Friday, September 6, 2013

Johnny Goes Marching Off Again

Cartoon by BALOO
Every day, it becomes clearer and clearer that we shouldn't be planning to attack Syria, and that the intelligence saying that we should is false.  At the same time, every day it becomes clearer and clearer that Obama is going to attack Syria.  Lot's of theories about all this, from Obama having to show how tough he is to the idea that this will somehow scare Al Qaeda or have other great results as John Craig has speculated HERE.

The reality, of course, is that our rulers want to bring down Assad for the same reason that they wanted to bring down Saddam Hussein.  He's running a halfway efficient, peaceful Arab government and that is viewed as a bad thing in itself.  Gregory Hood thinks (and I agree) that, on the contrary, leaders like Assad and Hussein should be supported in our own interest.  Here are his reasons, including copious historical background:

Standing With Syria


It’s not that America shouldn’t get involved in Syria. It’s that we are on the wrong side.

Most analysts of American foreign policy are divided into two camps. On one side are those who believe that the masters of the world’s greatest military are Machiavellian geniuses, brutally crushing all resistance to the American imperium in the name of the greater profits for corporate America and more power for the ruling class.

On the other hand are those who believe American grand strategy is either hopelessly incompetent or simply nonexistent, as the world’s “indispensable nation” blunders from crisis to crisis with seemingly no goal in sight, making new enemies and squandering scarce resources as it goes.

Within mainstream American politics, progressives largely come from the first camp, and non-libertarian conservatives from the second. Even now, as the Minority Occupation Government of Barack Obama moves forward with plans to crush what remain of white communities, liberals, “activists,” and whiny journalists are already protesting another war on behalf of “oil companies” and the allegedly white Christian male corporate ruling class.

Meanwhile, conservative intellectuals (such as they are) are excitedly whipping out their Risk boards and tossing around flowery critiques of Barack Obama’s lack of a “grand strategy” and the risks to American “credibility.” Conservative opposition to Obama from the likes of Dr. Strangelove Charles Krauthammer derives from their belief that Obama is not fully committed to removing the “dictator Assad.”

Both sides miss the point of what Obama – and by extension the United States of America – really is. As Peter Hitchens wrote on November 10, 2008, the election of Barack Obama meant that “America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war . . . the US . . . has begun the long slow descent into the Third World.” Though these tendencies were always present in the American experiment, the American “creed” is now being worked out to its logical conclusions. The United States is a revolutionary leftist power on a scale that dwarfs anything seen since the days of the French Revolution. It funds opposition to all traditional social systems, it openly defies international law in the name of a more primal creed of universal human rights, and it consistently applies diplomatic, economic, and eventually military force against what remains of Western Civilization.

Such a system contains contradictions. The United States of America, in order to maintain its power, needs skillful businessmen and brave soldiers. This means white males will still have a place within the system, however limited and supervised. The superpower still needs to cultivate a warrior spirit within certain elements of the population. The United States Marine Corps, the Army’s elite units, and the Special Forces and Navy SEALs will still appeal to traditional masculine ideals of heroism, even though feminists are increasingly besieging the gates.

The United States also has to attack and occasionally kill though those who openly defy it.Contra some of the more imaginative critics in what passes for the mainstream American Right, there’s no reason to believe that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are indifferent to the threat of terrorism or that they were hesitant or ashamed to use force to finally eliminate Osama Bin Laden. Many of America’s enemies will still come from the Third World, meaning that the lazy will always be able to chortle that America loves “bombing brown people.”

America will protect its economic interests, meaning that progressives will still charge that Washington DC is simply sending out “Economic Hit Men.” There will still be the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the patriotic cult of the flag, and the appeals to the American past. There will still be exercises of power and calls to duty and sacrifice. While progressives are more suspicious of such nationalist gestures, they will still embrace them or even celebrate them provided they are dedicated to their preferred ideological ends.

