Ron Paul - "Blowback" is a CIA Concept

atlascott's picture
Submitted by atlascott on Thu, 2010-04-08 18:36

And it was a featured concept in the 9/11 Commission Report. Not a Ron Paul fiction. Unintended consequences, as established by foreign policy experts.

Where does he "blame" America or Americans?

Oh, that's right. He DOESN'T.


Whatever, dude.

atlascott's picture

If Israelis do not replace themselves, there will be no one left who adheres to Judaism, or of Jewish ancestry.

I don't care what color someone's SKIN is. And, I do not care if Conservatives care what color someone's skin it.

What I care about is that if the numbers of those those born into a culture of altruism are reduced to almost nil, then there will be no one left to wage a war against those born into a culture of violent relgious-based world domination.

The Israelis DO have a problem with altruism. It will not matter a whit WHAT they believe if they are overrun.

Demographics isn't the answer

Doug Bandler's picture

Israel needs to toughen up and also to reward it citizens for breeding and having large families.

This is basically the Conservative answer for everything. But Conservatives will take it further. They will tell you that non-whites are out-breeding whites and that the only American demographic that is really breeding children in large numbers are the Latinos and this raises the threat of America losing its white majority and becoming a 3rd world nation.

These demographic arguments are everywhere on the Right. Marc Steyn makes them all the time. But the point is that civilized people will always have less children than savages or less civilized people. The civilized world is NOT going to win the demographic war. It is not going to out-breed the non-civilized world. It needs to protect itself from the non-civilized / savage world, by devastating war if necessary.

I think the answer to Israel's woes lies not with demographics but with the defeat of its Arab / Muslim enemies and its expansion. Israel is too small. It needs some more size and some buffers to protect it from the sea of Muslim insanity that surrounds it. It also needs to remove the "Palestinians" from close proximity to Israel. Ship them to Jordan or something but they can't remain where they are. The Arab world wants the "Palestinians" in a perpetual state of poverty to use as ammunition against Israel. It also wouldn't hurt if America were to take out Iran and Syria. Remove them from the equation and the "Palestinian", Lebanese, and Syrian forces lose their funding. Finally, the idea of a "two state solution" should be scrapped. The "Palestinians" are a bunch of Muslim savages. They deserve nothing.

What is holding back Israel is altruism. I think Israel provides a case study in how the whole political world hates egoism and is determined to destroy it wherever it exists. Self-interested behavior is just not allowed anywhere by Western / civilized nations. Sacrifice is demanded. Nowhere is that more true than with Israel. Personally, I can't see how they can survive in our post-Kantian, post-modern, altruist drenched world.

Jerusalem

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Jerusalem is the sticking point which prevents Palestinian/Israeli peace agreements. It was during Ehud Barak's tenure as prime minister. It is now. It would be healthier for all to simply admit that no peace agreement is possible rather than to play diplomatic games about it and get people killed in another intifada.

Jim

Mayor Koch is Right

atlascott's picture

And this is yet one more reason why Obama is a literal nightmare.

Israel needs to toughen up and also to reward it citizens for breeding and having large families.

The Palestinians are outbreeding them 5 to 1. In 50 years, there will BE no Israel if they do not.

Germane

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Former Obama supporter Ed Koch, here:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0...

Ron Paul supporters might heed his words too.

Yep

atlascott's picture

"Don't forget that, as brutal as Milosevic was, he was motivated by a defence against Islam."

Yeah, this is not popularly reported in the West, nor are the atrocities perpetrated against Christians in the area to which Milosevic's policies were a partial response. Fire with fire and all that.

Muslims learned an important lesson in spinning situations and in Western political correctness which they continue to exploit to the present day.

Don't forget that, as brutal

Richard Wiig's picture

Don't forget that, as brutal as Milosevic was, he was motivated by a defence against Islam. The other side of the story is groups such as the KLA who have been and still are persecuting and terrorising christians and other non-muslims. They have documented links to Al Qaida, and they are part of the global jihad network.

They let another mini-Hitler, Milosevic, run amuck right in their own backyard.

"Even if you do not

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

"Even if you do not understand or accept "blowback" there is no escaping the moral and Constitutional argument for a less-interventionist foreign policy."

Scott, I don't disagree with this. The United States has a decidedly checkered history in foreign policy, but the people who have the most cause to be angry with the US, the Indonesians who suffered under Suharto (a million people dead), the Salvadorans slaughtered by ARENA, the Vietnamese are all getting on with their lives.

It's the fundamental antipathy to western values as well as remnants of fascism from World War 2 in some areas of the Middle East that is the root of today's conflict. There are some unintended consequences from Cold War Crystal tower diplomacy and the Original Gulf War. This is also a case of the seen and the unseen. Do we know what the consequences would have been if we had let Saddam march into Saudi Arabia?

