrum. There is no reason whatsoever to assume this correlation. For instance, it could be that all but the most extreme conventionally pro-Arab positions are in fact objectively pro-Israeli. Or vice versa.

Because there is a second way to ask whether you are pro-Israel or anti-Israel. Like our African dilemma before, this is an objective process which does not depend in any way on public opinion. The results conflict completely with your consensus political perception.

The objective polarity of your position is a function of the Middle Eastern policies you think your government, USG, should follow. This position is defined relative to an objective center, which is the classical position of neutrality, well-known to classical international law.

If you are neutral in a conflict, ideally, that conflict exists without you. You are careful to take no action which benefits one side more than the other. The parties to the conflict may be your neighbors, and if so you must conduct yourself quite carefully to produce the practical effect of equivalent nonexistence. Again: to be neutral in a conflict, is to allow that conflict to proceed without your own intervention active or passive.

Therefore, USG is pro-Arab if a shift to neutral policies, as defined above, would favor Israel. It is pro-Israeli if a shift to neutral policies, as defined above, would favor the Arabs. The effect of neutral policies is that USG has no impact whatsoever on the conflict.

Doesn't this sound like a reasonable objective position, which should be the same as the conventional position? Alas, it is anything but.

The problem is that the Arabs, who are militarily much weaker than the Israelis, are imposing territorial concessions on the Israelis. For "peace," the question is not whether the Israelis must cede land they now control the Arabs, but how much they must cede. This is a very unusual sort of peace, considering the military balance of power. Surely, there is no Arab or Islamic power or combination of powers that could win a war with Israel. With no other party in the equation, the IDF could be ruling the Middle East, from Fez to Islamabad, in a month and a half.

Surely this unseen dark planet, this behemoth Nemesis of the postwar solar system, can be none other than USG itself. Given American neutrality, Israel need no longer fear the Arabs, because if they cause any trouble she can conquer them from Fez to Islamabad. Given that the Arabs know this and are anything but stupid, they will make no further trouble. Peace in the Middle East - through the direct opposite of New Exeter Hall policies. Which, of course, have had the last 60 years to to try and solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Therefore, we come to the following conclusions about the Arab-Israeli conflict. One: the mainstream US position is objectively pro-Arab and anti-Israeli. Two: US involvement is at least plausibly the cause of the conflict. Three: the conflict is best described as a conflict between the US and Israel, with the former's policies directed by its pro-Palestinian ruling classes, and the latter's contended between the pro-American left and the anti-American right.

Again, you can sort out later what to make of this alternative narrative. The point is that my "objective" interpretation of the Middle East problem is (a) at least somewhat compelling, and (b) completely incompatible with almost everyone's perception of reality.

Now, frankly, where you find one cockroach, you typically don't find just one. We've found two. We could wander around the beer cans and pizza crusts of the 20th century, slapping the Blattidae here and there, for as long as we wanted. But do we want that? No? We're busy people. Therefore, we'd like to find the nest - the fundamental misconception that leads naturally to all the rest.

One thing I like to try to do is remember my original reaction, as a child in the '70s and '80s, to the present history of the world as revealed to me then by educational sources of unquestionable, or at least unquestioned, reliability.

Of course, I could be just making this up. It is hard to tell. But I distinctly recall wondering: why did it take so long for human progress to achieve democracy? After all, you have many centuries of extremely sophisticated European Renaissance and post-Renaissance thought. Yet the victory of democracy on the European continent was not complete and assured until the lives of those now living. In England, it was not complete and assured until the 20th century. Only in America was it old, and even then not that old. And then there was the Roman Empire... and so on.

Moreover, I learned, in the real world today, there were only two real alternatives. Democracy, or Hitler. Or Stalin. Democracy or tyranny. Yet when I read the history of Europe before the 20th century, ie, the century of democracy, I did not see anyone or anything like Hitler or Stalin.

What, exactly, is the difference - as a matter of political organization - between the regime of Queen Elizabeth, and that of Hitler? Democracy puts both in the same category: nondemocracy. Absolute personal despotism, to be exact. But... there is a difference, isn't there?

All these objections are neatly summed up in Churchill's famous aphorism, if it is really Churchill's. Democracy, whose flaws are not in any way secret, appears to you as the worst of all systems of government, except for all the others. And what do you know of all the others? Nothing at all, of course. (Or at least, nothing nonmagical.) Hence the statement sounds true, because it is true. So far as you know. That migraine spot again!

There's a hypothesis forming here. We notice that all our blind spots seem to be in the general area of political democracy. Where they lead to misimpressions, those impressions tend to cast democracy in a falsely positive light. What if democracy was like communism? What if, for everything and anything in the world today that is broken, we could say accurately: it is broken because it is democratic. To fix it, get rid of democracy.

This appears unthinkable, of course, to you. You were raised as a true democrat. Note that if you'd been raised a true Communist, you would have perceived Communism in just the same way. And, of course, Catholicism, and Islam, and so on. But Communism (which is in fact best seen as a splinter branch of the global democratic movement) is the best analogy, because it is so recent.

No, comrades, Communism is not the problem! Communism? The problem? On the contrary, comrades - Communism is the cure! We suffer, not because we have been true to Communism, but because we have been untrue to Communism! To get back on the right track, comrades, we must redouble our efforts to achieve Communism... and so on.

I think of this when I hear anyone acting under the delusion that they can restore the American political system, presumably to some imagined youthful vitality. The American political system! The true nature of that system, gentlemen, is now quite apparent. Long has it battened on the rest of the planet; its final dessert is now apparent. As any epidemiologist would expect, America was that country most resistant to American democracy. Resistance is not immunity. In the end, every elm must meet its beetle.

So this is a quick and easy general-purpose explanation which can shed light on a remarkable variety of apparent historical anomalies. As a people, we believe insane things, because democracy has driven us all insane. After all, it's had two hundred years to do so. Its edifice of magical thinking is a wonderful thing, ornate as a Disney castle, more worthy of admiration than destruction. Sadly, it is the castle of evil, and God's sweet fire will melt it in a flash.

Here are three words that will permanently cure you of democracy - if any three words can. Imperium is conserved.

That is: no form of government can be defined as un-government or self-government. There is always a government; there is always a process by which this government makes decisions; this process always consists of the decisions of one or more human beings, and no other party or force. Therefore, either you rule, or you are ruled by others. Typically the latter. As Maine writes in Popular Government: "democracy is a form of government." In other words, it lacks any spiritual connotation; like any form of government, it can only be judged by its results.

As who writes? In what? Here is one old book that can cure you, if any old book can: Popular Government (1885), by Sir Henry Maine. Read it once. Read it twice. Read it three times. It's free. It explains everything, just about. Well, not quite - but almost. Once you've read Maine, perhaps you are ready for Filmer. And with just those two, you can be right back on track! Of course, the 21st century may start to strike you as pretty bizarre. But it is, you know.

But if old books are not your scene, once again: imperium is conserved. Taking this as our lodestar, we have no trouble in diagnosing the fundamental disease of democracy. The condition (which is incurable) is imperial decay - that is, the broadening of the decision process, from a single executive decision to a universal-suffrage election.

The democrat, who is typically also an aristocrat, thinks or allows himself to think that, by dethroning the king and transferring the king's powers to an assembly, he is destroying the sovereign imperium. But he is not; he is only dispersing it.

If some alliance of democrats so much as renders the king subject to the rule of law, they are transferring the king's judicial powers not to no one, but to a concrete human body - a judiciary. They have fragmented the imperium and produced the constitutional solecism of imperium in imperio. Their monarchy is certainly doomed, at least in any substantive sense. And thus men laid, centuries ago, the foundation for all our feral subway yoofs. Imperium fragments irreversibly and entropically - monarchy descending to oligarchy, oligarchy to aristocracy, aristocracy to democracy, democracy to mere anarchy.

Which fruit has taken many a year to ripen. But what a fruit it is! Now, at last, we see it in its glory. No other recent day knew such a thing. Yoofs! As St. Exupery wrote in the '40s:
For centuries, humanity has been descending an immense staircase whose top is hidden in the clouds and whose lowest steps are lost in a dark abyss. We could have ascended the staircase; instead we chose to descend it.
At the bottom of the stairs: anarchy, hell, Haiti, Mogadishu, Lagos. For you they are waiting! For you, for you, for you, these hells! For you! Stop on the stairs; listen quietly; hear Mogadishu, in the blackness below, reeking of piss, waiting for you; purring; licking her chops. She wants you. You! And your family! Anarchy is hungry, hungry, always hungry. Insatiable. Yet patient.

