MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘United States’

Should the United States Follow Belgium’s Lead?

Posted by M. C. on May 18, 2022

By Laurence M. Vance

Belgium has decriminalized prostitution. The only other country I know of that has done this is New Zealand. Although other European countries have legalized and regulated prostitution under specific circumstances, Belgium is the first to fully decriminalize selling sex, paying for sex, and working with sex workers.

The question before us is a simple one: Should the United States follow Belgium’s lead?

Prostitution is illegal throughout the United States except for ten of Nevada’s sixteen counties. Surprisingly, prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas (Clark County) or Reno (Washoe County), although illegal prostitution certainly takes place. One reason why only seven of the ten counties where prostitution is legal have a brothel might be because the counties extort $100,000 to $200,000 from entrepreneurs for licensing fees.

But government in the United States is not like government in Belgium. Prostitution in the United States is a state crime, not a federal offense, so it is up to each state to make its own laws against prostitution.

Okay then: Should the fifty states of the United States follow Belgium’s lead?

Yes, Certainly.

Does this mean that prostitution is wholesome, moral, safe, healthy, and an occupation that everyone would want their wives, mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, or daughters to engage in?

Of course not.

Prostitution is none of those things. In fact, I would argue that engaging in prostitution is depraved, immoral, sinful, risky, and hazardous to one’s physical, mental, and spiritual health.

Does this mean that human trafficking, rape, child prostitution, sexual abuse, slavery, and sexual assault should be legal as well?

Of course not.

Those are real crimes with unwilling victims who have been aggressed against. Even in liberal Belgium, sex trafficking, rape, pimping, most prostitution advertising, and child prostitution is still illegal.

Does this mean that trespassing, loitering, indecent exposure, and other violations of property rights that might occur when prostitutes seek or service customers should be legal as well?

Of course not.

Violations of property rights are likewise real crimes.

So why should prostitution be fully decriminalized in the United States as it now is in Belgium?

I will give you ten reasons why—reasons that I have fully explained in my many articles on this subject and victimless crimes in general.

  1. How can something that is legal to give away be illegal if one charges for it?
  2. What consenting adults do on private property is none of the government’s business as long as their actions are voluntary and peaceful.
  3. It is not the job of government to legislate morality.
  4. It is not the proper role of government to concern itself with how people choose to make a living as long as their actions don’t infringe upon the personal or property rights of others.
  5. Vices are not crimes.
  6. Why should prostitution be a crime but other immoral activities not be crimes?
  7. Why is it legal for a woman to provide free sexual services as often as she wants and to as many people as she wants, but illegal for her to charge for her services?
  8. Every real crime needs tangible victim with measurable damages.
  9. If it is legal for people to be paid to have sex if they are making a movie, then why should it be illegal for people to be paid to have sex in the privacy of their car, home, or hotel room?
  10. Why does the introduction of money turn fornication and adultery into criminal offenses?

I am probably the least likely person to be writing in favor of the decriminalization of prostitution. The freedom of consenting adults to do anything that’s peaceful as long as their actions are voluntary, don’t aggress against others, and respect private property rights is what compels me.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

El Salvador President Asks if the Destruction of United States is Done Intentionally

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2022

https://humansarefree.com/2022/02/destruction-of-usa-done-intentionally.html

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele tweeted out on Monday wondering if there’s a deliberate plan to destroy the United States from within.

“Is there a deliberate plan to destroy the United States from within? Why are the authorities and some of the media not even commenting on this things? Why are they letting their beautiful cities rot?” President Bukele tweeted.

el salvador president asks if the destruction of united states is done intentionally

His comment was in response to a New York Post report on empty shelves at a Rite Aid store in New York City that will be closing soon due to shoplifters.

Is there a deliberate plan to destroy the United States from within?

Why are the authorities and some of the media not even commenting on this things?

Why are they letting their beautiful cities rot? https://t.co/whGKTEKN1J

— Nayib Bukele 🇸🇻 (@nayibbukele) January 31, 2022

America was once a great country but the left’s acceptance of crime, destruction of our cities, and attacks on the police have resulted in the most homicides in several US cities in 2021.

Democrat officials continue to allow looters to run wild and crime to skyrocket in New York and elsewhere.

