Response to Obama, the Neo-Con
This is my response to an interesting video that suggests Obama is a neo-con and is perhaps evil. First of all, to consider Obama evil is naive and not effective. You have to realize Obama's beliefs are noble and his intent is positive.
He's been seduced by a very effective machine based on media, politics and think tanks that have pushed Economic Integration (i.e. World Government) as our economic driving force.
As for Obama being 8th cousins with Cheney and 11th cousins with Bush -- I don't even understand what that means. It's interesting but aren't we all cousins? If they're implying some evil bloodline, please prove how it is evil.
I support nearly everything Ron Paul has said, as it's what Jefferson would do and what Reagan did. However, I do support limited covert action overseas. I also could support sanctions against collectivist governments and potentially military action against collectivist governments.
The idea of collectivism infringes on every God-given Natural Right personified by Godwin's Indefinite Perfectibility of Man and guaranteed by our Constitution which limits the power government has over the Sovereign Individual.
The ramifications of collectivism are potentially extreme. Religious clerics running a country that merges religion with education allows for religious extremists to be manifested by propaganda.
It is never the people of a country we go to war with, it is their corrupt governments. The idea of Natural Rights is not limited to the citizens of the 50 United States.
Therefore, I wholly support covert action in Pakistan if real terrorists are there. I don't endorse talking about it on television or debating the puppet Shaukat Aziz about it.
Pakistan says they are a sovereign country but in fact they are a military dictatorship (which we helped create) that oppresses their people's sovereignty. In addition, there's usually ulterior motives for military action so if it happened it should be honestly justified.
The problem is there are very few real terrorists and much so than go after any religious extremist in Pakistan, I'd rather take over and shut down the ISI. Much of our efforts to stop terrorism has created it. Nonetheless there are very evil people in this world, all vying to create their own New World Order.
Bin Laden has his dream of one unified Muslim nation in Arabia with a worldwide Caliphate. Bush has his dream of a new world order based on the idealistic nature of HG Welles' Open Conspiracy and implemented by Wilson, FDR and Bush Sr. Hitler had his version of a new world order with Japan and Germany.
The point is the world is in chaos and more so it is being drowned by collectivism. We need a New World Order -- one that will forever extinguish these perverse global orders based on collectivism, "privileges" for the 2nd class citizen, martial law and socialist world government.
Jefferson supported the French Revolution and in my opinion, this Fabian-Integration concept of globalization has consistently reversed the positive effects of Robespierre, the Jacobins et al and thus it may be time for a new world wide revolutions of revolutions to once and for all free man from the grasps of tyranny and oppression.
A neo-con isn't bad because he promotes Total War. He is bad because he is a collectivist, who will lie, stage attacks and wars (as taught by neo-con professor Leo Strauss) to reach his goal -- any means are justified for the righteous action. Thus the neo-con lies and says we go to war not for oil, or not to create collectivist-regional governments but to protect freedom.
We all have the chance to influence Obama and his administration. Let us not just be on the outside throwing rocks at the windows. Let's be smart, work hard and provide an alternative yet pragmatic foreign policy, monetary policy and concept of globalization for the US and the world to embrace.
He's been seduced by a very effective machine based on media, politics and think tanks that have pushed Economic Integration (i.e. World Government) as our economic driving force.
As for Obama being 8th cousins with Cheney and 11th cousins with Bush -- I don't even understand what that means. It's interesting but aren't we all cousins? If they're implying some evil bloodline, please prove how it is evil.
I support nearly everything Ron Paul has said, as it's what Jefferson would do and what Reagan did. However, I do support limited covert action overseas. I also could support sanctions against collectivist governments and potentially military action against collectivist governments.
The idea of collectivism infringes on every God-given Natural Right personified by Godwin's Indefinite Perfectibility of Man and guaranteed by our Constitution which limits the power government has over the Sovereign Individual.
The ramifications of collectivism are potentially extreme. Religious clerics running a country that merges religion with education allows for religious extremists to be manifested by propaganda.
It is never the people of a country we go to war with, it is their corrupt governments. The idea of Natural Rights is not limited to the citizens of the 50 United States.
Therefore, I wholly support covert action in Pakistan if real terrorists are there. I don't endorse talking about it on television or debating the puppet Shaukat Aziz about it.
Pakistan says they are a sovereign country but in fact they are a military dictatorship (which we helped create) that oppresses their people's sovereignty. In addition, there's usually ulterior motives for military action so if it happened it should be honestly justified.
The problem is there are very few real terrorists and much so than go after any religious extremist in Pakistan, I'd rather take over and shut down the ISI. Much of our efforts to stop terrorism has created it. Nonetheless there are very evil people in this world, all vying to create their own New World Order.
Bin Laden has his dream of one unified Muslim nation in Arabia with a worldwide Caliphate. Bush has his dream of a new world order based on the idealistic nature of HG Welles' Open Conspiracy and implemented by Wilson, FDR and Bush Sr. Hitler had his version of a new world order with Japan and Germany.