And at the top? Versailles. Louis XIV. Elizabeth I. The greatness of Britain. The greatness of Europe. The fire of yesterday, untarnished by time! The glory of princes! Cardinals, in their red hats! Black-robed Jesuits, terrible, intense! Against them, the burning martyrs of the Reformation! What a world! A gleaming, cloud-borne Olympia in the blue, far above our wet gray reality. Gentlemen, we have only our butts to turn around. Why not climb, and fast? Two steps in a jump? Three?

No, there is a problem. It cannot be done. Imperium is conserved; imperium decays. And cannot, in any way, be made to undecay. Cold does not flow to hot; power does not shrink; we cannot climb the stairs. At most sit on them, and shiver in the deep fog. Waiting. Sooner or later, Mogadishu will ascend. Must we come to it? It will come to us. Sooner or later. Sooner...

No! There is one desperate way - and one only. Having descended for centuries, shambling, sitting, resting, going on - we cannot climb. Fast or slowly, at a walk or at a run. Climbing is impossible; ascent is essential; there is only one way. We must leap, in one bound, to the top. The asymmetry is fundamental. Obey it.

Divine-right monarchy is very easy to understand, even for an atheist like me. We have already derived it. To an atheist, the King's authority must be absolute, not because he is appointed by God, but because he is appointed by no one. If someone appoints him, that man is King. If their roles are divided - the famous "balance of powers" or "checks and balances" - they will struggle, and one or the other prevail. Probably the many over the few.

Thus we see high tempers and fisticuffs in the chambers of state. The mice must be governed by the elephants, but all this trumpeting and trunk-lashing alarms them. What if they begin to stomp. As imperium decays, the State becomes conflicted and incompetent, incapable of making good decisions or any at all. And at worst, of course, it actually fights itself.

Thus the modern divine-right monarchist says, not that God has chosen any person or family to rule, but that sovereignty exists and someone must hold it. The more narrowly and stably held the imperium is, the safer it is.

The emphasis on stability is essential, because this answers the question we asked earlier: the difference between Hitler and Louis XIV. The difference is that the famous dictatorships of the 20th century were not stable royal dynasties, or anything close; they rested entirely on the personal position of the dictator, whose absolute authority concealed contending factions at all times, and could at any time have shattered into those factions. If the mere death of a single human being, for instance, can result in regime change, a regime cannot be regarded as stable. It thus exists in a state of permanent if suspended civil war. This is very far from Filmer, and it can quite reasonably be expected to result in a gruesome variety of tyrannous manifestations, as of course was seen in the 20th century.

A Bourbon Gulag or a Tudor Holocaust are entirely inconceivable. Even St. Bartholomew's was a peccadillo by the standards of a Marat, a Lenin or a Mao. Why? Because imperium is conserved. A stable monarch has no reason to massacre the Jews or shoot the Old Bolsheviks. Being stable, holding a monopoly of power, he has nothing to fear. Stalin and Hitler did. Hence, tyranny results not from the concentration of imperium, but from its dispersal.

It matters, of course, who holds the scepter. But it does not matter as much as you think - so long as that individual is competent and sane. When we look at what Hitler did with Germany between 1933 and 1939, for instance, we tend to say: "but on the other hand, he killed the Jews." Of course, Augustus held exactly the same position in Rome. If he killed the Jews, history does not record it. Hitler was a maniac; Augustus was not a maniac. We know what Augustus did.

Cannot we marvel at what the Third Reich achieved, with the knowledge that it was run by a maniac? In the hands of a non-maniac, what might it have done? In the hands of an Augustus, for instance? Well, somewhere in Germany in 1933, there might have been an Augustus or two. Or even three. But Germany in 1933 was a democracy. And that democracy elected not Augustus, not Frederick the Great, not even Kaiser Bill. It elected -

Wait. Who did it elect? Gee. I've forgotten already. I hate these migraines. An Austrian, I think. A sergeant? A private first-class? Someone like that. A man of the people, that's for sure. History is so confusing.

59 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

But why should America be neutral toward any component of it's empire? As the supreme power in the world, jealous of its monopoly over force, it should be providing its subjects with equal protection under the law. Not alienating billions of people by allowing one group to hold another group in a permanent prison state.

If America wanted to be 'neutral' it wouldn't have intervened in the German-Jewish conflict of 39-45, and there would likely be no issue of Israel vs. the Arabs.

An independent American empire would have a similar bearing toward Israel as the Roman empire did, I would imagine.

March 18, 2010 at 7:09 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The comments for this entry will no doubt be magnificent.

I congratulate Moldbug for this superbly pro-Israel post.

Not alienating billions of people by allowing one group to hold another group in a permanent prison state.

Do you support national independence for the repressed Muslims in Chechnya, national independence for Muslims in Kashmir*, national independence for Muslims in Western China in order to not alienate billions of people?

Right?

One other thing, America is not excessively pro-Israel because America has not done anything for Israel that we would not have also done for another democratic nation facing a dangerous military threat

For example, Clinton considered a preemptive air strike on North Korea's nuclear program in 1994 in order to protect South Korea just as Bush considered a preemptive air strike against Iran's nuclear program to protect Israel. So bombing Iran's program is not an indication in any way that our foreign policy is "excessively" pro-Israel.

Our support of Israel is consistent with our policy of guaranteeing the security of ALL democratic nations across the planet.

http://www.countercurrents.org/kashmir-hrw011206.htm

HRW Documents Repression
In Kashmir

By Parwini Zora & Daniel Woreck

01 December 2006
World Socialist Web

A recent report by the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) documents the systematic human rights abuses carried out by the Indian security forces in the state of Jammu and Kashmir with the protection of the Indian government and legal system.




Which, of course, have had the last 60 years to to try and solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I'd like to point out that the US interfered in Middle East affairs not to "bring peace to the Middle East" nor to antagonize Muslims.

America intervened in the region in order to prevent the USSR from filing a Middle East power vacuum which was created when the British and French Near Eastern empires collapsed following WWII.

Simply put, America manipulated Israel's foreign policy to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East rather, rather than the bogus charge American and Israeli Jews manipulated America to repress Muslims for 60 years:

March 18, 2010 at 7:34 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

contd

http://www.mythsandfacts.com/NOQ_OnlineEdition/Chapter17/unitedstatesisrael1.htm

Israel – The Cold War Warrior

Historically, Israel and America have had a host of overlapping strategic interests. During the Cold War, Israel played a key role containing Soviet penetration of the Middle East.

The Soviet Union posed a real threat to the United States during the Cold War, and in the Middle East, the Soviet Union eagerly armed radical Arab states and the PLO, helping to fuel instability that would hurt American interests. Israel repeatedly demonstrated the superiority of American weaponry in war after war, discrediting the Soviet’s weaponry, training, and sponsorship. Observers believe Israel’s role played a key factor in eroding the stature of the USSR and the decision of Arab states to turn to the West for defensive needs.13 One way Israel aided the United States was to allow Americans to scrutinize state-of-the-art Soviet technology, whose value to American security in the Cold War was priceless. Among those weapons were an Iraqi MiG-21 (whose pilot defected to Israel in a complicated undercover operation in 1966), a fully operational Russian-made ground-to-air missile system captured in the 1967 Six-Day War (that contributed greatly to protecting American pilots during the Vietnam War), and a Soviet radar system capable of detecting low-flying aircraft (literally lifted intact by two Israeli CH-53 helicopters from Egypt in 1969 during the War of Attrition).

In short, Israel has remained one of the few allies upon which the United States has always been able to count on in a crisis. Well before other Middle Eastern states curtailed their commitment to the 2003 coalition created to disarm Iraq, security expert and former U.S. Secretary of State Gen. (Ret.) Alexander Haig described Israel as “the largest pro-U.S. aircraft carrier, which doesn’t require U.S. personnel and can’t be sunk.” Indeed, Haifa has become one of the most hospitable (and safest) ports for the 6th Fleet. More recently, Israel has become a dependable base for pre-positioning emergency military stores in the Middle East, with the capability to provide close-by sophisticated medical services, if needed.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Israel and America for decades have had many overlapping strategic goals in the Middle East, long before terrorism became a threat to America’s own security. A case in point centers on Israel’s role in helping the West maintain Jordan’s integrity as a pro-Western, stable ally. In 1958, President Eisenhower wanted to cross Israeli airspace in order to save the Hashemite Kingdom; Israel granted the U.S./UK request. Then in 1970, at the request of President Nixon, Israel flexed its muscles as a deterrent, preventing pro-Soviet Syrian and PLO forces from toppling King Hussein and eliminating the need to send U.S. Marines into Jordan, a step America was forced to take in 1957 to ‘save’ Lebanon.

