The Authoritarians

[moda0306]

I was one of those "civil libertarian liberals." We became civil libertarian conservatives when the Left went full-throttle authoritarian.

What is your opinion on the Patriot act, surveillance, the "war on terror," stop and frisk, and the idea of police forces trying deport 11 million people by force.

Also, explain the main few ways the left went "full throttle authoritarian?"

If you don't mind.... thanks.

While we wait for Maddy to answer (Maddy - love your posts btw!), let me take a shot. 200 years ago, there was such a thing as freedom of speech in this country. Now, you can be fired from your job for saying something that is not approved by certain authorities. If you say those things while committing a crime, you get charged with a hate crime in addition to the one you committed.

Even if you dislike the opinions that some people hold or what they say, unless it meets the Oliver Wendell Holmes test of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that doesn't mean you can dictate those opinions or what is and is not OK to say. The First Amendment was never about making people comfortable.

And btw I would never dare to say the above in any situation where it could be easily attributed to me. To me, this smacks of living under authoritarianism. This, more than anything else, is what prompted my personal political rightward shift. Not that the Republican's social conservative platform is much better, but it's at least a lot less sinister.

Ok so just to zoom into the facts of this.

200 years ago, in 1816, we did have freedom of speech granted by the first amendment, protecting our right to free speech against the power of the federal government. There's two other pieces to zoom in to as part of this... First off, you could be fired for saying the wrong thing. Your job was (and is) not protected by the first amendment by your employer. Never had been. Further, we were NOT protected at the state and local level, as incorporation of the bill of rights to state and local governments wasn't established on paper until 1868 with the 14th Amendment, and in practice until the 1920's when the federal courts enacted principles of incorporation downwards towards the states.

So not only has your employment never been protected by the 1st amendment, you actually hearkened back to a time where we had tyrannical state and local governments all over the place not respecting the bill of rights... naturally.. as they didn't have to.

As one interesting example, if you look back to the 1950's and 1960's, police were arrest Lenny Bruce for obscenity based on his crude humor. We would be appalled by this today. Keep in mind this is post-incorporation so the 1st amendment applied to state/local governments. All these people yelling that "we're so politically correct today," or "we don't have freedom of speech," don't really have a strong grasp of the facts. Saying stuff your employer doesn't like has always been a very risky move, and if you include the intrusions on free speech by state and local governments, we are in a much, much better position today than decades ago... and leagues better than 200 years ago.

I agree that the 1st Amendment isn't about making people feel comfortable. I'm not sure what that really means. Yes there are lots of people advocating for "safe spaces" on college campuses and I fully support the free speech forces on college campuses. This is only one aspect of free speech. Free speech in the media is huge. Yes most of what we call "media" is garbage. I really don't care if they anger Trump... suing, silencing and spying on the media has to be combated at all costs, and Trump is not a force for that, and Republicans rarely have been (liberals used to be).

[moda0306]

His assessment of Trump using "persuasion" like he does actually fit into the mold of fascistic leaders that try to push a nativism/nationalism angle

What in the world is wrong with a leader looking out for their own people first?

When did it become "fascist" for someone to say that a country built by their own people should be given priority first to those same people?

Do you see Japanese leaders giving away Japan to everyone else? Are they fascists?

How about the PM of Israel? Is he giving away Israel to hostile people and cultures? Why isn't he a fascist for refusing to do that?

This hits the nail on the head one of the big divides we have today.

For the globalists (that's really what the left has become), hurting the feelings of hypothetical/future illegal immigrants is far worse than maintaining control of who is or isn't coming into our country.

Why do these same people not call Mexico a fascist country for wanting to curtail illegal immigration from Central America? They are trying to build a wall on their southern border from what I understand.

First off, not all on the left are "globalists," and there are multiple aspects of globalism that could be either rejected or respected. Noam Chomsky is neither a "globalist" in terms of neo-liberal economic and immigration policies, but he (rightfully) often 1) doesn't presuppose the "awesomeness" of the U.S. (many would call this globalist), 2) values the role that non-U.S. accountability mechanisms such as the UN can play in at least calling out the bullshit the U.S. perma-war surveillance-state tries to sell us.

And we probably should use more specific language. I don't believe you really have "fascist countries," especially not simply insofar as they defend their borders). But there are definitely fascistic leaders, or more pertinently, fascistic pockets and policies within government.

For instance...