I don't agree with the nation building we've been trying to do or the cost we have incurred as the price of occupation. We should move in and move out quickly with overwhelming force and minimal casualties to our side.

Jim

well...

atlascott's picture

"It was Bill Clinton not taking care of business in the 1990's that gave us 9/11. "

Bill Clinton did the same thing Bush Senior did: almost not-stop lobbing of missiles here and there.

You and I are not privy to the intel, nor of the advice he got. Believe me, I am not a Bill Clinton apologist. He makes my skin crawl.

Fewer Americans would have died if we washed our hands of the Middle East save supporting Israel and got off oil, moving to nuclear power and battery technology.

Blowback means: unintended consequences to involvement in situations you don't strictly have to be involved in.

Blowback is real: the CIA says so, and most foreign policy experts say so.

If you are referring to MORAL culpability, that lies with the bad actor. But blowback (unintened consequences to unnecessary actions on the world stage) is real and we should be mindful of it.

Even if you do not understand or accept "blowback" there is no escaping the moral and Constitutional argument for a less-interventionist foreign policy.

We should do what we can politically

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Scott,

I also agree with you that Objectivists can't sit on the sidelines politically. Leonard Peikoff's vote Democratic injunction was a fiasco. We have to take back Congress from Obama this November. We also need something radically different in the 2012 presidency or this country will go bankrupt.

This blowback concept, however, is complete hogwash. It was Bill Clinton not taking care of business in the 1990's that gave us 9/11.

If you want a textbook example of what isolationism means, look at the Europeans. They let another mini-Hitler, Milosevic, run amuck right in their own backyard.

No, the Islamic fundamentalists don't kill because of blowback, they kill because they believe they must spread Islam by the sword, they kill because they like it and because they have been programmed by utterly evil puppetmasters in madrassas.

If we really want peace, we should look at the relative numbers of terrorist incidents in Israel when Netanyahu has been prime minister compared to Ehud Barak. We should be utterly resolute in the face of the enemy.

Jim

We agree

atlascott's picture

"I don't want to invade them. I want to drop massive amounts of airborne conventional ordinance on them, turn off all of their electricity, cut off their water and control transportation routes in and out of the country until they do a full monty striptease for outside nuclear weapons inspectors."

James, you and I AGREE that this is the most reasonable course of conduct. Neither you nor I know the intel, but the news has reported that the CIA believes that Iran now can produce a nuke.

Israel wants to go take care of it, yet WE restrain them. WE should take care of it, but NOT with nation building and boots on the ground.

If we have to be the world's policemen to SOME extent (a position I believe Ron Paul would not support), it should be to utterly barbarize any country which is unstable with a history of mass murder which also develops nuclear capabilities. Mutual assured destruction has kept China and and the former Soviet Union in line. Fundamnetalists with a rich tradition of suicide bombing, coming from countries who have pledged to wipe Israel off of the map, and who support nuking America will not be so dissuaded. This situation MUST be addressed.

Ron Paul needs to reconsider Islam, needs to reconsider WHY supporting Israel is necessary, and not cover the entire globe with an utter hands off policy, when doing so could mean serious loss of life, IMO.

Iran

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Scott,

The US's problem with Iran is not that they are a repressive regime, although that is a problem. The problem is that they are unabashedly developing nuclear weapons, that they are a proxy sponsor of terror and that they have repeatedly had their fingerprints on embassy attacks all around the world for the last 30 years.

I don't want to invade them. I want to drop massive amounts of airborne conventional ordinance on them, turn off all of their electricity, cut off their water and control transportation routes in and out of the country until they do a full monty striptease for outside nuclear weapons inspectors.

The president swears on oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ron Paul has the domestic part right. He needs to acknowledge a modern day Hitler when he sees one.

Jim

Really?

atlascott's picture

I read his book on foreign policy and I missed any reference to Ron Paul mentioning that he believes that nations have rights.

His point, I would venture to guess, would be that is Iran is an oppressive theocracy -- SO WHAT? Not our responsibility to fix their problems, and further, there might be a flip comment by Rand about invading rights-violating nations, but our Constitution vest absolutely NO POWER to invade an Iran on the basis that they are oppressive.

In other words, Ron Paul takes spending American lives and money very seriously, and takes limiting goverment to its Constitutional mandate VERY seriously.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

And radicalise the Taliban?

Richard Wiig's picture

And radicalise the Taliban? Another of Ron Paul's, 'blame America' comments. The Taliban are radicalised by their religion, not by America naively aiding them to fight the Communists. You should be denouncing Ron Paul heavily for his ugly disgusting blame America stance. Praise his economic policy by all means, but don't make apologies for his disgusting moral equivalency.

"There are consequences to every action.

Was it a net good idea to giving Afghanis some weapons? Maybe."