March 18, 2010 at 7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gentlemen, I give you Somdet Phra Boromma-orasathirat Chao Fa Maha Vajiralongkorn Sayammakutratchakuman, the Crown Prince of Thailand.

March 18, 2010 at 8:45 PM  
Anonymous The Unnamed said...

"Of course, Augustus held exactly the same position in Rome. If he killed the Jews, history does not record it. Hitler was a maniac; Augustus was not a maniac. We know what Augustus did."

Democracy gave us Hitler, Augustus' line gave us Tiberius, Caligula, Nero. After the Julio-Claudians came Vespasian, who, yes, did kill the Jews though I grant this was a response to revolt and not for other ideological reasons.

Unless his classical history is very poor, MM must realize this objection. Can it be resolved?

Perhaps one can argue that palace intrigues limit the dispersion of factionalism.

But most of these limits were a function of low technology and slow communication, not necessarily any merits of the regime. A rival could always revolt with his armies and contest the imperium. Factionalism is endemic to mankind.

Even in times closer to our own, Imperium was dispersed between the state and church. The divine right of kings advocated in an extreme form by Filmer was an anti-papal innovation.

While "atheist divine right" theory may not have its troublesome popes and meddlesome priests, the awkward restorationist spirit on display here is trouble enough.

March 18, 2010 at 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given American neutrality, Israel need no longer fear the Arabs, because if they cause any trouble she can conquer them from Fez to Islamabad.

This would be true for values of "neutrality" that include Israel using hundreds of US-made combat aircraft, helicopters, precision munitions, etc etc.

March 18, 2010 at 10:10 PM  
Blogger AMcGuinn said...

Google Books seems to have geographical restrictions - I get "snippet view" of the Maine (and many other books cited here) from England.

For those similarly afflicted, Popular Government is available at oll.libertyfund.org

March 19, 2010 at 12:21 AM  
Blogger Thrasymachus said...

Can I still maintain my childlike hero worship of Roberto D'Aubuisson?

March 19, 2010 at 1:17 AM  
Blogger nazgulnarsil said...

to expand on unnamed "low technology", what we see is two axes that govern human quality of life: governance and technology. large values of one can compensate for small values of the other. but these are not strictly independent of course. good governance allows for more rapid technological progress. and bad government can deny even contemporary technologies to its citizens.

mencius and other libertarian/engineering types (myself included) would like to see the effect go the other way: can't we use all this technology to improve governance? we'd love to see this type of feedback loop. better tech leads to better government leads to better tech until OH, a benevolent AI to rule us all.

"better" government is, however, a threat to current government. I personally believe that there is a major shakeup coming. power often lays dormant until something threatens it, and technology is going to start challenging the power of democracy soon. the claws are going to come out in a way that is going to shock the hell out of those accustomed to the slumber.

March 19, 2010 at 1:41 AM  
Blogger Dregs of the Ancients said...

When is a Confucian Really a Daoist?

Mencius's political philosophy is most succinctly summarized by three characters from Laozi, to wit:

政善治.

"Whether a regime can be considered excellent is determined by whether it results in stable order." Or, the goverment is excellent that achives order.

See Chapter 8 of the Daodejing.

Legge's translation at Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=kXd_ZMpWvy8
C&printsec=frontcover&dq=legge+text
s+of+taoism&cd=3#
v=onepage&q=&f=false

March 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM  
Blogger Gyan said...

Well Henry VIII was something of a maniac and did create a havoc. Without him there would have not been Schism with Rome and probably the Protestant Revolt would have been crushed.

So I dont buy the idea that Tudor Holocaust is impossible.

March 19, 2010 at 4:07 AM  
Anonymous c23 said...


A Bourbon Gulag or a Tudor Holocaust are entirely inconceivable. Even St. Bartholomew's was a peccadillo by the standards of a Marat, a Lenin or a Mao.


Everything was on a smaller scale in the 16th-17th centuries than in the 20th.

Louis XIV's persecution of Huguenots, who were already contained, was comparable to the German persecution of the Jews (at least before 1942, and on a smaller scale). If the French had been backed into a corner like WWII Germany, I could easily see Louis XIV switching from persecution and expulsion to extermination, as the Nazis did.

And then we see that monarchs who were considerably less secure in their power acted with considerably more forbearance than the modern dictators. The Stuarts really were insecure in their power, as we can see from the fate of Charles I and James II. Yet they never really cracked down on their enemies, which turned out to be a mistake. Same with Louis XVI.

Maybe personality and custom are more important.

March 19, 2010 at 5:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This would be true for values of "neutrality" that include Israel using hundreds of US-made combat aircraft, helicopters, precision munitions, etc etc.

While Israel's making land concessions that make little sense given their military might, I'd like to hear how this fits into USG's pro-Arab stance as well.


Scott W.

March 19, 2010 at 7:05 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Dregs:

Well it's unquestionable that Mencius is trying to pull a Pound with a technical instead of classical education and an awareness that aping for fascism can get one into trouble.

March 19, 2010 at 8:05 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

The style of this was a bit too derivative of Carlyle.

March 19, 2010 at 9:43 AM  
Blogger DR said...

@Gyan

Right. Moldbug clearly needs to watch the Tudors on Showtime. Some contemporary estimates put the number of executions during Henry VIII's reign around 100,000, which is about 3% of the population. That's the same order of magnitude as Hitler's genocide in Germany.

OTOH though one could argue that Henry VIII falls more under Moldbug's Hitler than Moldbug's Augustus. The early Tudor regime was highly unstable and the early death of Henry VIII probably would have triggered a civil war. A repeat of the War of the Roses that had just ended a generation earlier. Henry's father Henry VII was himself a nobody who basically got himself "elected" to the throne by a coalition of nobles that were exhausted of the endless York/Lancaster dispute.

March 19, 2010 at 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This blog has gotten really pathetic. All this verbose erudition and the result is about at the same level of that line from Rambo -- "do we get to win this time?" The muscular soldiers being restrained by the effete intellectual plotters, here, in South Africa, in Israel, everywhere. The Dolchstosslegende in other words, recycled Nazi propaganda.

I can understand ignorant shitkickers being attracted to this point of view, but you've revealed yourself as a quintessential urban nerd. Maybe this is just an intellectually tarted-up version of Dungeons and Dragons? If you like government brutality so much, maybe you should join the fucking army where you can be a part of it, instead of fantasizing from a perch in a San Francisco cafe.

I might also add that by your retarded logic at least a third of the Jewish population of Israel is anti-Israel.

March 19, 2010 at 12:05 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

Every grade schooler knows about Henry's desperation for an heir, and about the instability that followed his reign. Catholics, Protestants, Lady Jane Grey. Then the damned Puritans. Come to think of it, when exactly was this era of stability?

March 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM  
Anonymous so long said...

Then there are the multiple wars of succession in the Roman Empire.

March 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MM's history is terrible. The later half of the 20th century was one of the most peaceful times in history.

Roman empire stable my arse. Grow up dude.

March 19, 2010 at 5:35 PM  
Anonymous Pals said...

Your interpretation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is fucking retarded.

Zionism, not anti-Zionism, is the original anti-apartheid movement.

It is only because of your beloved International Protestant Conspiracy that Israel exists in the first place. It was the Brits who plucked the Zionist movement from obscurity and supported it, promoted it and made it succeed. It was the Brits and Americans who prevented Jewish migration to their shores in order to ensure more Jews go to Israel. It was they who then established the terms of the Mandate with the specific purpose of establishing a Jewish state. They built an entire bureaucracy and state establishment for the prospective Jewish state. It came full with all the dumbass Progressive trappings of the International Protestant Conspiracy. All of these things were actively denied to the Palestinians. It was the Brits who armed and supported the Zionist militias while simultaneously preventing the Palestinians from building any military strength. Most importantly, it was the Brits who fought with the Zionists in 1936-1939 to crush the Palestinian revolt. While people commonly refer to 1948 as the Nakba of the Palestinians, it would be more accurate to date the end of Palestine to 1936. And that end was brought about through a 3-year-long systematic campaign by the Brits to ensure the presence of a Jewish state and the demise of the Palestinian one.

After 1956, however, the US took over from Britain in supporting, protecting and arming Israel. You look at today's military strength and treat it as god-given, and so conclude that if the US didn't intervene, Israel would kick ass. Sorry to piss all over your dumbass Zionist summer camp fantasies, but the only reason Israel has this murderous military is because of the Americans and Brits. Without Britain and America, there would be no Israel. Without their military support, Israel's army would be a joke. David is Goliath and Goliath is David.