If you look at the CIA's activities since its inception, you have an entity that has:

1) Operated almost entirely in secret
2) has helped over-throw governments...
3) ...often seeming much more aligned with corporate investment interests than either nat'l security or public interest
4) has helped plan false-flag attacks on the U.S. (this isn't a conspiracy... google Operation Northwoods)
5) has promoted governments as they commit genocides and war crimes.
6) Relies on nationalistic rhetoric to defend its existence and crimes
7) Has tried to control the media in foreign countries to tilt elections.

This is a fascistic sub-entity within the United States government. It's not democratic at all. The accountability is usually decades later which is to mean not at all. It isn't operating as a temporary war-time contingency that will dissolve in a couple months/years. It is arguably co-opted by the aspects of the "global elite" that we talk about here.

So I think fascism is much more healthily discussed as a subset of principles within any government or policy-maker that looks highly nationalist/corporatist/anti-democratic/secretive/non-due-process in how it operates. Now you could say "we vote for this," but do we really? We've heard plenty of folks talk about abolishing various government departments. Or maybe even mentioning it's atrocities at the obvious benefit of corporations and political expediency but questionable benefit to the U.S. public or "Nat'l Security." We don't even debate it. We don't discuss its past successes or failures. We don't get the "liberal" version of Republican calls to end various federal agencies (other than Kucinich and the NSA).

Ideas and institutions can be fascistic in nature.

People are often a mixed bag.

Countries... well it doesn't do too well to label a whole country with that name... it just doesn't serve the discussion.

[clacy]

moda,

Certainly not all on the left are globalists, however Obama & Clinton are HUGE globalists. So essentially the party has thrown in with the globalists.

Now, I would definitely agree that there are many Republicans that are also globalists....... Bush, establishment R's, Fox News by and large, National Review, etc, etc

What we're seeing though is that both parties are being re-aligned, and the core issue from what I can tell is globalism vs nationalism.

The #neverTrump'ers + coastal elites + progressives are merging into a globalists party. It seems they will fly the Democrat banner going forward.

Meanwhile the conservatives + union Dems + flyover country middle class is coalescing as a nationalist party. It seems they will fly the Republican banner going forward.

[Maddy]

What is your opinion on the Patriot act, surveillance, the "war on terror," stop and frisk, and the idea of police forces trying deport 11 million people by force.

Also, explain the main few ways the left went "full throttle authoritarian?"

Patriot Act: Has always been unconstitutional, and blatantly so.

Surveillance: Has gone well past anything that could possibly pass muster under the Fourth Amendment or, for that matter, under state constitutional guarantees of privacy.

War on Terror: A pretext for regime change, whose goal is to undermine the autonomy of individual nation states (particularly those culturally and politically resistant to the objective of one world government and western hegemony).

"Stop and frisk": I've always had problems with the so-called "Terry stop," which required only a "reasonable suspicion."

Trying to deport 11 million people by force: The law requires it. As a practical matter, very little "force" is likely to be necessary. Take away the jobs and the benefits, and illegal immigration will come to a screeching halt.

The "main few" ways in which the left went full throttle authoritarian: The central tenet of modern liberalism is social egalitarianism--the idea that there should be no variation in how individuals fare in society. Because equality of outcome is not a natural state of affairs, this ideology invariably requires authoritarian measures to achieve it. Hence confiscatory tax policies,administrative regulations and executive orders that far exceed the legitimate scope of executive authority ("I have a phone and a pen"), IRS targeting of political enemies, court orders requiring participation in gay marriage ceremonies, media censorship of news, shutting down of campus speech perceived as threatening multiculturalism, etc.

[moda0306]

moda,

Certainly not all on the left are globalists, however Obama & Clinton are HUGE globalists. So essentially the party has thrown in with the globalists.

Now, I would definitely agree that there are many Republicans that are also globalists....... Bush, establishment R's, Fox News by and large, National Review, etc, etc

What we're seeing though is that both parties are being re-aligned, and the core issue from what I can tell is globalism vs nationalism.

The #neverTrump'ers + coastal elites + progressives are merging into a globalists party. It seems they will fly the Democrat banner going forward.

Meanwhile the conservatives + union Dems + flyover country middle class is coalescing as a nationalist party. It seems they will fly the Republican banner going forward.

The problem to me is that globalism v nationalism is just one vector through which to view priorities.