After the criminals are caught and arrested, charges were reduced to a misdemeanor, and the thieves were back on the streets in less than 24 hours to steal again!

And thanks to Democrats and Joe Biden’s devastating policies, the US inflation measurement has reached its highest level in decades, since the early 1980’s.

Joe Biden is Not Incompetent – He is Doing Exactly What He Was Hired to Do: Collapse America.

Post Millenial reported:

“El Salvador president Nayib Bukele says that the destruction of American cities may well be part of a “deliberate plan.”

His remarks are reminiscent of observations made by other international observers who look upon America’s embrace of woke platitudes amid the country’s crumbling infrastructure and rule of law.

“Is there a deliberate plan to destroy the United States from within?” Bukele tweeted on Monday. “Why are the authorities and some of the media not even commenting on this things? Why are they letting their beautiful cities rot?”

Bukele, who gained international attention for making Bitcoin an official currency in his country of El Salvador, tweeted his remarks in response to a New York Post article highlighting empty shelves at a soon-to-be-shuttered Rite Aid store in New York City.

The store is one of many to be driven out of business since the start of the pandemic of unchecked shoplifting and organized looting. Across major US cities, prosecutors have refused to charge shoplifters, arguing that doing so disenfranchises people of color.”

By Jim Hoft, Guest writer

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

You will NEVER be “fully vaccinated” – OffGuardian

Posted by M. C. on December 16, 2021

It’s time everyone realised they are chasing an intentionally impossible goal that will be pushed back over the horizon, forever.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/12/14/you-will-never-be-fully-vaccinated/

Kit Knightly

Yesterday, in a statement to Parliament on the UK’s planned “vaccine passport”, Health Secretary Sajid Javid admitted the NHS Pass would require three shots for you to be considered “fully vaccinated”.

“Once all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab, we intend to change this exemption to require a booster dose,”

While many of us predicted this would be the case, it is the first time any British politician has actually said it out loud, and in front of parliament too.

This incredibly cynical “evolving definition” of “fully vaccinated” is not a new phenomenon, and is not isolated to the UK either.

Israel changed their definition of “fully vaccinated” to include the booster months ago. New Zealand’s ministry of health is “considering” doing the same, as is Australia.

The EU isn’t far behind either, with proposals in place to make travel dependent on having a third dose.

The US hasn’t formally adopted a new definition yet, but you’d have to be blind not to see the signs. Just yesterday the LA Times headlined:

Should the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ be changed to include a booster shot?

An article on Kaiser Health News asks the same thing.

Tony Fauci is quoted in the Independent as saying it’s only a matter of time before the definition is updated:

“It’s going to be a matter of when, not if” getting a booster shot will be considered being “fully vaccinated,” Dr Fauci said.

Opinion pieces are already appearing asking is it safe to hangout with the unboosted”?

(This headline was so unpopular, the Atlantic changed it only a couple of hours after it was published, and even the archived version appears to have been scrubbed).

All in all it seems pretty clear that, by the time 2022 rolls around, most of the Western world will require three shots in order to qualify as “fully vaccinated”.

It’s also clear that this won’t stop at three. Already, just last week, Pfizer were claiming they may need to “move up the timeline” for a fourth vaccine dose.

This change is being blamed on Omicron, with articles warning the “new variant” can “hit” the vaccinated. Fortune reports:

Omicron is making scientists redefine what it means to be ‘fully vaccinated’ against COVID

So, the third (and maybe fourth) doses are (allegedly) for Omicron…but that model can extend to perpetuity. In order to go to five, six or seven they’ll only need to “discover” more “new variants”.

It will just keep going and going.

But there is good news in all this, every time the powers-that-shouldn’t-be change the rules in the middle of the game, it’s a chance to knock people out of their media-induced hypnosis.

There are promising signs that millions of already-vaccinated will reject the booster. We can build on that.

So tell your single and double jabbed friends, try to open their eyes to the path they are starting down.

They may consider themselves “fully vaccinated”, but the government doesn’t, and never will.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The curious case of the United States – Anderson

Posted by M. C. on June 14, 2021

A government that has, since its inception, engaged in despotism domestically and abroad, cannot completely extinguish the flame of liberty amongst the domestic population.