It was a potent combination of (a) messianic progressivism that wanted to "solve the Jewish question", (b) Anglo Anti-Semitism that didn't want more Jews to migrate to Britain and (c) American and British and ulterior "national interests" that combined to create Israel.

So, yes, let us apply your standard for assessing whether USG is pro- or anti-Israel. But surely you would agree that it would be retarded to only apply it to the period after the International Protestnat Conspiracy already won the war for Israel, you ungrateful nut.

Also, do you realize how dumb it is to claim that Pro-Israel is Conservative and anti-Israel is Liberal? Have you taken a look at the Israel views of the modern Democratic Party? The NYT? Harvard? Alan Dershowitz? Marty Peretz? Barney Frank? Alan Grayson? Joe Lieberman? Being Liberal means being Pro-Israel in today's America. On the other hand, Ron Paul and many many self-identifying conservatives would be categorized as rabid anti-Israel zealots by people like you.

For anyone who knows anything about the conflict, it is really funny to read this garbage. You are a typical American Zionist whose conception of the conflict is so pathetically delusional, as it is formed exclusively from incestuous Zionist indoctrination summer camp, Birthright Israel indoctrination trips, and Neocon American media.

March 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe this is just an intellectually tarted-up version of Dungeons and Dragons?

Perhaps. People seem to be missing their saving throws against charisma, jealousy, etc.

March 19, 2010 at 6:34 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

The Unnamed wrote

"Even in times closer to our own, Imperium was dispersed between the state and church. The divine right of kings advocated in an extreme form by Filmer was an anti-papal innovation."

i.e. when Moldbug equates the existence of monarchy with a unitary executive, he is mythmaking. According to Jacques Barzun ("From Dawn to Decadence"), the 17th-century philosophy of monarchical absolutism was a response to the religious wars following the Reformation. It's a natural enough response: if now there are two strains of Christianity where previously there was one, with different princes taking different sides, and neither side able to completely defeat the other, then one can reintroduce stability by emphasizing the authority of the prince. That the prince of a territory should decide everything in that territory is a new attitude which finesses the previous dilemma of which side to support.

Anyway, it seems like everyone gets this point - that in reality, monarchical states have had politics, inefficiencies, and even genocides; that we are getting an idealized version of what the royalist alternative to democracy is like.

March 19, 2010 at 9:03 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Sorry to piss all over your dumbass Zionist summer camp fantasies, but the only reason Israel has this murderous military is because of the Americans and Brits.

Err, so what if America sells weapons to Israel? We also sell weapons to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. What is so evil about selling weapons to Israel?

Would you oppose our selling weapons to India or Russia to suppress their Muslim terrorist insurgencies in Kashmir and Chechnya, respectively?

Btw, the only reason the Arabs had their murderous armies between 1945 and 1991 was because their forces were armed by Soviet Russia.

We had good reason to interfere in the affairs of the Middle East between 1945 and 1991 because without American support, the entire Middle East region would have wound up as a Soviet sphere of influence after the collapse of the British and French empires.

March 20, 2010 at 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Pals said...

The Undiscovered Jew,

Sorry to piss over all your dumbass Zionist summer-camp fantasies, and the even more dumbass grad school fantasies, but there is absolutely nothing "in the American interest" in America supporting Israel.

The Arab world was never going to go Soviet, and was far more pro-America than Israel. The last thing that Arabs and Muslims would naturally ally with is godless Communism. American capitalism is a far, far more natural ally to a culture and religion with a strong trade and commerce culture.

Israel, on the other hand, had a lot of support from the Soviets who saw it as a Socialist haven. The only reason USG went pro-Israel is the domestic pro-Israel constituency, not anything pertaining to national interest. Truman wanted to get re-elected and needed NY and the Zionist vote, and so supported Israel when no one around him thought it would be a good idea.

Only AFTER the Americans spent decades supporting Israel to the hilt and fucking with the Arabs did the Arabs turn to the Soviets. And even then, the support received from the Soviets was, qualitatively and quantitatively, trifling compared to what America was giving the Zionists.

But even if this were all wrong, and you were right that it was in "America's national interest" to support Israel, that in fact supports and strengthens my argument, you dumb prick. My whole point is that Zionism is what it is because of Anglo support. Arguing that this Anglo support is justified and useful doesn't change that, it reinforces it.

Jesus, man, with such a sharp intellect, you should be editing The New Republic.

March 20, 2010 at 9:10 AM  
Anonymous Pals said...

I forgot to add a very important point in my response to The Undiscovered Jew,

Whether the Arabs were, in fact, going to go Communist or not does not in the slightest come to affect "American National Security." Just because they taught you this garbage in grad school and CNN does not make it true. If everyone in the Middle East went batshit Communist, Islamist, Rastafarian, Zionist or animist it affects Americans in no way whatsoever. If America wants oil, it can get oil from dozens of providers worldwide. If one of them wants to stop selling to America, it would just increase demand for their competitors' oil. In other words, they're just shooting themselves in the foot and failing to hurt America in any way.

The story of the cold war was not that of America fighting Communism for the sake of its "National Security" or as a service to the people of the world. It was, rather, the story of American corporatism expanding abroad, using the US Army and the US taxpayer dollar in order to secure itself criminal monopolies over third world countries. Only after this was installed did the third world people start to turn to the Soviets in order to fight the Americans. Then the American imperialists used the "Communist menace" as a pretext to justify pillaging even more American tax-dollars to protect their corporate buddies. The more American empire spread, the more resistance it spawned, the more the American establishment portrayed that as a giant communist plot against America.

Take a look at the recently declassified CIA documents, helpfully compiled in Legacy of Ashes. You will find that in every country where the American academic and media establishment dumbfucks decried a "communist menace" the problems originated with American intervention, not Communism. Communism only ever came as a reaction to America's empire sucking the world dry.

March 20, 2010 at 11:00 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The Arab world was never going to go Soviet, and was far more pro-America than Israel. The last thing that Arabs and Muslims would naturally ally with is godless Communism.

You are just making shit up to smear Israel.

A simple Google or Wikipedia search would reveal to you that there was a strong probability much of the Middle East would have gone Communist early in the Cold War in the absence of American intervention:

http://www.mythsandfacts.com/NOQ_OnlineEdition/Chapter17/unitedstatesisrael1.htm

Historically, Israel and America have had a host of overlapping strategic interests. During the Cold War, Israel played a key role containing Soviet penetration of the Middle East.

The Soviet Union posed a real threat to the United States during the Cold War, and in the Middle East, the Soviet Union eagerly armed radical Arab states and the PLO, helping to fuel instability that would hurt American interests. Israel repeatedly demonstrated the superiority of American weaponry in war after war, discrediting the Soviet’s weaponry, training, and sponsorship. Observers believe Israel’s role played a key factor in eroding the stature of the USSR and the decision of Arab states to turn to the West for defensive needs.13 One way Israel aided the United States was to allow Americans to scrutinize state-of-the-art Soviet technology, whose value to American security in the Cold War was priceless. Among those weapons were an Iraqi MiG-21 (whose pilot defected to Israel in a complicated undercover operation in 1966), a fully operational Russian-made ground-to-air missile system captured in the 1967 Six-Day War (that contributed greatly to protecting American pilots during the Vietnam War), and a Soviet radar system capable of detecting low-flying aircraft (literally lifted intact by two Israeli CH-53 helicopters from Egypt in 1969 during the War of Attrition).

snip

From a geopolitical standpoint, Israel and America for decades have had many overlapping strategic goals in the Middle East, long before terrorism became a threat to America’s own security. A case in point centers on Israel’s role in helping the West maintain Jordan’s integrity as a pro-Western, stable ally. In 1958, President Eisenhower wanted to cross Israeli airspace in order to save the Hashemite Kingdom; Israel granted the U.S./UK request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

Nasser struck a further blow against Britain by negotiating an arms deal with communist Czechoslovakia in September 1955[21] thereby ending Egypt's reliance on Western arms. Later, other members of the Warsaw Pact also sold arms to Egypt and Syria. In practice, all sales from the Eastern Bloc were authorized by the Soviet Union, as an attempt to increase Soviet influence over the Middle East. This caused tensions in the United States because Warsaw Pact nations now had a strong presence in the region.

March 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Pact

Modeled after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), CENTO committed the nations to mutual cooperation and protection, as well as non-intervention in each other's affairs. Its goal was to contain the Soviet Union (USSR) by having a line of strong states along the USSR's southwestern frontier. Similarly, it was known as the 'Northern Tier' to prevent Soviet expansion into the Middle East.[4] Unlike NATO, CENTO did not have a unified military command structure, nor were many U.S. or UK military bases established in member countries, although the U.S. had communications and electronic intelligence facilities in Iran, and operated U-2 intelligence flights over the USSR from bases in Pakistan. The United Kingdom had access to facilities in Pakistan and Iraq at various times while the treaty was in effect. In addition, Turkey and the U.S. agreed to permit American access to Turkish bases, but this was done under the auspices of NATO.