For instance, I highly doubt if we were to lurch more towards nationalism, we would see a significant reduction in mobility of labor, modest reductions in mobility of products and services, and very few reductions in mobility of capital.

So from an economic stand-point, it would do little to help the lower classes and plenty of power would be retained in the upper-classes. From a social standpoint, of course, homogeneity would be increased and therefore we could expect some more social harmony, except I'm of the opinion that a lot of our social disharmony is at its core economic. I know I'll disagree with a lot of folks here on that... not trying to launch into a rabbit hole but just thought I'd make my perspective known.

Lastly is military/foreign-policy. Here's where "globalism" gets interesting. Lots of folks see the "globalist" position of our military as being positioned to "help other countries," and that we have to "focus more on ourselves." This puts things in an "American" vs "everyone else" posture that I think is wholly inaccurate. Our military exists in its current posture to protect wealthy interests, IMO. Just look at the upside/downside of various foreign policy adventures.

Soldiers: Max Likely Upside - Nice Pension and honor at home. Max Likely Downside: Depression, mental health issues or death. Lose dignity and/or family.

President: Max Likely Upside - Saving face with American Public and highly-paid speeches after leaving office. Max Likely Downside - Nice Pension and embarrassed for a few years before people forget (Think Bush II)

Citizens: Max Likely Upside - Reduce risks of death by terror from .0001% to .000091%. At cost-per-citizen of thousands. Max Likely Downside: Increase risks of death by terror at cost-per-citizen of thousands.

Wealthy Globalist Elites (some are Americans): Max Likely Upside - More corporate profits, more explicit or implicit control of state power and resources around the globe, new "market" to exploit. Max Likely Downside - More corporate profits, same explicit or implicit control of state power and resources around the globe, inability to exploit new market.

Citizen of foreign country we're attacking: Max Likely Upside - Avoid getting killed and the ravages of the instability, enjoy somewhat more prosperity decades into the future as a result of stable imposed government. Max Likely Downside: Impoverishment, Death, torture, depression, disposition.

This isn't about what's good for "America" vs what's good for "foreigners." IMO anyway. It's about what's good for the masses of wealth vs what's good for "normal" people (generally, those that work for a living and have a small-to-modest net worth) no matter what citizen of what country they are.

I don't trust anyone who says they're going to help "Americans" at the expense of "foreigners," willing to completely up-end the lives of people who have been here for decades, but not willing to upset the capital flows of foreign investment around the world. I could be wrong on this. I welcome other perspectives.

[moda0306]

Patriot Act: Has always been unconstitutional, and blatantly so.

Surveillance: Has gone well past anything that could possibly pass muster under the Fourth Amendment or, for that matter, under state constitutional guarantees of privacy.

War on Terror: A pretext for regime change, whose goal is to undermine the autonomy of individual nation states (particularly those culturally and politically resistant to the objective of one world government and western hegemony).

"Stop and frisk": I've always had problems with the so-called "Terry stop," which required only a "reasonable suspicion."

Trying to deport 11 million people by force: The law requires it. As a practical matter, very little "force" is likely to be necessary. Take away the jobs and the benefits, and illegal immigration will come to a screeching halt.

The "main few" ways in which the left went full throttle authoritarian: The central tenet of modern liberalism is social egalitarianism--the idea that there should be no variation in how individuals fare in society. Because equality of outcome is not a natural state of affairs, this ideology invariably requires authoritarian measures to achieve it. Hence confiscatory tax policies,administrative regulations and executive orders that far exceed the legitimate scope of executive authority ("I have a phone and a pen"), IRS targeting of political enemies, court orders requiring participation in gay marriage ceremonies, media censorship of news, shutting down of campus speech perceived as threatening multiculturalism, etc.

So you seem to hate some of what I'd call "fascistic principles" (or simply anti-civil libertarian) that Trump supports, but you hate the negative elements of the push for "social egalitarianism" more? I can understand and respect that. But realize you're trading one form of tyrannical ideas for another.

One thing to point out... saying "the law requires" that we deport 11 million people is a bit incomplete. There are a TON of laws that are un/under-enforced that 1) you don't hear Trump, anti-globalists, anti-immigrationists asking to be fully enforced, and 2) if we DID fully enforce them would cause a ton of instability upon the establishment powers-that-be in ways that I can't even predict the eventual outcomes.