Ron Paul's foreign policy

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Scott,

I think it's worthwhile to state up front what's wrong with Ron Paul's foreign policy. He believes that nations have rights in the same way people do. If he is against statism, he should be all the more against the theocracy in Iran.

Jim

Good point, Doug

atlascott's picture

"He accepts the false alternative of "interventionism" vs "isolationism"."

He does, and he's wrong. I do not subscribe to Dr. Paul's foreign policy completely, but neither is it treacherous, treasonous, foul, evil or all the other stuff Linz calls it.

Consequences

atlascott's picture

There are consequences to every action.

Was it a net good idea to giving Afghanis some weapons? Maybe.

Was it a good idea to teach and train them in state of the art guerilla warfare, provide them tactical training, teach them how to build IED's? Go undetected?

Well, now THAT part of it certainly has come back to bite us in the ass, hasn't it?

The consequences of us NOT getting involved in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan?

There would have been none. Maybe the Soviets would now be more involved in the Middle East, and THEIR resources would be drained their young men and women killed over senseless nonsense.

They like to fight and kill. If you are involved with them, you are going to end up fighting and killing, and being killed.

If you get involved, there are hard-to-foresee negative consequences.

If you DO NOT get involved and entangled, much easier to see, manage and control the consequences.

For the record, Afghanistan has very little oil, is mostly hard to settle land, and is of virtually ZERO strategic importance.

We helped them not because we cared about them, but because we were playing a chess game with the Soviets in the Cold War.

If we didn't train them and teach them how to kill us and hide, they are not likely to have been nearly as good at it as many of them are today.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is not ideal, and I do not subscribe to it completely.

But neither is it traitorous, cowardly, or any of the other stupid bullshit Linz calls it.

It makes all the sense in the world, it is supported by CIA foreign policy operatives and experts, and it comports with a proper Objectivist foreign policy, as well as being legal under our Constitution. It also saves American dollars and lives.

So it is nice that Linz or anyone else wants America to do this and that. But I thought Objectivists were guided by principles, not pragmatism. I thought the Constitution meant something to the Objectivists on this site.

It is great to say "well, we need to do this and that" but if it is not legal, then the Federal government has no authority to do what is advocated. And especially if it is not guided by principle, it will turn into a wreck, and it has.

It is the rule of man which is required to do what Linz wants done, and that is what we are seeing happen. And it is the rule of man which allows the Patriot Act to pass, and then be used willy-nilly.

We need the rule of law.

Ok, so let's get this straight

atlascott's picture

You want to compare your understanding of isolated foreign policy statements of Ron Paul's, and your misunderstanding of same, NOT to what alternative candidates, like Giuliani, who you did support, want to happen in foreign policy, and NOT what is actually being done by "hard line" Conservatives, but to your own, piecemeal and personal, advocated-by-no-one foreign policy?

Well, okay. I could build a castle in the clouds, too, and we could compare castles. I just do not see the point.

The ironic part is that you and I DO agree on a lot of this stuff. The main disagreement is in whether this entanglement is enough to flush the American identity down the toilet for. You see doing that as an acceptable casualty, and i think that position is preposterous.

You ignore the fact that you DO support nation building over there, and you DO support an ongoing engagement over there to "fight them there, not here" -- which are conceptual cornerstones of the foreign policy on the War on Terror. I do not think your piecemeal castle in the clouds is oh so very different than the mess we have right now. You just want to avoid moral culpability for the nasty consequences of a course of action actually being taken in the real world.

You also completely ignore Ross's foundational argument against the kind of foreign policy you advocate.

Simply, you cannot compare what IS and what feasibly COULD BE with a fanciful "what if" -- it is pointless.

We are never going to agree on this because of the problem I identified previously.

You are SO affected by War on Terror hysteria that you would trade everything for security. I would not.

You only other choice in candidate is going to propagate the wars to please the GOP, and you'll support a big government totalitarian.

Useful idiot? No, but you are a useless jerkoff on these issues.

Linz's program

Sam Pierson's picture

I like Linz's program. It's actually what will have to happen at some point if the problem is to be sorted once for all.

Atlas

Sam Pierson's picture

Part way through Paul says: "...rather than cause wars". I don't think he's talking about "them." He clearly does apportion blame onto the US. And there's no mention of responsibility lying with anyone else. That's silly nonsense.

It's not Paul's small govt message that seems to get people excited, but rather his foreign policy message. It seems to plug right into the "blame America first" crowd... of which Maher is a good example.

And to look at one historic example he mentions: Afghanistan. Was supplying weapons to the Mujahideen against the Soviets bad foreign policy? Even if you accept it was not helpful to US policy ends (a hard argument to make I'd say), was it not of benefit to the Muj & the Afghan people? Do they now hate the US for giving them the weapons and knowledge to defend and regain their country? Is that the grievance? Is that why 10 years later they're supporting Al Qaida against "the great satan?" Is that what Paul fingers as a US foreign policy mea culpa?