However, the demands of self-interest and the remnants of traditional institutions don’t change the logic of the System. The federal government has openly declared its intention to eliminate white communities, exterminate social forms associated with whites (including traditional European Christianity), and persecute hierarchical cultural norms. Incredibly, American conservatives seem to envision their role as protecting progressives from themselves. Rather than thinking seriously about what their country has become, they want to ensure that “we” remain the global superpower, as if the 1950′s never ended and “Christian America” was still standing up against “atheistic Communism.”

What conservatives fail to see is where this is all going. The endgame is obvious because it’s the End of History itself. It is a world of deracinated, atomized consumers, with nothing in between the managerial elite of the government and economy and the disenfranchised denizens of a global marketplace who are told they are “free.” Relationships are transitory, gender is negotiable, religion is absent (unless it serves as a safety valve), nationality is abandoned, organic culture is utterly abolished. The only purpose of life allowed is to consume the products of a degraded anti-culture.

In this world, the role of whites is to serve as the kulaks, the high functioning slaves, the despised rich peasants, who if they utterly sacrifice everything within themselves may be rewarded with a small taste of material prosperity, before they can die to the relief of those who rule them. And while there may be some economic opportunity, the instant a white man or woman shows signs they are thinking above their station, they will be utterly destroyed. Ever increasing amounts of supervision, regulation, and media sponsored hysteria against dissenters will ensure that there is no escape. As is already occurring, real romantic partnerships, families, a spiritual life, and community are becoming more and more difficult, and will gradually become impossible. We are driving towards a world of consummate meaninglessness.

America is the engine behind this global transformation, the iron fist in the velvet glove of liberal democracy. While other nations see liberal capitalism as either an inevitability or a reluctant necessity, America sees it as a sine qua non for its existence. Whatever the country once represented, whatever the United States of America could have been, today America is defined by multiculturalism, materialism, social decadence, egalitarian quasi-religion, anti-white bigotry, and the willingness to kill anyone who stands in opposition to this System. Syria is so important because it reveals like no other issue the utter bankruptcy of the arguments for American global domination.

First, there is the argument for democracy. Like the Spaniard in The Princess Bride, one is tempted to say of the media’s use of “democracy” that “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” The overwhelming majority of the American people do not want any part of military intervention in Syria. A Pew Research Center Poll released on September 3 shows that 48% of adults are against military strikes, with only 29% in favor. However, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and the GOP’s 2004 standard bearer John McCain all have come out in favor of military action in Syria. Needless to say, the Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, have also all fallen in line. (Read the rest HERE.)

2 comments:

  1. A. the Assad Government is allied to Hezbollah (as in the bunch that bombed the Marine Barracks) and is using it to control Lebanon (which we hate) and to menace Israel (which we really and truly hate.) . They have acted as a conduit to supply them with money and weapons supplied by the Iranians who are trying to create a hegemony in the region(more hate.).

    B. The US needs to conquer Syria to secure our flank and rear so we can invade Iran and destroy the Islamic Republic. This will make the Israelis, El Sa'ud family, and a whole bunch of others quite happy.

    C. These may in fact be in the interest of the US to do. Arguably, the world might be a better place if these things are done. The thing is, it may not be America's to do.

    D. I don't claim to have originated A & B, but I have bee shouting them left and right for the last two weeks. I have also been begging and praying someone would tell me I was full of crap. Not as in "Albert, you are full of crap," but as in "Albert, this is why you are full of crap."

    So far no one has. Could someone reading this please do so?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Albert, you're full of crap because those are reasons why Israel would want those things to happen, not why we would want them to happen. When you say "our flank" you mean Israel's flank. It is in Israel's best interests. It is not in the best interests of the USA or of Americans in general. It isn't even in the best interests of our plutocratic elite (who would be better served by stable, autocratic regimes like that of Assad); this is just another example of where our corrupt ruling class, that is, the gentile part of it, bows to Jewish interests. The Jews say "our interests" when they really mean their own interests. Your post is a classic example of this.

    ReplyDelete