Could you imagine bringing up every member of illegal activities of the perma-war surveillance state, including past presidents, to be prosecuted? I welcome it almost just to see what the hell would happen and watch them sh!t themselves.


Everyone has a right to an opinion on what laws we have or don't have, even if they seem cruel. Likewise, we all have a right to push for some laws to be enforced more strongly and not others. But I don't think the "rule of law" argument is cogent unless your'e willing to apply it first and foremost to those in our government (that are at the forefront of making and enforcing laws) most culpable for the most murderous (and arguably most globalist) actions.

I'm willing to allow bending the rules in some places. We all are (I have yet to see an ardent "rule of law" defender either on this board or in the public/media/academia). Especially since they're already being bent by the elite. I think an amnesty + wall compromise would be the best route. I really don't want to see the police state that would result by actually trying to enforce all the laws that have been put upon poor folks. Even if you don't care about them, its affect on communities and everyone else is chilling enough. I'm surprised an avowed civil libertarian has no problem with it.

[Pointedstick]

The Japanese tend to be nativists, for better or worse (I think it's a mixed bag, but I see where you and others come from in saying it's positive)... but they're not making jokes about committing war crimes, advocating a vastly expanded surveillance state, deporting millions (and the police state that would take), sucking all the oil out of Iraq, etc.

The surveillance state arose because weak immigration policies and bad foreign policy allowed angry Muslim terrorists into the country where they committed acts of terrorism.

Millions of people need to be deported because millions of people were allowed to illegally enter and stay in the country because of weak immigration policies.

Talk of "sucking all the oil out of Iraq" and the other stuff is only because of a bad foreign policy that got us into endless middle east wars.

You know, I wonder if the Japanese can avoid these things because they tend to avoid starting stupid wars in the middle east and they have strict border controls. Maybe if the USA avoided making those kinds of idiotic decisions in the first place, things would stay simple and there wouldn't be any societal forces pushing for moving in the directions you don't like.

[moda0306]

The Japanese tend to be nativists, for better or worse (I think it's a mixed bag, but I see where you and others come from in saying it's positive)... but they're not making jokes about committing war crimes, advocating a vastly expanded surveillance state, deporting millions (and the police state that would take), sucking all the oil out of Iraq, etc.

The surveillance state arose because weak immigration policies and bad foreign policy allowed angry Muslim terrorists into the country where they committed acts of terrorism.

Millions of people need to be deported because millions of people were allowed to illegally enter and stay in the country because of weak immigration policies.

Talk of "sucking all the oil out of Iraq" and the other stuff is only because of a bad foreign policy that got us into endless middle east wars.

You know, I wonder if the Japanese can avoid these things because they tend to avoid starting stupid wars in the middle east and they have strict border controls. Maybe if the USA avoided making those kinds of idiotic decisions in the first place, things would stay simple and there wouldn't be any societal forces pushing for moving in the directions you don't like.

The surveillance state was a choice... largely not by American citizens but we mostly went along with it because "OMGTERRISM." Domestic surveillance is the result of a horrible risk-management matrix practiced by governments and passively accepted by people.

Immigration is a related issue, but let's not act like surveillance wasn't/isn't a risk management choice. And it's a horrible one (we risk far more by having the government able to spy on us and inform secretive violent agencies than by that of some immigrants blowing up the whole country).

Also, the war crimes and colonization of Iraq to get the oil out that Trump talks about is a CHOICE. It's not a necessary result of everything that came before. Yes, of course, like all things, they are connected. Shitty excuse IMO. These are absolutely horrible ideas and just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic of foreign policy. Maybe he won't engage in them. That'd be great. But past immigration policy and foreign policy is water under the bridge at this point, and we have to make logical decisions going forward. We don't just get to wag our collective dicks around in just a slightly different pattern and call it justified because the last pattern didn't work.

[Maddy]

Millions of people need to be deported because millions of people were allowed to illegally enter and stay in the country because of weak immigration policies.

That's exactly right.

Back in the late '80s, when I worked for a federal court, I remember spending something like two weeks on a case involving ONE individual from a war-torn country in the middle east who was making a claim for asylum. I don't remember the outcome of that case, but I do recall working long and hard to make a recommendation about whether the evidence supported each and every element required by federal law. Look at where we are now. What a complete and utter joke this administration has made of the law.

[moda0306]

Back to the surveillance state, it hardly started under Bush/Obama.