No good deed goes unpunished I guess.

Scott

Doug Bandler's picture

I think it was in her article "The Nature of Government" that Rand argued that a free nation could invade a non-free nation if it intended to spread freedom; i.e. if the principle it was following was individual rights. Looked at that way, colonization could be moral if it were done according to such principles. If some hypothetical free America were confronted with the threat of Islam and it chose to colonize the Middle East and transplant freedom there, I don't think that would be opposed to Objectivism. It would be one strategy amongst many.

Today, we are in no such position, yet we are attempting to do something similar. We are attempting to transform Muslim societies into politically Western ones. And we are doing this while we are being internally decimated by Leftism. Bush's strategy was completely foolish given the reality of the modern world.

What should we have done? As I said, there is room for debate. One strategy was to destroy a few of the most dangerous Islamic regimes and quickly place pro-America puppets in power with a list of pro-Western reforms they would have to implement if they wanted to stay in power. Machiavellian? Yes. Ideal? No, but it could have been done for cheap, would not have involved occupation and would have been quick. There were other options. The important point is that the NeoConservative strategy of nation building was suicidal especially given the nature of today's hate-America Left. A smart Republican President would have known that he would face massive opposition from the seditious Left. He should have factored that in his war deliberations. Two years max for a campaign. In and out fast.

Ron Paul operates solidly within the libertarian worldview here. He accepts the false alternative of "interventionism" vs "isolationism". Dr. Peikoff just dealt with this in a recent podcast. But if Paul were a legitimate option I would vote for him even though he is too Christian and a Saddamite to boot, just so long as he campaigned on a repeal the welfare-state and pro-Austrian economics platform. His foreign policy weakness would be reigned in by the better Conservatives and he couldn't be any worse in that regard than Obambi who has just taken it upon himself to reduce America's nuclear arsenal in an attempt to make the world "free from nuclear weapons". I doubt Paul would be as bad as that. Problem with Paul is that he is too damn old.

I wonder ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... just who here is rooting for "self-sacrificial internationalism"? Certainly not I. To be opposed to lumpenly stupid isolationism is not to endorse "self-sacrificial internationalism." I say, go after the filth in a much more hard-assed and coherent way than now. At minimum, take out the clerical dictatorship in Iran (or provide help to those within Iran who would do it, rather than adopt the treacherous moral equivalency of Obama and Ron Paul). Unshackle the military from the PC constraints they're bound by at the moment. Do not tolerate Islamofascism in an elected guise just because it's elected. Do not Miranda-ize terrrorists when you capture them, but rather, waterboard them to Hell. Do not proceed on or help propagate the fiction that Islam is a religion of peace. Stop all Islamic immigration while the various Jihads are in effect. Grasp that war has been declared by them and take and prosecute this war seriously.

Ron Paul is living in a cloud cuckoo-land that says they'll leave us alone if we don't hurt their feelings. One of Islam's useful idiots. Seems we have a few round here too.

And no, not to support him is not the same as advocating Big Government at home and "self-sacrificial internationalism" abroad. I don't know which candidate I'd root for yet, but it sure as hell won't be that bastard.

Ross and Doug

atlascott's picture

Ross - dead on correct, great contribution.

Doug - nothing inherently wrong with all out colonization? Installing puppet dictators? Wow, not what we need, not what Objectivism prescribes.

Crap! The biggest flaw is in

Richard Wiig's picture

Crap! The biggest flaw is in Ron Paul's lack of getting off his arse and educating himself about the nature and mission of Islam. He simply hasn't done it, or there would be no misunderstanding. He's indulging in some kind of moral relativism at the expense of the truth.

The biggest flaw in Ron Paul's foreign policy is a misunderstanding of the nature and mission of Islam.

Well said...

Doug Bandler's picture

Defence is a proper function of government, but you can't have your Objectivist cake and eat it, too. The *rational* outcome of capitalist politics is *not* the self-sacrificial internationalism that we have now.

Well said. The entire NeoConservative foreign policy was flawed as far as I am concerned. The project to transform a Muslim nation into a politically and culturally stable constitutional republic is a pipe dream in today's world. To succeed it would take all out colonization. Something, while not inherently wrong, is outside of the ability of today's weakened Western world. The Republican's war strategy was heavily infected with altruism. I had doubts about it from the very start and Bush proved to be a weakling up until the very end. Although, I hasted to add, that while Bush was a weakling, Obama is an all out traitor.

A proper and rational foreign policy is inconceivable right now. What it would consist of is open for debate but I would think that we should strike the Islamic hot spots hard and fast, kill who needs to be killed and then place a pro-American puppet on the cheap. Do this every 5 to 10 years as necessary. Leave a few tactical bases in remote areas for quick strike capability and to defend the oil wells and that's about it. (I think Daniel Pipes even recommended something similar.) I think at this point we should be thinking in terms of quarantining the Islamic Middle East as much as we can. Restrictions on Muslim immigration is also necessary methinks.