On July 14, 1958, the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in a military coup. The new government was led by General Abdul Karim Qasim who withdrew from the Baghdad Pact, opened diplomatic relations with Soviet Union and adopted a non-aligned stance; Iraq quit the organization shortly thereafter. The organization dropped the name 'Baghdad Pact' in favor of 'CENTO' at that time.

The Middle East and South Asia became extremely volatile areas during the 1960s with the ongoing Arab-Israeli Conflict and the Indo-Pakistani Wars. CENTO was unwilling to get deeply involved in either dispute. In 1965 and 1971, Pakistan tried unsuccessfully to get assistance in its wars with India through CENTO, but this was rejected under the idea that CENTO was aimed at containing the USSR, not India.

CENTO did little to prevent the expansion of Soviet influence to non-member states in the area. Whatever containment value the pact might have had was lost when the Soviets 'leap-frogged' the member states, establishing close military and political relationships with governments in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. Indeed, by 1970, the U.S.S.R. had deployed over 20,000 troops to Egypt, and had established naval bases in Syria, Somalia, and P.D.R. Yemen.

March 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Note, by "go Communist" I meant the Soviet Union would have turned the region into a Communist sphere of influence, and not necessarily impose (at least immediately) Communism domestic policies on the Muslim countries.

March 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM  
Anonymous Hugo said...

Re 'a lot of ruin':
Burke? Burke!? I think you mean Smith. You're supposed to be right all the time. You have just dropped a lot in my estimation.

March 20, 2010 at 6:16 PM  
Blogger chairmanK said...

"(Perhaps the prosecutor was shot in a police-station bathroom.)"

Once again I am impressed by your provocative linking. This news item is a good Rorschach test to distinguish leftists from rightists.

March 21, 2010 at 7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two interesting articles on this subject,

Supporting Human Rights Doesn’t Make Me an Anti-Semite (Or Does It?)
by Taki Theodoracopulos

http://www.takimag.com/index.php/blogs/article/supporting_human_rights_doesnt_make_me_an_anti-semite_or_does_it


Do I Believe Jews Control the World?

http://attackthesystem.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-i-believe-jews-control-world.html

March 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus fucking CHRIST you people are easy.

"Pals" did a hit-and-run troll mission on y'all with a few paragraphs of semiliterate Maoist copypasta DAYS ago and you are STILL shouting back at him, red-faced (no pun intended).

"Pals" does the victory dance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgqzE5M5trM

March 22, 2010 at 3:02 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Supporting Human Rights Doesn’t Make Me an Anti-Semite (Or Does It?)
by Taki Theodoracopulos


Fuck Taki and the other lying anti-Israel Imams, er, "conservatives" in the ass.

Nobody who is not a paleocon or white nationalist believes for a second that Taki, or Daniel Larison, or Buchanan and the other Palestineocons actually care about human rights the human rights of Muslims.

If they did, then they would be arguing in favor of Chechnya and Kashmir being given independence from Russia and India, respectively.

But for some reason, if, for example, Vladimir Putin or the PM of India ordered their respective armies to castrate all young Muslim males, I suspect Taki and Larison will not harshly condemn Putin for violating the paleocon's high geopolitical moral standards.

Btw, I don't have too much objection to an isolationist stance in the Arab-Israeli conflict as Moldbug and TGGP argue for.

What I object to is anti-Israel "conservatives" arguing in favor of the Palestinians and claiming that their pro-Palestinian position is "isolationist" and rewriting history about Israel manipulating American foreign policy for 60 years to(again, America intervened in Middle Eastern affairs as part of an anti-Soviet containment strategy. We were NOT trying to antagonize the Muslim world and America did nothing to deserve the 911 attacks as the paleocons assert)

March 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Pals said...

TUJ,

All you do in your idiotic reply is re-assert, without a shred of evidence, that America’s interest is also Israel’s interest. You then present America looking out for Israel as America looking out for itself! Most hilariously, however, you then present Israel entangling America in the Middle East as Israel looking out for America! Some summer camps you went to!

This quote sums up your incoherence nicely: “the Soviet Union eagerly armed radical Arab states and the PLO, helping to fuel instability that would hurt American interests.”

This “instability” only harms American interests if you redefine American interests to include Israeli land-theft and ethnic cleansing. Sure, the PLO getting arms is bad for Israel. It matters not one bit for America, though. Whatever the hell the Israelis and Arabs got up to does not affect America in the slightest.

Think counter-factual history for a second: Truman doesn’t need the Zionist vote to win in 1948 and decides to tell the Arabs and Israelis to go fuck themselves and that America doesn’t give a shit whatever they get up to. A war breaks out. Whether Arabs murder tons of Jews, or Jews murder tons of Arabs, how on earth would that “hurt American interests” in any way? Whether a Zionist regime rules from the Nile to Euphrates, or a pan-Arab regime rules from Oman to Morocco, how does that affect America in any way? How does it affect America if the winner is Zionist socialism, reactionary Zionism, Arab communism, Arab reactionary Islamism, Rastafarianism or a Judeo-Muslim Progressive alliance?

Whoever wins has an interest in selling whatever natural resources they have on the open market. If they decide not to, that’s just their loss. It creates more demand for their competitors’ resources and America isn’t hurt in any way.

Also, you write: “Nasser struck a further blow against Britain by negotiating an arms deal with communist Czechoslovakia in September 1955[21] thereby ending Egypt's reliance on Western arms.”

Hmm… You just said that the Arabs were going Soviet, but here it shows that Arabs were relying on Western arms before turning to the Soviets, which only happened after the West had taken Israel’s side. Sounds like you’re providing evidence for my argument, genius!

Nasser and the Baathists were on good terms with America until the mid-1950’s. Arab public opinion was highly favorable towards America, as they saw it (at the time) as an anti-Colonial power unlike the European colonialists. Things only changed in the 1950’s, when Israel leant on America to stop providing arms to the Arabs, and to get the World Bank to not lend to Egypt to build the Aswan dam. It was only because of this that Nasser turned to the Czechs for arms and nationalized the Suez Canal. Had America assumed neutrality, there was absolutely no way Nasser would’ve turned against them. There was no reason for him to do so, and there was even no possible way for him to do so if he’d wanted to. How exactly could Egypt go anti-American from North Africa? What, exactly, could it possibly do to piss off a neutral America?

“During the Cold War, Israel played a key role containing Soviet penetration of the Middle East.”

Israel was Soviet penetration in the Middle East. You do know the country was one of the most socialist in the world when it was established, don’t you? Had America been motivated by a desire to clear the Middle East of socialist influences, they would’ve started by blitzing the Kibbutzes. They weren’t, and their motivation from day one was actually to further Israel’s interest and to further the oligopolic interests of major corporations. Again, terribly sorry to piss all over you romantic summer camp and grad school propaganda.

March 23, 2010 at 12:26 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Pals,

All you do in your idiotic reply is re-assert, without a shred of evidence, that America’s interest is also Israel’s interest.

No, I wrote that America intervened in the Middle East to contain the USSR, not to antagonize Muslims.

It matters not one bit for America, though.

It wasn't in America's interest if the Soviets pulled the oil rich Middle East into their sphere of influence? Really??!

Truman doesn’t need the Zionist vote to win in 1948 and decides to tell the Arabs and Israelis to go fuck themselves and that America doesn’t give a shit whatever they get up to.

The result of your counter history would have been the the Soviets being in de facto control of the Middle East's oil supply.

Great Paleocon strategic thinking!

Arab public opinion was highly favorable towards America, as they saw it (at the time) as an anti-Colonial power unlike the European colonialists.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with my point: America didn't want to lose public support from the Arabs for the sake of Israel. We simply wanted to keep the Soviets out. In order to keep out Russia, we had to interfere in their affairs a lot and this political intervention (e.g. the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran) was what turned the Arabs against America.

But again, we did not interfere for the sake of antagonizing the Muslims. The antagonism was an unavoidable side effect of our Soviet containment policy.


Israel was Soviet penetration in the Middle East. You do know the country was one of the most socialist in the world when it was established, don’t you?

An retarded comment, even by your pathetic standards.

The fact that Israel's governments were economically socialist doesn't mean they were a Soviet client state.