Joseph M. Anderson

To study the history of the United States is to wrap one’s mind around a relentless drumbeat of the most stupefying contradictions.

As one of the most glaring examples, the United States features one of the strongest checks on the unrestrained power of government in the federal Constitution.

And yet, in complete defiance of all logic, many of the framers of this constitution claimed it was justified to hold against their will hundreds of human beings, to be used and traded as commodities on the market no less than timber or tea.

James Madison, one of the staunchest advocates for a weak and restrained federal government, championed the inclusion of the ninth amendment in the bill of rights, which established that human beings have rights beyond what is listed in the first eight amendments, and that the government “shall not” abridge them.

And yet, barely a generation later, Madison was wielding that same government apparatus to all but conscript the civilian population for the purpose of staging a land invasion of Canada that was a disaster from its inception. When a New England mayor negotiated an end to the war, Madison, against the near total objection of the domestic population, charged the mayor with treason. A jury unanimously nullified Madison’s charge.

Some fifty years later, a man that ostensibly claimed to want to uphold the rule of law and the United States Constitution, ended up waging all-out war against both the eleven states who chose to lawfully secede from the union, and against the remaining twenty states, as well. Abraham Lincoln censored the northern press, implemented an incredibly severe draft, and directed his generals to commit war crimes in the Confederacy. Lincoln himself admitted that the preservation of the union was his foremost aim:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

I would be remiss not to mention one of the gravest crimes of both the United States federal government and of state governments, in conjunction: the near-decimation of the population indigenous to North America, with several estimates that tens to hundreds of millions of indigenous were slaughtered through a combination of war, famine and disease.

Suffice to say that there are many further examples of these glaring contradictions in United States history, but I would like to fast-forward to perhaps the most glaring contradiction of them all.

See the rest here

Joseph M. Anderson is a blogger and activist from Akron, Ohio. He cares deeply for the plight of human freedom, and wishes for little else than to see true, natural law restored to this planet.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

France confronted with the jihadism of its Turkish ally, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

France realises a little late that the jihadists who have carried out attacks on its soil and others who are preparing new ones are supported by foreign states, military allies within NATO.

It revolves around four strong ideas, including the prohibition of the financing of religious associations by foreign States. Everyone is well aware that this is the head of Islamism, but no one dares to name these states: Turkey and Qatar, remote controlled by the United Kingdom and the United States.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article212155.html

by Thierry Meyssan

France realises a little late that the jihadists who have carried out attacks on its soil and others who are preparing new ones are supported by foreign states, military allies within NATO. The refusal to draw conclusions in terms of foreign policy makes the bill to combat Islamism of little use.

President Emmanuel Macron and the government of Jean Castex drafted a bill to combat the political instrumentation of the Muslim faith. This text is currently being discussed in Parliament.

It revolves around four strong ideas, including the prohibition of the financing of religious associations by foreign States. Everyone is well aware that this is the head of Islamism, but no one dares to name these states: Turkey and Qatar, remote controlled by the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, fighting against Islamism in France has many brutal consequences in foreign policy. No party dares to tackle this problem, rendering all the efforts made in this struggle ineffective.

France has already experienced this hesitation in the face of Islamism in the mid-1990s. At the time, the United Kingdom and the United States supported the jihadists in Algeria against French influence. London also offered political asylum to these “democrats” who were fighting against a military regime. The Minister of the Interior, Charles Pasqua, launched a showdown that led him to have the members of a commando of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) who had hijacked an Air France plane shot dead and to expel the CIA chief of post in Paris (who was also compromised in a case of economic espionage). The issue was thus settled for 20 years.JPEG - 62.1 kb

The Directorate General of Internal Security (DGSI) inspired a press dossier, in the Journal du Dimanche of February 7, 2021, on how “Erdoğan is infiltrating France”. Note: the newspaper did not question Turkey, but the only President Erdoğan. Similarly, at least initially, it did not mention Qatar, the United Kingdom or the United States. Above all, it quoted the Millî Görüş which it accuses, without noting that it was the militia of Prime minister Necmettin Erbakan and that President Erdoğan was one of its leaders. Finally, it omitted to mention the alleged role of the Turkish secret services in the attacks of November 13, 2015 (the Bataclan).

