Saturday, June 2, 2007

Interventionism vs. Isolationism

theres a huge problem in the way the american political machine spins our heads. we don't see why the people spin it, or who they really are.

for example. right now, probably the #1 hottest political issue, that speaks to the hearts of the American people is getting the fuck out of Iraq. staying the fuck out if Iran. The reason why we may not get out of it, is because we dont understand why we're there, and who out there is trying to get us out.

for example, most Americans do not realize that the CIA and certain political interest groups in America, have been spinning our heads into wars that dont affect us directly as far back as the Spanish-American War. We use sanctions to push someone into a symbolic attack, and sometimes even have used the League of Nations and the UN's peacekeeping sanctions as an excuse to "contribute" forces to a "conflict" which pretty much benefits American political interest. These are pretty much all undeclared, illegal wars, and its a loophole that has fed a military-industrial complex which pits economic and financial gain against peaceable relations.

America was an ISOLATIONIST country when we grew to be the financial, scientific, and intellectual leaders of the world. Ever since we gave this up, we have slowly deteriorated into what is becoming a totalitarian LEFTIST regime, lead by the thinking of LEO STRAUSS and TROTSKY, via the "conservative" NEOCONSERVATIVE party(republican after 1994), and their PR team called the DEMOCRATIC party, who simply whines about the NEOCONSERVATIVES being wrong, but saying that their mistakes have already been made and continuing to carry out their world policing and huge government socialist policies is "inevitable".

So when your choices are to vote for a leadership that is an imperialist power, who wants to meddle in your everyday life, and the everyday lives of everyone in the world, or to vote for a party that dislikes the fact that we have to do that, but still feels we have to, do you really have a choice?

heres how they get you. confusing humanist values, and religious special interests are there to blind you from who fights for this cause.

for example. I'll give you 3 politically active people who support isolationism. Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and, yes, PAT BUCHANON. Mike Gravel is essentially a green party type guy who snuck in the democratic party, ron paul a libertarian(classic "small government conservative") who snuck in the republican(communist) party, and Pat Buchanon is quite possibly the most unflinching and defiant voice for the Christian Right coming from a Roman Catholic background. While i myself am not into organized religion, or having an organized religion focus, he DOES speak for that group of peoples interest, and based on principles he believes in, so much so that he left the Republican party over their INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy, which, as a Christian who believes in peace and nonviolence, he does not agree with.

Pat Buchanon's magazine the American Conservative(a small-government leaning conservative magazine, quite the opposite ideology of the NEOCONSERVATIVE Bush administration) had a quote on its cover that speaks to this, what is on the hearts of most Americans:

"In dealing with past evils and threats... we have won not by waging preemptive war for 'regime change' but by deterring opponents from aggression and relying on outliving them, proving the superiority of our own system, and ultimately inducing peaceful change"

where they trick you is liberal and conservative definition. You are being told that democrats are liberals, and republicans are conservatives. If you watch fox news and cnbc, and rely on this for political commentary, you will see republicans are hard-nosed tough guys who "dont put up with those crazy arabs" and democrats as caring environmentalists who want to have a universal love in with homosexual weddings and genderless, raceless pronomial titles for all!

essentially this is all horseshit. If you've read advanced political commentary, and are familiar with terms like neoconservative, paleoconservative, know the tenets of the green party, the history of american interventionist regime change CIA tactics in south america, the middle east, the history of the Israel/palestine conflict, prohibition, are aware of the amount of money each congressional candidate receives from lobbyists or public interest groups each year, you have a better chance of understanding the American political machine. first off, conservative is such a badly smeared term in this country, that it no longer has meaning. Our "conservatives" in the white house are an EXTREME LEFTIST group, so extreme that they bring to mind the policies and views of Stalin, though their Trostkian background would be in great opposition to Stalin, they have accidentally descended into this. They believe their leadership will bring freedom to the world, and that we have to crush all their governments to "force democracy" (funny, bc America was never even designed as, is not, and will never be a DEMOCRACY, democracy is directly voting on every issue by every citizen, we have elected representatives, which is a REPUBLIC) on them.