Oh, regarding the Bill Maher clip above, Maher is the type of atheist that gives atheism a bad name. Really, he makes Creationists look sane.

Further

Ross Elliot's picture

"On this path, we are damned to massive government and massive spending and massive government control -- forever -- in the name of what? When WE are no longer Americans, and are essentially living as THEY would have us live (controlled, taxed, at the whim of government violence) "

This sparks me to add what I should have added above.

Non-contradiction is foundational in Objectivism, yet the current foreign policy of the US relies upon the unconstitutional, anti-capitalist powers of the Federal government.

If you support Objectivist politics--capitalism--you can't have the current foreign policy.

Defence is a proper function of government, but you can't have your Objectivist cake and eat it, too. The *rational* outcome of capitalist politics is *not* the self-sacrificial internationalism that we have now. Not by the longest shot.

I'd like to hear how welfarism in the form of nation building, and the sacrifice of American troops upon that altar, could be begun or sustained under a truly capitalist--that is, Objectivist--politics.

That's rhetorical. It couldn't.

Paul and foreign policy

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Scott,

I agree with your hierarchy and I agree that domestic policy will be much more important than foreign policy in the next presidential election. I hope Ron Paul is successful in his next campaign.

If he is going to be successful, he is going to have to step back from certain positions. One of these is his voting against the censure of the Iranian government for its brutal repression of Iranian dissidents. There is an ugly moral equivalence in his brand of paleolibertarianism, that we cannot distinguish good from evil in Iran and other clearcut cases where moral judgment is necessary.

Jim

"a sort of eloquence"

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Scott: "Not to pat myself on the back, and I may be wrong, but I just re-read what I wrote, and I dipped into a sort of eloquence there for a bit."

I think you deserve a pat on the back -- and that you've been dipping into "a sort of eloquence" quite a bit lately. I've been impressed.

Ellen

Perhaps

atlascott's picture

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Aaron and Ellen.

Perhaps if more folks did so, there would some reconsideration of the hierarchy of threats going on.

Not to pat myself on the back, and I may be wrong, but I just re-read what I wrote, and I dipped into a sort of eloquence there for a bit.

I care about this, passionately, deeply, and have spent a good long time considering it, reading on it, digesting it.

I am firm and passionate in my convictions, here.

Leviathan Now

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Scott: "When WE are no longer Americans, and are essentially living as THEY would have us live (controlled, taxed, at the whim of government violence) -- haven't we essentially BECOME Saddam's Iraq, or a secular version of a Muslim dictatorship?

[....]

"This thing here is THE Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes would soil himself. Well oiled with the blood and cash of patriotic Americans. It is voracious. Listen and understand. It is out there. It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop. Until you are dead.

"That's what we have now."

 

I think your description is chillingly close to being accurate. Not precisely that the U.S. is becoming "a secular version of a Muslim dictatorship," more like a near-present version of a Nazi-cum-Soviet totalitarian model. But I think that, just as I feared would happen when the War on Terror was announced, the quest for "security" has been proving a suicidal response to 9/11 -- a handing of the victory to the attackers.

Ellen

Awesome, KASS and all that.

Aaron's picture

Awesome, KASS and all that. Loved the references such as to both Thomas Hobbes and Billy Beck too.

Open Your Eyes

atlascott's picture

"...your repeated references to my not being an American will not deter me for a second from saying my piece on matters American"

It is not meant to do so. What does citizenship have to do with your DUTY to do your own thinking? And your right, undiluted and unconditional, to express it on your own site? I support your right to do so, and do not mean to shut you down based on citizenship status. I am trying to find any rational explanation whatever for your position here. I haven't and you have not acquitted yourself.

"You hate my pointing it out, and, in true modern American Therapy Culture Crybaby style, take it personally. Get the fuck over it."

No, I don't and never have. I have SUPPORTED this interpretation. I have independently come to the same conclusion, and have posted MANY times on this site that the education system here has disarmed the populace. You are WAY overreaching.

"I am not a Rothbardian/Rockwellian anarcho-Saddamite libertarian. I believe government should have the wherewithal to fulfill its proper function. I believe it *has* a proper function."

We are still 100%, four-square in agreement, until you write...

"I don't know if the Patriot Act goes beyond that, but I support absolutely the government's wiretapping of incoming calls from overseas terrorists and its waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Are you, Scott, opposed to these things? If so, are you prepared to live (die) with the consequences of the government's renouncing of them?"

Let's just say that it is clear to me that you "don't know" enough about the Patriot Act. I WOULD support waterboarding Khalid. You are changing (AVOIDING) the subject, and the objection I have is to Statists like you granting the government carte blanche to define terrorist and then use such powers willy-nilly, which IS what is happening, and it is getting worse. And which you call minor and acceptable collateral damage. That is a fucking disgrace.

