Neocon Rules for Justifying Jingoism

After reading the article here entitled “The Problem with (Ron) Paul” I felt the need to comment on it as it the writer, Anthony W Hager, used the Neocon playbook to justify America’s Imperialism Foreign Policy.

The article starts off by praising Ron Paul for his views on domestic policies but when the article turns to his views on Foreign Policy, the authors didn’t even try to hide his jingoism.

Rule 1: Lump all people from the Middle East together and label them as Terrorist;

Paul believes that our “foreign occupations” spurred the 9/11 attacks.  However, “foreign occupation” falls short in explaining the reason Islamists choose violence.  The culture reflected in the jihad movement relishes conflict.  If there were no Israel, Islamists would find another justification for violence.  The Muslim Brotherhood was anti-Zionist before the post-war establishment of Israel.  If there were neither a United States nor an Israel, another enemy would spark the fanatic’s flame.  Even in biblical history, pre-Islamic Arabs and Persians fought not only with Jews, but with each other.  Any reason, provocation, or insult, whether real or perceived, can stir Islamist violence.

Rule 2: Instill Fear.  We need to get ‘them’ before they get ‘us';

But the problem with Ron Paul — his fatal flaw — is his belief that America will be safer if we bring all troops home and adopt a quasi-isolationist foreign policy.

Rule 3: Reference World War 2 because, you know, America saved the world by entering the war

Paul’s view of international relations is similar to the one America held prior to World War II.  The U.S. thought that neutrality was an option in an increasingly hostile world.  Thus, Hitler’s Germany went from a defeated and demilitarized nation to a burgeoning and aggressive war machine.

The bottom line is this;  America currently has a Foreign Policy of  ‘international offense’ whereas Ron Paul is interested in a ‘national defence’.  If the author actually knew Ron Paul’s position on Foreign Policy, then he would have agreed with him.  Oh wait, he did without even realising it;

Ron Paul is correct in believing that the United States isn’t responsible for forcefully establishing freedom and self-government throughout the world.

The reason I commented on this article is because it is one of the sloppiest Ron Paul hit pieces I have read in some time.  And believe me, what with his current popularity, there are many Ron Paul hit pieces out there.

Reprinted from breakmyconditioning.com

About Dan Gillings

I'm a former slave who is now trying to become a freeman
Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Neocon Rules for Justifying Jingoism

  1. Bill Tsafa says:

    I love Ron Paul for his Domestic Agenda. I have to disagree with him on his non-interventionist agenda.

    Something I have learned well in life is that is “Always Best to be the Boss”. It is never easy to be the Boss… not always profitable… but it is always better then someone else being the Boss.

    By 1943 the world was on a path that it was going to be ruled by either Germany, Japan, Russia, or the United States. Someone was going to Boss on this planet. Anytime it is not clear who the “Top Dog” is, war must be fought to figure it out. That is how it works on this planet from animals, to humans to nations.

    If you study pack animals (wolves, lions, hyenas), you will see that they are not comfortable unless they know their place in their society. They fight each other to establish a hierarchy. Humans are the same way.

    If the United States looses its dominant military position, then the other nations are going to fight each other to figure out who will be the new boss. WWIII will begin. It is of no relevance of how humans “should be” all that matters in this matter is “how they are”. As long as the United States can maintain its dominate military position, WWIII can at least be postponed.

    Regardless of a person’s or nations peaceful desires… if you are attacked you must fight. To not fight is to invite more attacks and eventually allow yourself to be enslaved.

  2. Andrew Shemo says:

    Bill,

    why do we need to control the world, as a nation? we don’t need to use force around the world to promote “democracy” when democracy here in our own country is crumbling. think about it logically, wouldn’t having troops in something like 130+ countries and somewhere around 900 bases around the globe leave this country more vulnerable than having the military here, back at home? furthermore, wouldn’t we be better off if we stopped relying on tyrants around the globe for our resources, like oil? we have the technology and resources here to develop, but people are afraid of it, yet they’re willing to send the military around the globe to ensure that our pipeline is kept pumping and that we kill innocent people and support dictators.

    this is nonsense and it needs to stop, even if for the fact that we cannot economically afford to support our imperialism anymore.

    end the fed, end the wars.

    =)

  3. Timothy Havener says:

    I will always remember you, Dan, as the person who introduced me to this term.

  4. Dan Gillings says:

    Bill, the bottom line is that America’s imperialism cannot be sustained. The country is beyond broke! The conflicts around the world that America and the other allied nations started just create death and misery to 99% of people whilst corrupt politicians and their counterparts can line there wallets with blood money.

    As Andy rightfully pointed me out, it’s the fractional reserve fiat currency that we have that causes this misery.

    “Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.” –Thomas Jefferson

  5. Bill Tsafa says:

    Andrew,
    I like to use the analogy of the school bully. Lets forget that today most schools have armed security and lets look at a typical school form the 1980’s. Every school had a bully. The bully always gathered around himself other bullies to form a pack of bullies or gang (if you prefer). This is a phenomena that more or less occurred in all schools across the nation, perhaps around the world. While it may be possible to stand up to one bully it was sort of tough to stand up to a whole group of bullies. The reason I use High School is illustrate what comes natural to people and how the react. People only respect what they fear.

    This is something I experienced first hand back in the late 1980’s while in high school. Three established bullies where having fun at my expense with name calling and paper throwing. I thought it was comical at first because I had been in the gym since 16 and these guys where chain smoked cigarets. I let is slide for about a week and noticed that more and more people got in on the the fun of picking on me. I knew if I didn’t do something fast, I would have the whole school picking on me soon. At the time an place of my choosing, I attacked that crew of three without warning. The place was public, the word of my violent attack spread through the school… I got suspended for two days…but I had clear sailing through the next three years of high school. It is is ALWAYS better to be the bully. Nations work the same way just on a different scale.

    It is not a mater of how things should be… its a matter of how things are. If the US is not throwing it weight around… someone else will. Then at some point we have to decide how much of it we will take. That is summery of the US entry in WWI and WWII.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>