Here, DEMOCRACY is essentially our PROPOGANDA term, it is the CAPTAIN AMERICA of political terms, a nonexistant cartoon character who punched Adolph Hitler in the face, and is now very dead, and killed by the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

you can quote me on that shit.

bottom line. if you want out of the war in iraq, you need to do research on whose getting you out. The mormon, hillary and obama aint gonna do it.


Jacob said...

These are great, keep em comin'

The Almighty Tree God said...

It's hard to find resources for keeping us (the public) not stupid.
Do I have to go to college for this?

Tom said...

I've been deeply interested in Gravel and Paul since their appearences at their respective parties' debates. Most of what Dr. Paul says is music to my ears, except for one major thing. He thinks we should NOT have a seperation between church and state. He really broke my heart right there.

Gravel has been adamently against the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs," and supports DIRECT DEMOCRACY. However he doesn't strike me as a "the smaller the government the better," type of guy like Ron Paul.

Although neither of these candidates will get their parties' nomination, I'm pretty sure (Ron Paul, at least) will switch to a third party after the Primaries. Doesn't matter to me, they'll still get my vote.

Anonymous said...

ron paul doesn't believe in institutionalizing one specific religion. he believes that government should respect it, and not supress it and intentionally seperate it at every turn. this is a debate about allowing people to pray in certain situations and stuff usually.

bear in mind someone as into small government as him wouldn't want a government sponsored teacher in school preaching jesus, he wouldnt want a government sponsored teacher in school teaching ANYTHING.

when government is small and friendly towards all religions, thats the ron paul version. he is against the government policing peoples religious affiliations affecting their work, and oppressing local communities who want to band together based on religious idealogy. if a town is 100% muslim, and wants to do officially islamic activities, the constitution should protect them making such laws.

Tom said...

I dunno, I interpreted his article a little differently. Namely this sentence:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against freedom of religion, it's just that I'm also for freedom FROM religion. Ideally I think government should have NOTHING to do with religion AT ALL. A neutral, blank slate, if you will. (I'm fairly certain whomever reads that line will interpret it different than I meant it, but I'll clear that up if and when we get there.)

anonymous said...
if a town is 100% muslim, and wants to do officially islamic activities, the constitution should protect them making such laws.

Again, I'll have to disagree here. I don't think any government, be it federal, state or local, should be allowed to make any law that favors, comdemns, or even makes mention of religion.


I've recently found out that Dr. Paul believes human life begins at the instant of conception, and that marriage between homosexuals is immoral; both of which I completely disagree with (the gay marriage thing seems to not be in line with his "smaller government" aura, too).

I really respect his libertarian ideals, but there are still many points of his that I cannot stand beside.

Tom said...

I should clear up the last section of my previous post.

Not only does he believe those things (which is fine, believe whatever you wish), but he also believes the government should do something about it.

Barry Donegan said...

no he doesn't. he states that a RIGID seperation of church and state, by that he means forced, should not be a power of constitution, and that the framers did not intend it that way. he has never stated that he feels government programs should empower a specific religions connection to the constitution. he says he feels some of the laws and constitutional idealogy comes from a Christian background, which they do, humanism as a movement comes from judaism and christianity, before that gods were irresponsible and childish, and sometimes committed murder and stuff out of jealousy. one could worship a god of murder and be godly.

however please show a time where ron paul felt that government intervention should force a religious connection between an official religion and government. This has never occurred. he is merely reminding us that the FRAMERS intended for local governments to be able to include religious idealogy in the laws they create for themselves. this is definately what was intended, and how it worked until states rights were removed and the federal government became too powerful. im not saying i agree with that or that thats whats best, im saying that that is what the constitution clearly states.

Barry Donegan said...

if your getting a different impression about ron paul, you are not reading what hes saying, you're adding in things or taking different interpretations of certain words that are not consistent with his idealogy.

basically, he is christian, and he is not afraid to be christian, and in his local community vote christian. theres nothing wrong with that, is what he is saying, every american should vote based on their principles, and religion is a basis for many peoples principles, however federal government should not have programs or laws based on that. local government should decide laws based on community standard, and the religion of the people that live in that community will definately influence the law, and it should, because it is a law of the people, and the people coincidentally happen to be religious in some communities. if that community decides to govern with the influence of morality learned from religious teachings, it is their right via concensus. the federal government should only step in to protect people when they are not allowed to practice their own religion, or are forced to practice someone elses.

ron paul would never support a federal christian program