Not only would I stand behind a re-establishment of American civil liberties, the right to privacy, protection against search and seizure, habeas corpus, and the reduction of government's size, I'd give it all up --EVERYTHING I HAVE -- to see it happen. That includes my life, liberty and ability to pursue happiness in the future. There just has to be some rational plan and some reasonable chance at success. [I am not advocating violence against any person or the government.]

"Yes, there are huge threats to America from within—but that from Obama is far greater than that from legitimate efforts to keep al Qaeda out of America, which efforts are not a threat at all, even if mistakes are made in their execution, as they inevitably will be. That from Obama is also far greater than that from Republican "theocrats" who spooked Peikoff into issuing his bizarre voting fatwa—though let it be said also that eternal vigilance against Christianity is still one of the prices of liberty given that it is a stinking superstition ever desirous of reclaiming its former malignant dominance. I've rewritten your Declaration of Independence to remove all traces of this poison. If you guys don't have the wit to run with it, ain't my fault."

You really tune up the violin here, and I am not going to waste my time re-hashing why you are deadly-wrong here. I already have, and you are coasting on autopilot, anyway. The last sentence is a grand overstatement of your own effect, and a gross mistake as to cause (Lack of wit? Really? A KIWI rewrote the Declaration and the reason it has not been adopted and subsequently transformed America is lack of wit?).

Saying that "unreason" is the enemy and then refusing to look further into it is fucking suicide, pal. THAT's why you will continue to fiddle whilst Rome burns.

"You, Scott, hate my campaign against them." [pomo-nihilism]

No, I don't. Not at all. You are overstating your case, when any reference to my contributions on your site make you a liar. I don't really care, as long as we both understand that you're employing hyperbole without reference to the facts because you are agitated. At least, I THINK that's what is happening.

I hate that you waste your time on abortion and foreign policy and advocate the death of American civil liberties as mere and minor casualties in a War on Terror that is 95% media hype.

More Americans have died fighting the War on Terror than died in the attacks in 9/11. And we have hundreds of broken and crippled men and women in this country to show for it as well. And we have spent TRILLIONS on these wars. Because we do not have our shit together domestically, war profiteer/political insiders have raped our Treasury, and YOU are an accessory to the crime by supporting it with exactly NO EVIDENCE that it has done a goddmaned thing that some cruise missles and small groups of special forces could not have done more efficiently, when used with letters of marque and reprisal.

I hate that you advocate the election of uninformed morons who do not have the first goddamned clue as to Constitutional law or economics -- like Rudy Giuliani -- over a guy that is 90% perfect, like Ron Paul. But it is at least clear WHY you do.

Despite your position that you fight unreason in all her forms equally, you value "security," whatever that means, over everything it means to be an American. Really, it sounds like you are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes in the name of "security" against this Islamic bug-a-boo.

You are willing to accept American military occupation and nation-building overseas, which condemns Americans to pointless deaths on foreign shores, and condemns the rest of us to live in a totalitarian regime, forfeiting our rights as human beings and Americans, and also, to labor under the taxes necessary to keep the war machine going, in pursuit of an unobtainable goal -- "security."

On this path, we are damned to massive government and massive spending and massive government control -- forever -- in the name of what? When WE are no longer Americans, and are essentially living as THEY would have us live (controlled, taxed, at the whim of government violence) -- haven't we essentially BECOME Saddam's Iraq, or a secular version of a Muslim dictatorship?

Is that the goal, or is the goal as much individualism and freedom as we can muster?

That is perhaps your worst offense and if I may borrow a Billy Beck phrase which is quite fitting, your impertinence here.

This thing here is THE Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes would soil himself. Well oiled with the blood and cash of patriotic Americans. It is voracious. Listen and understand. It is out there. It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop. Until you are dead.

That's what we have now. And YOU just want to point it at someone else, and otherwise, let it breed and feed. Let it feed off of me and my countrymen -- feed off of our cash, our blood, our tears, our smashed hopes and dreams, and the very flesh of our goddamned service men and women.

I want to smash the metal motherfucker into junk.

And THAT is the fundamental difference between us.

With the help of cribbed movie lines which are scarily apropos, I clarify that you will support the status quo to keep the "security system" in place, and I will not.

Not being able to combine strength to combat the most pressing danger, lovers of liberty will sit idly on the sidelines as the whole thing comes down, and we will make Billy Beck a prophet.

Salient point

Ross Elliot's picture

"the Federal government was never intended to have grown in power and scope as it has."

Excellent premise checking.

The essential point is that if the Federal govt. had not grown like Topsy via the commerce clause and the income tax amendment, and used the draft in at least three major wars, all of which Objectivists would have denied them, then we all know where we'd be now. We would in fact be using more cunning and more mercenary methods of interdiction for the sake of economy and efficacy.