The point is the world is in chaos and more so it is being drowned by collectivism. We need a New World Order -- one that will forever extinguish these perverse global orders based on collectivism, "privileges" for the 2nd class citizen, martial law and socialist world government.
Jefferson supported the French Revolution and in my opinion, this Fabian-Integration concept of globalization has consistently reversed the positive effects of Robespierre, the Jacobins et al and thus it may be time for a new world wide revolutions of revolutions to once and for all free man from the grasps of tyranny and oppression.
A neo-con isn't bad because he promotes Total War. He is bad because he is a collectivist, who will lie, stage attacks and wars (as taught by neo-con professor Leo Strauss) to reach his goal -- any means are justified for the righteous action. Thus the neo-con lies and says we go to war not for oil, or not to create collectivist-regional governments but to protect freedom.
We all have the chance to influence Obama and his administration. Let us not just be on the outside throwing rocks at the windows. Let's be smart, work hard and provide an alternative yet pragmatic foreign policy, monetary policy and concept of globalization for the US and the world to embrace.
posted by The Builder at
8:40 AM
5 Comments:
My comment is on America's foreign policy. I think the best arrangement would be for the US to respect all other states' sovereignty and allow them to work out their own domestic politics. The US has played God so many times in other state's domestic affairs, and it has almost always come back to bite us.
We need to adopt a foreign policy that respects all other states' sovereignty, and allows for specific bilateral arrangements as needed without offsetting our overall multilateral commitments. This way, America can be the country that everyone else trusts. We can be the country that the world looks to for humanitarian assistant, economic assistant, technological assistance, and democratic leadership; rather than what we are today, feared and hated by the international community. How long can any state continue in such a way?
What if we were spending $500 billion/year feeding, educating and healing our own citizens, and repairing our own infrastructure? It wouldn’t be long before we could start extending those benefits to the rest of the world. Who would hate us for that? No state would want to be at war with such a country.
What other realistic choice do we have? As it stands, unless we intend to use nukes, or fight solely from the air, we can’t stand against nations such as Pakistan (or Iran) in traditional, boots on the ground combat; our military is far too small. Waging such a battle in a prolonged war against countless non-state actors is nothing short of insane, foolish and arrogant.
The most intelligent option we have is to adopt a new foreign policy that will ensure the all the current states of the world that the US no longer intends to encroach on their sovereignty (something the greater majority certainly do not believe today). That doesn't sound like Obama or McCain.
Consider Senator Obama. He’s just returned from a world tour, in which he proclaimed his intention to continue the military war on terror, and to take it to the soil of one of America’s own allies. It's ironic that Senator Obama has publicly proclaimed a unilateral policy of preemptive war, yet we still tend to associate Senator McCain with President Bush.
Now consider Senator McCain. He’s proclaiming the need to continue the military war on terrorism as well. How long will it be before either of these candidates has the United States in direct opposition to the greater Muslim world? Both candidates are blindly assisting the efforts to radicalize moderates against the United States. In this great political campaign, what we need is a candidate that understands that the hearts and minds of over a billion Muslim people hang in the balance; not between Obama and McCain, but between moderate and radical. And US foreign policy can tip the scales. What we need is a candidate that can wage war where it can be won, at the negotiating table.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree, for the most part, but the problem is other countries are oppressing their people which means their Natural Rights and Sovereignty are being limited.
Wherever free people are oppressed, we should work against those collectivist governments. I'm for spreading Constitutional Republics not Socialistic Democracies that can be comfortably merged into customs unions and world government structures.
As it stands, I'd support military intervention in the US. I feel we are now a Totalitarian Democracy and as a collectivist government that oppresses its people, I'd support a military coup de'taut against the civilian leadership.
The neo-con idea is exactly that freedom can be spread through guns, bombs, and mass murder, rather than through enriching individuals and voluntary institutions through free trade, and engaging in the marketplace of ideas to foment intellectual revolution and a desire for self-government.
You have stepped in a rhetorical trap of your own making.
You are, in essence, a "Lincoln Libertarian".
The neocons aren't spreading freedom, they are building liberal democracies that can be merged into the principles of economic integration (e.g. customs unions).
Jefferson supported the French Revolution and I support freeing individuals of oppressive collectivist governments.
This whole idea that the world is perfect and if we mind our own business -- that's a bit naive. History has shown that most governments and a lot of religious figures (i.e. Popes) have been very corrupted.
However, we like to pretend none of our leaders are bad today, a naivety of the moment syndrome.
Whoever compares neocons to Jacboins or calls them neo-Jacobins is grossly misinformed.
The neocons are fascist collectivist liars while the Jacobins (i.e. the Society of the Friends of the Constitution) were fighting for Constitutional Republics and the Sovereignty of the individual.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home