By your own logic, West Germany was a Soviet client state from 1969 to 1974 because West Germany's Chancellor, Willy Brandt, was a Social Democrat.

Had America assumed neutrality, there was absolutely no way Nasser would’ve turned against them.

Eisenhower*** thought the whole Middle East would go Soviet in the absence of an aggressive regional containment strategy.

But what did that moronic asshole, Ike, know about Foreign policy compared to paleococksuckers like "Pals" and Daniel Larison?

March 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued:

***

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118611176/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Securing the Middle East: The Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957

ABSTRACT
The Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957 declared that the United States would distribute economic and military aid and, if necessary, use military force to stop the spread of communism in the Middle East. Eisenhower found it difficult to convince leading Arab states or Israel to endorse the doctrine's purpose or usefulness. Nonetheless, he applied the doctrine in 1957-58 by dispensing economic aid to shore up the Kingdom of Jordan, by encouraging Syria's neighbors to consider military operations against it, and by sending U.S. troops into Lebanon to prevent a radical revolution from sweeping over that country. The doctrine consisted of a major commitment by the United States to the security and stability of the Middle East and signaled a new level of U.S. resolve to exert influence in international affairs. By issuing the doctrine, Eisenhower raised the prospect that the United States would fight in the Middle East and accepted responsibilities in the region that the United States would retain for decades to come.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Doctrine

Eisenhower Doctrine

The Eisenhower Doctrine was announced by President Dwight David Eisenhower in a message to the United States Congress on January 5, 1957. Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a country could request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state. Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism."[1]

In the global political context, the Doctrine was made in response to the possibility of a generalized war, threatened as a result of the Soviet Union's attempt to use the Suez War as a pretext to enter Egypt. Coupled with the power vacuum left by the decline of British and French power in the region after their failure in that same war, Eisenhower felt that a strong position needed to better the situation was further complicated by the positions taken by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was rapidly building a power base and using it to play the Soviets and Americans against each other, taking a position of "positive neutrality" and accepting aid from the Soviets.

On the regional level, the intent was that the Doctrine would work to provide the independent Arab regimes with an alternative to Nasser's political control, strengthening them while isolating Communist influence through isolation of Nasser. The doctrine largely failed on that front, with Nasser's power quickly rising by 1959 to the point where he could shape the leadership outcomes in neighboring Arab countries including Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but in the meantime Nasser's relationship with the Soviet leaders deteriorated, allowing the US to switch to a policy of accommodation.

The Eisenhower Administration also saw the Middle East as being influential for future foreign policy for not only the United States but also its allies. The region contains a large percentage of the world's oil supply, and it was perceived that if it were to fall to communism, the United States and its allies would suffer immense economic consequences.

The military action provisions of the Doctrine were applied in the Lebanon Crisis the following year, when America intervened in response to a request by that country's president.

March 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lebanon_crisis

The President of the United States, Eisenhower responded by authorizing Operation Blue Bat on July 15, 1958. This was the first application of the Eisenhower Doctrine which gave the U.S. a self proclaimed right to intervene in countries threatened by international Communism. The goal of the operation was to bolster the pro-Western Lebanese government of President Camille Chamoun against internal opposition and threats from Syria and Egypt. The plan was to occupy and secure the Beirut International Airport, a few miles south of the city, then to secure the port of Beirut and approaches to the city. The operation involved approximately 14,000 men, including 8,509 Army personnel, including a contingent from the 24th Airborne Brigade of the 24th Infantry Division (based in Germany) and 5,670 officers and men of the Marine Corps. The presence of the troops successfully quelled the opposition and the U.S. withdrew its forces on October 25, 1958.

President Eisenhower also sent diplomat Robert D. Murphy to Lebanon as his personal representative. Murphy played a significant role in persuading President Chamoun to resign and also in the selection of moderate Christian general Fuad Chehab as Chamoun's replacement.

[edit] Aftermath
The operation, in conjunction with the resignation of Chamoun as President of Lebanon and his replacement by Fuad Chehab, was largely a success. Tensions faded and the government was secured under new leadership. The operation ended on October 25 of the same year. Casualties among the Americans were remarkably light, with only three soldiers dying in accidents and one killed by a sniper.

March 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Fyvush Finkel said...

"Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Ex-Director of Studies At The US Army War College: The US Military Knows MOSSAD and Traitorous Elements in US Government did 9/11"

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/dr-alan-sabrosky-ex-director-of-studies-at-the-us-army-war-college-the-us-military-knows-mossad-and-traitorous-elements-in-us-government-did-911/

March 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM  
Anonymous Pals said...

"No, I wrote that America intervened in the Middle East to contain the USSR, not to antagonize Muslims."

No. The USSR only ever found a foothold in the Middle East BECAUSE USG was fucking with the Arabs in order to please Israel and its corporate bosses. The Czech arms deal and the Suez nationalization came AFTER USG had supported Israel, overthrew Mossadegh, stopped selling arms to Nasser, planted a million spies across the region and did all sorts of Neocon-approved idiocies.

Try and think for a second and see how the timeline of events that you yourself mentioned conforms to my argument and contradicts yours: According to your Neocon propaganda, the Soviets were taking over the Middle East, and USG had to step in and support Israel to stop them. If that were the case, then you would find Nasser jilting the Americans and turning to the Soviets first. Instead, you find the Americans jilting Nasser and leaving him no option but to turn to the Czechs. If you were right, you would find the Soviets in Iran first, and then the Americans coming to overthrow them. Instead, it was the opposite.

"The result of your counter history would have been the the Soviets being in de facto control of the Middle East's oil supply."

This dumbass coldwar propaganda is the sort of garbage you find in modern day grad schools and mainstream media repeated by the same dumbasses who trade in Keynesian economics. Here are a few hard facts from the real world to spoil your bloodthirsty chicken-hawk armchair-warrior wet-dreams of world domination:

Whoever the hell controls any region with a natural resource has only one course of action that serves their interest: sell the resource on the open market at the clearing price. Anything else would be like shooting oneself in the foot. Any type of embargo or sanction ends up only hurting that provider, and doing nothing to their consumers. Any garbage about “security of supplies” is on the same order of correctness as the corn lobby’s arguments for billions in subsidies for the sake of “food security”. It’s just pernicious cant designed to appeal to dimwitted chauvinist morons like yourself, in order to secure government action to serve the interests of the people peddling this shit: the corn farmers or the oil companies. In both cases, the best course of action for the American people would be for the government to do absolutely nothing about the supply of corn and oil. But by inventing this garbage about “oil security” and “food security”, oil companies and corn producers get to have billions of taxpayer dollars spent on enforcing their criminal thieving monopolies.

So, even if I were to grant your dumbass point about the Soviets plotting to take over the MidEast (which I don’t), it matters not one bit to America. If all the Arabs decided not to sell their oil to America, all that that would do is stimulate production of oil in Mexico, Britain, Norway, Venezuela and every other country that would sell to America. Not only that, but the rise in prices would make the returns for this so handsome that these countries would be very eager to sell to the US, and would invest heavily, bringing prices down again. It doesn’t matter how many countries decided to stop selling oil to America. The more of these countries, the more losses they incurred and the more profits accrued to the ones who do sell to America. This is why all oligopolies break down unless enforced by governments: the incentive to defect and sell on the free market is too strong.

Contrary to what they teach you in grad school, we’re not about to run out of energy anytime in the next millennium. There’s tons of oil everywhere and if the entire MidEast was nuked and its oil evaporated today, it would be only a matter of months before production had picked up from other places, gotten back to previous levels, possibly at only a very slightly higher price, which would then go down.

March 23, 2010 at 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Pals said...

But, of course, none of this matters in any way, because your initial dumbass point is invalid. Again, I’ll resort to the examples you yourself bring up: Mossadegh’s overthrow.

In a sentence of idiocy fit enough to be in an Irving Kristol Op-Ed, you write: “In order to keep out Russia, we had to interfere in their affairs a lot and this political intervention (e.g. the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran) was what turned the Arabs against America.”

Yes, and we needed to invade Iraq in order to bring democracy to the Middle East.

No, America didn’t overthrow Mossadegh to keep out the USSR, the USSR only ever thought of Iran AFTER the US went regime-change crazy on Iran. Contrary to your chicken-hawk Neocon propaganda, Mossadegh was NOT a Communist; all he wanted to do was to sell his oil on the free market to the highest bidder. The American and British governments didn’t like that, because they wanted favorable concessions for their corporate bosses in the oil majors. So, they fabricated a story about him being a Communist and overthrew him. That, in turn, actually created a Communist presence in Iran! The newly-born Iranian Communists, who had nothing to do with Mossadegh, then really (and justifiably) believed that America was the Great Satan, and turned to the USSR for support.