Scott ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

One thing you should know before I say anything else: your repeated references to my not being an American will not deter me for a second from saying my piece on matters American. Aside from anything else I love America more than most Americans, and know a damn sight more about it than most Americans. America is going under precisely because it's now Airhead America, populated largely by anti-conceptual historically illiterate fuckwits who, tragically, have the vote. The Gramsci/Alinsky/Chomsky Axis has done its work. I believe I have been one of those to point this out. I shall go on pointing it out. You hate my pointing it out, and, in true modern American Therapy Culture Crybaby style, take it personally. Get the fuck over it.

I am not a Rothbardian/Rockwellian anarcho-Saddamite libertarian. I believe government should have the wherewithal to fulfill its proper function. I believe it *has* a proper function. I don't know if the Patriot Act goes beyond that, but I support absolutely the government's wiretapping of incoming calls from overseas terrorists and its waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Are you, Scott, opposed to these things? If so, are you prepared to live (die) with the consequences of the government's renouncing of them?

Yes, there are huge threats to America from within—but that from Obama is far greater than that from legitimate efforts to keep al Qaeda out of America, which efforts are not a threat at all, even if mistakes are made in their execution, as they inevitably will be. That from Obama is also far greater than that from Republican "theocrats" who spooked Peikoff into issuing his bizarre voting fatwa—though let it be said also that eternal vigilance against Christianity is still one of the prices of liberty given that it is a stinking superstition ever desirous of reclaiming its former malignant dominance. I've rewritten your Declaration of Independence to remove all traces of this poison. If you guys don't have the wit to run with it, ain't my fault.

You accuse me of lacking a hierarchy. Well, the threat to America is fundamentally from unreason. It has myriad guises, all of which I fight, as well as fighting their common root. The specific type of unreason that is the greatest existential threat is socialism (or its fascist variant), Peikoff to the contrary notwithstanding. Islamo-fascism, however, is a very close second, you to the contrary notwithstanding—and any treasonist like Paul who would fold America's tent in the fight against it, and blame America for the existence of the threat in the first place, must be discounted immediately, regardless of the merits of his domestic programme. His readiness to abandon America's staunchest and most effective ally in the fight against Islamo-fascism takes him from dismissible to contemptible. End of story. A disgusting "man." All the more so because of the flaws, nay evils, in his domestic programme. It's not that I fixate on abortion; I fixate on the fact that according to Paul it's perfectly OK to violate rights if it's the states that do the violating; it's impermissible only when the Feds do it. Fuck that.

The specific type of unreason that is the greatest philosophical threat is pomo-nihilism. One of its expressions is headbanging caterwauling. Freedom will always accommodate pomo-nihilism and its children, of course, but it cannot survive when they are predominant. That is why I fight them. They are, objectively speaking, filth. You, Scott, hate my campaign against them. Again, get the fuck over it. Freedom requires the underpinning of reason. Rachmaninoff = reason; Slayer = sordid irrationalism. The Airhead America that embraces headbanging caterwauling is the Airhead America that elects Obama. Have a listen to the contrasting Top of the Pops, 1951 vs. 2009, that I posted, if you struggle with this idea.

As for where I direct my contempt, let me worry about that. I'm aware that it's far too precious an emotion to waste ... and I don't. The Brandens' vicious smearing of Ayn Rand obviously doesn't bother you, but it does me. And, though it may have escaped your attention, I don't require a permission slip from you as to what I may post about.

The biggest flaw

atlascott's picture

The biggest flaw in Ron Paul's foreign policy is a misunderstanding of the nature and mission of Islam.

Others are revealed in statements like the one Linz quotes: not correctly identifying the need to support allies, not clearly and unequivocally supporting Israel, suggesting that providing military aid to the correct party in a dispute is immoral, etc. It is quite likely unConstitutional, and it is hard to ignore how Israel came about. But it is hard to support these statements

Where he is correct is: the Federal government was never intended to have grown in power and scope as it has. The US has military bases everywhere. Too many, and too costly, and the net effect is that we spend our money all over the world for the benefit of people and nations which largely hate us and cheer when we are harmed. We need to stop sending billions in foreign aid to socialist states and dictatorships and refund that money to taxpayers to stimulate our own economy. This will also force the rest of the world towards failure or free markets.

And, frankly, it all comes back to what I have said before. A hierarchy of the biggest and most pressing threats to the US right now.

The biggest threat right now is the DOMESTIC march towards totalitarianism and national bankruptcy/the sprint of the welfare state. NOT foreign policy. Jesus, it doesn't even some close.

Simply, when America is no longer America, who fucking CARES what its foreign policy is?

It is also preposterous that Linz has contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. Not just for NO reason. Not for a religious or illogical reason. For supremely logical reasons.

Support someone he holds in contempt, and you are tainted with his contempt, as, evidently are your first cousins, neighbors and anyone who might share your drinking water.