With some aspects going back to the early 20th century with JE Hoover, Dulles, that drug czar (Anslinger??), etc and the first red scare, it really hit its "peace-time" stride during the cold war... the scarier red-scare with nukes. I put an asterisk during this period that MAAAYYBE it was all justified, but like MT has pointed out, rarely does the protection racket actually serve to lower the risk of war... it often just escalates things.

Come 1990 the Soviet Union fell, but we still kept the CIA/NSA around because... inertia. No justified risk could be pointed out. Once again the only beneficiaries of this were the cabal of globalist wealthy financial interests and to some degree their minions running various states.

So to say that the surveillance state is just this accidental blob that goes along with radical people in your country (we've had radicals here since its founding) is sort of passing the buck.

Is it a good idea right now or is it not?

If it is, defend it.

If it isn't, oppose it.

If you don't care, admit it.

Sorry if I sound blunt or angry... I'm neither... just don't like how some of these arguments get rearranged so as to be easily dismissed.

[moda0306]

Millions of people need to be deported because millions of people were allowed to illegally enter and stay in the country because of weak immigration policies.

That's exactly right.

Back in the late '80s, when I worked for a federal court, I remember spending something like two weeks on a case involving ONE individual from a war-torn country in the middle east who was making a claim for asylum. I don't remember the outcome of that case, but I do recall working long and hard to make a recommendation about whether the evidence supported each and every element required by federal law. Look at where we are now. What a complete and utter joke this administration has made of the law.

Just this admin? Really? This may sound snarky but I don't mean it that way... Weren't all but one or two of the hijackers on over-stayed VISAs? This problem is bigger than Obama. And you seem to care more about the functional results of this more-so than the principle of "rule of law" (you don't seem to care if it's applied in all the other nooks and crannies that it could be). So forgetting about law for a second... let's just simply look at this from a functional/moral standpoint...

You think that it is a good idea for us to operate a police force in such a way that will cause the forced or effective migration of 11 million people out of this country?

Please don't give me a rule of law argument for it... just a functional one. This country could be brought to its needs with "rule of law" being applied universally, and I don't see anyone arguing for that.

[MachineGhost]

Millions of people need to be deported because millions of people were allowed to illegally enter and stay in the country because of weak immigration policies.

Correction: weak enforcement. I don't know why the Republicans can't ever seem to get their act together on it unless Democrats stonewall them every step of the way. What happened during the 2001-2008 trifecta?

The bad policy is not related to illegal immigrants, just allowing in way too sub-educated/criminal immigrants (family connection). So soon we will face the daunting prospect of "breaking up families" if we're going to deport the other 8 to 9 million non-violent illegals. That's just not going to fly, if not for logistical reasons, then moral.

And vetting asylym/refugee status is not the same thing as immigration, either legal or illegal. Republicans love to conflate all those issues together as if they were one singular thing. Any "rule of law" about crossing an imaginary, fictitinous border is very weak sauce compared to someone seeking asylum/refugee status from a known terrorist country. Lumping them as a criminal into violent murderers, rapists and drug cartel dealers is a very big stretch.

[Maddy]

That's exactly right.

Back in the late '80s, when I worked for a federal court, I remember spending something like two weeks on a case involving ONE individual from a war-torn country in the middle east who was making a claim for asylum. I don't remember the outcome of that case, but I do recall working long and hard to make a recommendation about whether the evidence supported each and every element required by federal law. Look at where we are now. What a complete and utter joke this administration has made of the law.

Just this admin? Really? This may sound snarky but I don't mean it that way... Weren't all but one or two of the hijackers on over-stayed VISAs? This problem is bigger than Obama. And you seem to care more about the functional results of this more-so than the principle of "rule of law" (you don't seem to care if it's applied in all the other nooks and crannies that it could be). So forgetting about law for a second... let's just simply look at this from a functional/moral standpoint...

You think that it is a good idea for us to operate a police force in such a way that will cause the forced or effective migration of 11 million people out of this country?

Please don't give me a rule of law argument for it... just a functional one. This country could be brought to its needs with "rule of law" being applied universally, and I don't see anyone arguing for that.

Why would you assume that I care more about the "functional results" of enforcing immigration law than I do about the principle of "rule of law" itself? I've always thought of myself as a staunch defender of the rule of law because a predictable, evenhandedly applied set of rules is vastly more important than any singular result. Is there something I have said that warrants your charge of hypocrisy?