Don’t take my word for this, read the CIA’s own declassified documents.

So, again, the real timeline of events belies your chickenhawk fantasies. America intervened not to protect any interest: Mossadegh was going to sell his oil on the open market. Iran was NOT a Communist country, nor did the Soviets have any plans or aspirations for controlling Mossadegh’s Iran; America fabricated the Communist connection simply for the sake of its oil companies. It was only after the Americans had removed the democratically-elected, secular, non-Communist, free-market-oil Mossadegh that Communism even made it to Iran. And even then, really, the USSR never really did anything or cared much for the place.

And please stop quoting irrelevancies from Wikipedia to distract from the incoherence of your argument. All your Ike references do not bear on this discussion at all. I know that all this happened. You argue that the official justification for it was correct. I’m presenting you with unassailable evidence that your official grad school propaganda version of events is a crock of shit, because:
1- There was no communist threat until the Americans started fucking with the MidEast for the sake of Israel and oil corporations
2- Any such communist threat was irrelevant to American national security, because no matter what happens, the rulers of the region would want to sell their oil on the free market. And if they didn’t, others would.
3- In Egypt, it was America that withdrew its support to Nasser and drove him to the Soviets
4- In Iran, it was the Americans who overthrew non-communist Mossadegh driving large chunks of the population to the communists.

March 23, 2010 at 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Pals said...

You should really read some Rothbard on the Cold War. I particularly liked his analysis of it in For a New Liberty, which you can find online. He makes a very important point about Soviet empire: As a dysfunctional socialist hell-hole, the USSR had its hands full trying to run a centrally-planned economy and not starve half the population. All the bluster about global empire building was necessary to keep the masses scared and rally support for the criminal leadership. The Soviets had no ability or intention to run a global empire. America, on the other hand, had a relatively free and significantly less Communist economy (until this week, that is!) and so the people were wealthy and happy to leave the government do what it wanted. With a rich economy, the government needed to only thieve a small percentage of the people’s money and be able to afford a giant global empire. The Americans spread this empire under the pretext of fighting the Soviet’s empire. The Soviet and American regimes partook in this mutually convenient lie that they were each building a giant empire to save/ruin the world.

Reading recently declassified CIA history further completes the picture: whenever USG intervened, it always did so under the pretext of fighting communism, whereas in reality, it only did so for USG dysfunctionality and corruption. But only after USG would fuck a place up, would the people of that country turn to the Soviets as a savior. And so the Soviets found billions of people turning to them for salvation, when all that the ruling Soviet regime really cared about was keeping its serfs under control.

Yes, like with Islamic terrorism today, USG was the decisive recruitment drive for world communism.

March 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Pals said...

One more thing:

“The fact that Israel's governments were economically socialist doesn't mean they were a Soviet client state.”

Sweetheart, the USSR was the first country to recognize Israel, even beating the groveling Truman to the punch. The connections between the lefty Zionist nuts and their Soviet comrades had always been very strong, and the USSR saw in Israel its extension in the MidEast. The Israelis played both the Soviets and the Americans; convincing both they’d be an asset for them. Had the Soviets not been a dysfunctional mess that didn’t really care for its empire despite its bluster, the Israelis could easily have gone the other way. There was certainly far, far more to suggest that Israel would be a Communist ally than any Arab country. And yet, in agreement with my explanation and in contradiction to yours, America never did anything about the Communist threat spreading to Israel, while somehow doing a lot to combat the non-existent Communist threat in the Arab world. Hmm….

In any case, you're a fucking Neocon shit-for-brains and nothing I could ever say will ever detract from the propaganda they taught you in Zionist summer Madrassa.

War Good! Israel Better! Wars by America for Israel Betterer!

Keep the faith, fuckface

March 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Listening to an interesting podcast with USS Liberty survivor, and Alan Sabrosky, PhD...

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/alan-sabrosky-phd-on-tonights-liberty-hour-podcast/

Alan N. Sabrosky, PhD – Former Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, U.S. Army War College.

Bio:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/#ASabrosky

The dark face of Jewish nationalism
By Dr Alan Sabrosky 12 March 2010

http://www.redress.cc/zionism/asabrosky20100312

Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: 9/11 and Beyond

By Alan Sabrosky

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23460.htm

Book: ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY
by survivor James M. Ennes, Jr.

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/Liberty.pdf

March 23, 2010 at 7:21 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

All your Ike references do not bear on this discussion at all. I know that all this happened. You argue that the official justification for it was correct. I’m presenting you with unassailable evidence that your official grad school propaganda version of events is a crock of shit, because:
1- There was no communist threat until the Americans started fucking with the MidEast for the sake of Israel and oil corporations
2- Any such communist threat was irrelevant to American national security, because no matter what happens, the rulers of the region would want to sell their oil on the free market. And if they didn’t, others would.


Hey, Pals, old Ike just called to say you are full of shit:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1957eisenhowerdoctrine.html

President Eisenhower:
The Eisenhower Doctrine on the Middle East, A Message to Congress, January 5, 1957

The Middle East has abruptly reached a new and critical stage in its long and important history. In past decades many of the countries in that area were not fully self-governing. Other nations exercised considerable authority in the area and the security of the region was largely built around their power. But since the First World War there has been a steady evolution toward self-government and independence. This development the United States has welcomed and has encouraged. Our country supports without reservation the full sovereignty and independence of each and every nation of the Middle East.

The evolution to independence has in the main been a peaceful process. But the area has been often troubled. Persistent cross-currents of distrust and fear with raids back and forth across national boundaries have brought about a high degree of instability in much of the Mid East. just recently there have been hostilities involving Western European nations that once exercised much influence in the area. Also the relatively large attack by Israel in October has intensified the basic differences between that nation and its Arab neighbors. All this instability has been heightened and, at times, manipulated by International Communism.

March 27, 2010 at 3:11 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Ike continues:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1957eisenhowerdoctrine.html

II

Russia's rulers have long sought to dominate the Middle East. That was true of the Czars and it is true of the Bolsheviks. The reasons are not hard to find. They do not affect Russia's security, for no one plans to use the Middle East as a base for aggression against Russia. Never for a moment has the United States entertained such a thought.

The Soviet Union has nothing whatsoever to fear from the United States in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, so long as its rulers do not themselves first resort to aggression.

That statement I make solemnly and emphatically. . . .

The reason for Russia's interest in the Middle East is solely that of power politics. Considering her announced purpose of Communizing the world, it is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East. . . .

International Communism, of course, seeks to mask its purposes of domination by expressions of good will and by superficially attractive offers of political, economic and military aid. But any free nation, which is the subject of Soviet enticement, ought, in elementary wisdom, to look behind the mask.

Remember Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In 1939 the Soviet Union entered into mutual assistance pacts with these then independent countries; and the Soviet Foreign Minister, addressing the Extraordinary Fifth Session of the Supreme Soviet in October 1939, solemnly and publicly declared that 11 we stand for the scrupulous and punctilious observance of the pacts on the basis of complete reciprocity, and we declare that all the nonsensical talk about the Sovietization of the Baltic countries is only to the interest of our common enemies and of all anti-Soviet provocateurs." Yet in 1940, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union.

Soviet control of the satellite nations of Eastern Europe has been forcibly maintained in spite of solemn promises of a contrarv intent, made during World War II.

Stalin's death brought hope that this pattern would change. And we read the pledge of the Warsaw Treaty of 1955 that the Soviet Union would follow in satellite countries "the principles of mutual respect for their independence and sovereignty and non-interfcrence in domestic affairs." But we have just seen the subjugation of Hungary by naked armed force. In the aftermath of this Hungarian tragedy, world respect for and belief in Soviet promises have sunk to a new low. International Communism needs and seeks a recognizable Success.

Thus, we have these simple and indisputable facts (which are disputed only by Pals, Daniel Larison, Pat Buchanan, and other Muslim revisionist conservatives):

March 27, 2010 at 3:14 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

More Ike:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1957eisenhowerdoctrine.html

1) The Middle East, which has always been coveted by Russia, would today be prized more than ever by International Communism.

2)The Soviet rulers continue to show that they do not scruple to use any incans to gain their ends.

3)The free nations of the Mid East need, and for the most part want, added strength to assure their continued independence.

IV

Under all the circumstances I have laid before vou, a greater responsibility now devolves upon the United States. We have shown, so that none can doubt, our dedication to the principle that force shall not be used internationally for any aggressive purpose and that the integrity and independence of the nations of the Middle East should be inviolate. Seldom in history has a nation's dedication to principle been tested as severely as ours during recent weeks.