It is especially preposterous for one specific reason. Namely: it is clear that Objectivism proper supports pragmatic political decisions. Witness Dr Peikoff's exhortation that O'ists must support Democrats, because the more pressing danger is the march towards Republican religious theocracy. And by Linz, as he supported McCain over Obama, though holding his nose all the way as many of us did. In domestic and economic matters , no other national actor is within a country mile of how correct Ron Paul is. He is the right man for the overwhelmingly pressing issues of EXISTENCE QUA AMERICA. Even if he is tragically wrong in some foreign policy positions, he is a principled man of integrity who has fought for individualism for the last 30 years.

But that doesn't matter. To Linz, he is CONTEMPTIBLE. And so is anyone who lists his virtues.

Linz has NEVER addressed this issue of hierarchy. Instead, he ignores it, focusing on abortion and foreign policy. The political equivalent of fiddling whilst Rome burns. Easier, I guess, when you are not a Roman.

Folks on this site -- mainly Kiwis -- support the Patriot Act, suspension of the Bill of Rights on government whim, support torture on the basis of mere government accusation, support subjective government definition of anyone they like as terrorists under the Patriot Act, and support all manner of bastardization of American civil liberties in the name of security. Largely, because they are guilty of a massive cognitive disconnect. These measures are not making Americans safer -- they are making Americans less safe, and the biggest danger is ther own government.

Rational people cannot forget that most of these provisions have ALREADY been misused. For example, the US government is currently holding a US citizen minor on a mistaken identification. He is in custody. He has been for something like 60 days, no charges. Mere accusations. His Mom cannot see him. His lawyer cannot see him. They are not sure what is being done to him, and under the PA, they have no right to do so. Exactly no evidence of illegality has been uncovered nor will there be, nor need their be under the law of the land.

Understand this: the brain dead bureaucrats from the former Soviet Union who follow their rules which destroy lives by rote and edict -- are EXACTLY the same as American bureaucrats. Government actors are almost universally apathetic and robotic and that is what makes them so dangerous. Objectivists have always seems to understand this. But mention "TERRORISM" and the O'ists on this site are suddenly transformed into Statists who support the government as a reasonable and moral actor and further, are willing to grant government the ability to INITIATE FORCE and infringe individual freedoms on zero evidence.

This sort of thing was unthinkable 10 years ago. I am telling you with 100% certainty, Tea Partiers are being classified as domestic terror threats. Some may be "disappeared" already, but if not, that's where we are going.

Billions and trillions are being wasted on foreign entanglements because of war profiteering and corruption. Tax dollars are wasted and "lost". The Republic teeters.

And this site concerns itself with abortion and foreign policy, mere trifles, in context.

And let us not forget: MUSIC, ART, and who Ayn Rand slept with, and whether Frank took a drink, and the degree of depravity of the Brandens.

I get that the format here allows for a lot of topics to be covered simultaneously. And that, not being here, or not being American, it might be hard to understand what being American used to mean, and what is dying here, right here, right now.

It's your site and it is up to you how you use it or allow it to be used. I respect that. But there is going to come a day, soon now, I think, when you will look back and you may then agree that you DID fiddle whilst Rome burned.

And in judging yourself, in failing to focus your mind and accept the context of the crisis, you may then also reconsider your contempt and where it should properly lie.

Linz

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Linz,

I think Scott is taking the wrong tack and I think that Ron Paul's foreign policy and foreign policy statements are wrong. However, the US is broke. No other national candidates have a credible plan to fix that. If one appears, I will support him.

The whole Maher piece is a house of cards. The reason 9/11 happened is that we let terrorists run amuck for 30 years without a response.

Jim

Ron Paul ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is the lowest form of scum:

Statement on H Res 34, “Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process”

January 9, 2008

Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?

As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza — a cruel act of war — and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.

I do not have the words to express my contempt for him, or those who support him, or those who support those who support him just because they hate my guts and I hate his ... and theirs.

And allow me to add...

atlascott's picture

That Ben Affleck may be the most deluded and clueless-about-politics-and-economics actor, right behind Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin.

I assure you...

atlascott's picture

Ross, let me assure you -- no one hates Bill Maher more than I do. He is smarmy and dishonest in the way that he does things.

Don't let YOUR dislike of Bill Maher cloud the etiology of "blowback" or what the CIA means by "blowback."

Please also note that Ron Paul is absolutely fearless in appearing in the lion's den to discuss his ideas. That's bravery.

And his message does not change for the audience. That's integrity.

Ahem

Ross Elliot's picture

That whole interview was a conceit on the part of Maher. Ron Paul was invited on as some sort of Republican Uncle Tom. If the conversation had turned to how Paul regards the size of government, capitalism and civil liberties, Maher and Affleck would have run a mile. It was an exercise in context dropping.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.