[moda0306]

That's exactly right.

Back in the late '80s, when I worked for a federal court, I remember spending something like two weeks on a case involving ONE individual from a war-torn country in the middle east who was making a claim for asylum. I don't remember the outcome of that case, but I do recall working long and hard to make a recommendation about whether the evidence supported each and every element required by federal law. Look at where we are now. What a complete and utter joke this administration has made of the law.

Just this admin? Really? This may sound snarky but I don't mean it that way... Weren't all but one or two of the hijackers on over-stayed VISAs? This problem is bigger than Obama. And you seem to care more about the functional results of this more-so than the principle of "rule of law" (you don't seem to care if it's applied in all the other nooks and crannies that it could be). So forgetting about law for a second... let's just simply look at this from a functional/moral standpoint...

You think that it is a good idea for us to operate a police force in such a way that will cause the forced or effective migration of 11 million people out of this country?

Please don't give me a rule of law argument for it... just a functional one. This country could be brought to its needs with "rule of law" being applied universally, and I don't see anyone arguing for that.

Why would you assume that I care more about the "functional results" of enforcing immigration law than I do about the principle of "rule of law" itself? I've always thought of myself as a staunch defender of the rule of law because a predictable, evenhandedly applied set of rules is vastly more important than any singular result. Is there something I have said that warrants your charge of hypocrisy?

First off, I wasn't trying to accuse you in some uniquely-nefarious way of being a hypocrite. I've found that our brains, including mine, default to hypocrisy, since they're wired to establish opinions around emotional motivations and back into the logic/moral structure that's convenient. This is a human trait, even for the smartest people, and I'm probably exhibiting it in spades in this conversation without even realizing it.

So I hope no offense is taken...

But I've found with "rule of law" folks (as well as with liberals) is that it appears that they only want to argue the strict interpretation of a law if they agree with the direct or indirect results the law will bring about, or if they don't care much about the negative aspects on a visceral emotional level.

For instance, most people in favor of having strict rule of law interpretations towards illegal immigration aren't asking for equally strict laws to be enforced on the myriad of civil laws we all usually don't have to see the blunt end of because we know the edges of how they'll be enforced. You seem to focus much more on enforcing immigration law with an iron fist than state sales tax laws, or civil "victimless crime" laws that aren't strongly enforced, or probably most pertinently in some ways, criminal charges against our elected officials and engineers of the perma-war state who have committed crimes, at least allegedly, and could very well be investigated and prosecuted, if not convicted, for those crimes. I'm talking every living president... attorneys general... members of the CIA and military... you don't seem to care much about that. Obviously they may not come up in an immigration conversation, but I've only really seen you zoom in on immigration, and it seems to me that it's far more important to you than enforcing our other laws where folks with a lot more nefarious power and influence are getting away with theft, corruption and murder on a grand scale (I include HRC in this cabal).

I guess this might be a better way to pose what I'm saying:

If you could have Donald Trump have his attorney general go after one of two things (but you can't choose both), which would you:

1) Fully enforce current immigration law.

2) Fully enforce laws against our elected officials and members of the military and intelligence agencies for crimes, including all past presidents, and what is likely to be dozens if not hundreds of others.

And whichever you'd pick, I'd ask you why.

[Maddy]

No offense taken.

I'd choose No. 2, in a heartbeat. The reason again harkens back to my respect for the rule of law and the enormous damage that these people have done to society by undermining it.

Why am I interested in immigration? Probably because it's been one of the principal tools by which the people referenced above have acted.

BTW, I don't think most conservatives would differ on this point. It's the reason why Trump, though disliked by a majority of conservatives, nonetheless won their vote.

[MachineGhost]

One could argue that #2 is our culture but #1 is undermining it. From that perspective, #1 could be preferable.

"Rule of law" is a concept and it would be silly to assume that people don't apply their behaviorial/ideological biases to the application of it. To wit:

[moda0306]

Israel is actually a good example fascist state if you look at history.

Israelis are fiercely nationalist and I say good for them. I just wish other countries in the West were granted the same respect to look out for themselves as well. Instead, they are told they must destroy their culture with mass immigration. No other countries are told to do this, only Western countries are held to this standard.

What we have just witnessed in the U.S. is the birth of nationalism and identity politics for everyone. Everyone should get used to it, because the era of kum-ba-ya we're going to give away Western countries to the rest of the planet is rapidly coming to an end. Good riddance.