There is general recognition in the Middle East, as elsewhere, that the United States does not seek either political or economic domination over any other people. Our desire is a world environment of freedom, not servitude. On the other hand many, if not all, of the nations of the Middle East are aware of the danger that stems from International Conimunism and welcome closer cooperation with the United States to realize for themselves the United Nations goals of independence, economic well-being and spiritual growth. . . .

V

Under these circumstances I deem it necessarv to seek the cooperation of the Congress. Only with that cooperation can we give the reassurance needed to deter aggression, to give courage and confidence to those who are dedicated to freedom and thus prevent a chain of events which would gravely endanger all of the free world. . . .

March 27, 2010 at 3:15 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

VI

The action which I propose would have the following features.

It would, first of all, authorize the United States to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations in the general area of the Middle East in the development of economic strength dedicated to the maintenance of national independence.

It would, in the second place, authorize the Executive to undertake in the same region programs of military assistance and cooperation with any nation or group of nations which desires such aid.

It would, in the third place, authorize such assistance and cooperation to include the employment of the armed forces of the United States to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid, against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by International Communism.

These measures would have to be consonant with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Charter of the United Nations and with any action or recommendations of the United Nations. They would also, if armed attack occurs, be subject to the overriding authority of the United Nations Security Council in accordance with the Charter.

The present proposal would, in the fourth place, authorize the President to employ, for economic and defensive military purposes, sums available under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, without regard to existing limitations. . . .

VII

The proposed legislation is primarily designed to deal with the possibility of Communist aggression, direct and indirect. There is imperative need that any lack of power in the area should be made good, not by external or alien force, but bv the increased vigor and security of the independent nations of the area.

Experience shows that indirect aggression rarely if ever succeeds where there is reasonable security against direct aggression; where the government possesses loyal security forces, and where economic conditions are such as not to make Communism seem an attractive alternative. The program I suggest deals with all three aspects of this matter and thus with the problem of indirect aggression. . . .

And as I bave indicated, it will also be necessary for us to contribute economically to strengthen those countries, or groups of countries, which have governments manifestly dedicated to the preservation of independence and resistance to subversion. Such measures will provide the greatest insurance against Communist inroads. Words alone are not enough.

March 27, 2010 at 3:17 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Ike finishes kicking Pals in the ass:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1957eisenhowerdoctrine.html

VIII

Let me refer again to the requested authority to employ the armed forces of the United States to assist to defend the territorial integrity and the political independence of anv nation in the area against Communist armed aggression. Such authority would not be exercised except at the desire of the nation attacked. Beyond this it is my profound hope that this authority would never have to be exercised at all.

In the situation now existing, the greatest risk, as is often the case, is that ambitious despots may miscalculate. If power-hungry Communists should either falsely or correctly estimate that the Middle East is inadequately defended, they might be tempted to use open measures of armed attack. If so, that would start a chain of circumstances which would almost surely involve the United States in military action. I am convinced that the best insurance against this dangerous contingency is to make clear now our readiness to cooperate fully and freely with our friends of the Middle East in ways consonant with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. I intend promptly to send a special mission to the Middle East to explain the cooperation we are prepared to give.

IX

The policy which I outline involves certain burdens and indeed risks for the United States. Those who covet the area will not like what is proposed.

Already, they are grossly distorting our purpose. However, before this Amencans have seen our nation's vital interests and human freedom in jeopardy, and their fortitude and resolution bavc been equal to the crisis, regardless of hostile distortion of our words, motives and actions. . . .

In those momentous periods of the past, the President and the Congress fiave united, without partisanship, to serve the vital interests of the United States and of the free world.

The occasion has come for us to manifest again our national unity in support of freedom and to show our deep respect for the rights and independance of every nation - however great, however small. We seek, not violence, but peace. To this purpose we must now devote our energies, our dctermination, ourselves.

March 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Are there any other mistakes you want president Eisenhower to correct for you, Pals?

The Undiscovered Jew

March 27, 2010 at 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Undiscovered Jew,

If there was a war over necessary resources, such as water or something, between the US and Israel, and no alternative to war was possible, no peace was possible, no sharing or trade arrangement was possible, and losing meant the complete destruction and extinction of the losing nation and its people, whose side would you be on?

March 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

If there was a war over necessary resources, such as water or something, between the US and Israel, and no alternative to war was possible, no peace was possible, no sharing or trade arrangement was possible, and losing meant the complete destruction and extinction of the losing nation and its people, whose side would you be on?

A) If your scenario occurs as you describe, I will be on the side of America to destroy Israel completely and utterly.

B) What in the world does your question have to do with America's Middle East foreign policy from 1945 to 1991?

March 27, 2010 at 6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A) If your scenario occurs as you describe, I will be on the side of America to destroy Israel completely and utterly.

You're a fucking disgusting anti-Semitic piece of shit. Fuck off.

March 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

You're a fucking disgusting anti-Semitic piece of shit. Fuck off.

March 27, 2010 7:26 PM


You would choose to have your own country destroyed in the war in order to save Israel?

March 27, 2010 at 7:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're a self-hating piece of shit. Go away.

March 27, 2010 at 8:35 PM  
Anonymous pwnage said...

LOL. Discpvered.

March 28, 2010 at 3:35 AM  
Anonymous Pals said...

TUJ,

You aren’t very bright, are you?

Nothing you quote comes to bear on our discussion in any way whatsoever. My position is that USG’s justifications for its intervention in the ME have always and forever been fine-grade bullshit. I presented you with a host of historical examples that prove conclusively that they indeed are bullshit.

In response, you retort by regurgitating USG propaganda, from USG own top horse’s mouth, and use that as proof that USG’s propaganda is correct.

Do you see the logical travesty you are committing here?

My whole point is that the head honchos of the ruling US criminal regime are liars and that all their justifications are bullshit. You cannot then quote to me the lies of these very same liars as proof that the lies are indeed true.

Someone like you is so thoroughly brainwashed in Neocon propaganda that, like a religious nut, you see the propaganda itself as the ultimate proof of its own verity. Like the Christian fundamentalist who derives their faith in Jesus from the Bible and their faith in the Bible from their faith in Jesus, you fail to see the glaring circularity of this. All it takes for any question to be settled in your brains is for your neocon overlords to merely say that it is true.

Try to actually counter the arguments I made, if you want to not be laughed at. But then again, I’m sure you’d be better off spending your time jerking off to images of carnage from Afghanistan and Iraq, you sick Neocon sack of subhuman excrement.

March 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Delerium Tremens said...

Nobody here reads Heinlein? All of these ideas were well covered by RAH. MM should at least refer to the source (or the supra-literate popularizer) of his ideas somewhere in his posts. Or, if he somehow missed the following while poring through ancient issues of the Atlantic, he should read: The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Starship Trooper, Friday, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls (descending order of quality.) Plus, that post on the Congo was awesome... plus, I recommend drinking an entire bottle of Delirium Tremens by oneself in short order. Best beer ever.

March 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Dear Pals,

We have a problem here. There are two conflicting stories, only one of which can be true and the other must be false:

1) Eisenhower stated before the entire world that the reason America was intervening in the affairs of the formerly British and French Middle Eastern affairs to prevent the region from falling into the Communist sphere.*

2) You assert that Ike was actually lying and that the real motivation for our interventions in the Muslim was to please Jewish neocons in the 1950's.

One of you is either lying or ignorant of American Cold War containment strategy - and I don't think the liar/idot in this case is president Eisenhower.

Do you have ANY evidence that when Ike says at the link below that America is intervening in the Middle East to checkmate Soviet expansionism that Eisenhower is lying?

You haven't provided any links to any scholarly resources.

Indeed you haven't even provided a link to an article at JewWatch or Majority Rights that claims Eisenhower was actually a Yemeni Jew who was being paid under the table by Hyman Roth to subvert the ethnogenetic juices of the Aryan peoples.

In the absence of proof (you saying Eisenhower is a liar isn't proof!) I think I am going to have to agree with Eisenhower:

* http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1957eisenhowerdoctrine.html

In the situation now existing, the greatest risk, as is often the case, is that ambitious despots may miscalculate. If power-hungry Communists should either falsely or correctly estimate that the Middle East is inadequately defended, they might be tempted to use open measures of armed attack. If so, that would start a chain of circumstances which would almost surely involve the United States in military action. I am convinced that the best insurance against this dangerous contingency is to make clear now our readiness to cooperate fully and freely with our friends of the Middle East in ways consonant with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. I intend promptly to send a special mission to the Middle East to explain the cooperation we are prepared to give.

April 2, 2010 at 4:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home