Discussing Israel in terms of "giving it away" is a bit ironic. They can't really give away what's not theirs. It's not kum-ba-ya. It's don't take people's shit then call it "giving away" when the international community calls you on it.

And only some aspects of Israel are fiercely nationalist. Others realize the crimes and theft they've committed and disagree with the militant stance. No reason one side, especially if it's the more violent one, should be pre-supposed to represent the moral authority and "will of the people," if you will.

[moda0306]

One could argue that #2 is our culture but #1 is undermining it. From that perspective, #1 could be preferable.

"Rule of law" is a concept and it would be silly to assume that people don't apply their behaviorial/ideological biases to the application of it. To wit:

That's fine if you want to apply your biases to it... but then don't lecture others from a moral high ground if you're only for the rule of law when it aligns with your preferred outcome.

I don't mean to come at you sideways. But when I say "removing 11 million people seems unworkable, cruel, and will cause all sorts of other bad consequences and violence," responding "yeah but the rule of law," is a bit weak. We're all breaking the law, daily. Law =/= morality nor strategy.

[moda0306]

We probably have different takes on the history of Israel/Palestine, so as a side note to be addressed elsewhere perhaps at a later time, if you guys have some good "conservative" sources on the Israel/Palestine conflict I'd love to hear about them.

The majority of my take, other than the random debating and blathering among folks who seem to have limited knowledge, is from Noam Chomsky & Alan Dershowitz, as well as the podcast I mentioned (Martyr Made).

Complete side bar but I'm interested in the topic so I thought I'd mention it.

[Pointedstick]

Discussing Israel in terms of "giving it away" is a bit ironic. They can't really give away what's not theirs. It's not kum-ba-ya. It's don't take people's shit then call it "giving away" when the international community calls you on it.

Are you sure your grasp of the extremely complicated history of that slice of land is strong enough to make such a statement? Are you really sure? Are you really really really sure?

[moda0306]

Discussing Israel in terms of "giving it away" is a bit ironic. They can't really give away what's not theirs. It's not kum-ba-ya. It's don't take people's shit then call it "giving away" when the international community calls you on it.

Are you sure your grasp of the extremely complicated history of that slice of land is strong enough to make such a statement? Are you really sure? Are you really really really sure?

No. That's why I asked you fine folks to forward me to some alternative sources.

[Pointedstick]

Oh my god, I could talk about this for hours, but it would bore you to death. So I'll give you the TL;DR version:

It's complicated.

The awkward truth is that The Piece Of Land That We Shall Refer To As Palestine changed hands hundreds of times in recorded history and has no obvious, unitary, centralized, morally-justified "owner", which is why the different people who all wanted to own it in 1948 reverted to Might Makes Right to settle their disagreements. Had a different group won that conflict, their claim should be just as morally and legally dubious in your eye. The whole arrangement of the modern middle east can be viewed as a fascinating and tragic dance between the Ottoman Empire, France, and Great Britain--none of whom are Arabs indigenous to the land, you should note. Before the middle of the 20th century, the last time Arabs owned their own nation states and civilizational destinies was in the 16th century. When the Ottoman Turks rolled in, they were mostly conquering Arab societies that were mere shadows of their 12th century glory, having been wracked by centuries of internal warfare--and having being conquered by the mongols.

It's complicated. Human history mostly tells a story of conquest, not ownership. Warfare, not law. Violence, not peace. Our modern lens often keeps us from the awkward and barbaric truth. The "moral ownership" of land acquired during these eras of wanton violence and naked conquest is as invalid as it is irrelevant to anything today. We wrap our conquests with laws and treaties but in the end, when civilizations go to war, the ends always justify the means, and might always makes right. We are all the heirs to a conquered throne, tilling stolen land. So it is; so it has always been.

[moda0306]

I appreciate the input. Though I guess I'd still ask, left, right or center, do you have a source or two that's been most meaningful to you in your education of the topic?

Thanks.

[Pointedstick]

The facts in my post are not partisan or up for debate. Any reasonable source of historical information will be enough to help you understand who did what to whom when and where, and what they claimed for their reason why. The opinions in my post are my own, derived from patterns gleaned from my own studies of history, as well as philosophy and theology. Nobody can teach you to interpret the facts of history or develop a model of human nature. You have to come up with those yourself!

[rickb]

So, has anyone read the book yet?