It is this theme that we are going to develop by rectifying many prejudices.JPEG - 64.1 kbDidier Lemaire, professor of philosophy in the Paris region (in France, one teaches philosophy in the final year of secondary school), has been threatened by Islamists because he dares to debate political Islam. He was placed under police protection.

Islam: faith and politics

Mohammed was a prophet, warlord and prince at the same time. The Islam he founded was at the same time a particular rite of Christianity [1], his policy towards the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula and the law he promulgated. No one was able at his death to distinguish his spiritual heritage from his political and military action. On the contrary, his political successors (in Arabic: “Caliphs”) inherited his authority in religious matters, although they had no theological knowledge and sometimes even did not believe in God.

Today, Muslims living in Europe aspire to sort out this Islam, to keep only the spiritual part of it and to abandon dated aspects, especially the Sharia. On the contrary, President Erdoğan, who officially wishes to be declared Caliph of Muslims on October 29, 2023 (the centenary of the Turkish Republic), is doing everything possible to oppose this.

It is therefore a struggle between two civilisations. Not between European culture and that of Turkey, but contemporary civilisation against another, which disappeared a century ago.JPEG - 43.8 kbFormer Islamist Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan and his bodyguards. To the right of the photo is Recep Tayyp Erdoğan.

Erdoğan: an Islamist thug who became president

President Erdoğan is not a politician like the others. He started his career as a thug who was punching in the streets of the capital. He entered politics in the 1970s by joining an Islamist militia, the Akıncılar, until he joined the militia created during the fall of Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan in 1997, the Millî Görüş. This organisation of nervis was financed by the Iraq of President Saddam Hussein and placed under the control of the Grand Master of the Sufi Order of the Naqchbandis, General Ezzat Ibrahim Al-Douri, future Iraqi Vice-President.JPEG - 23.3 kbIn Afghanistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar with at his feet Rachid Ghanoucchi Ghanoucchi (left in the photo) and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (right).

The Anglo-Tunisian Rachid Ghanoucchi, one of the great figures of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: “In the Arab world of my generation, when people talked about the Islamic movement, they talked about Erbakan. When they talked about Erbakan, it was the way they talked about Hassan al-Banna and Sayyed Qutb”. So, although the Islamist movement is organisationally divided between the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand and the Naqchbandis on the other, they undoubtedly form a single ideology.

It is in the name of the Millî Görüş that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan played an effective role in the wars in Afghanistan alongside Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and in the wars in Chechnya alongside Shamil Basayev. Once he became president, he imposed himself as the leader of this movement during the NATO war in Syria. Today he is the leader of both the Muslim Brotherhood (established in the wider Middle East and Europe) and the Naqchbandis (established mainly in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Russian Dagestan, South Asia and Chinese Xinjiang).

Islamist networks

See the rest here

Article licensed under Creative Commons

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

On Roosevelt and Stalin: What Revisionist Historians Want Us to Forget — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease program was a major factor in Russia’s salvation. The list of goods that Roosevelt committed to send to the Soviet Union was astounding. It included shipments every month of 400 planes, 500 tanks, 5,000 cars, 10,000 trucks and huge quantities of anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, diesel generators, field telephones, radios, motorcycles, wheat, flour, sugar, 200,000 pairs of boots, 500,000 pairs of surgical gloves and 15,000 amputation saws. By the end of October 1941, ships were carrying 100 bombers, 100 fighter planes, 166 tanks all with spare parts and ammunition, plus 5,500 trucks. (5)

The siege of Moscow lasted from Oct 1941 to Jan 1942, it would claim 926,000 Soviet lives before it ended.

The Soviet Union was receiving supplies from the U.S., but it was taking the full brunt of the Wehrmacht army on their own.

According to WWII historian and authority on Nazi Germany Gerhard Weinberg, the German military’s own figures show that ten thousand Russian prisoners of war were shot or killed by hunger and disease EVERY SINGLE DAY for the first seven months of the war.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/18/on-roosevelt-and-stalin-what-revisionist-historians-want-us-to-forget/

Cynthia Chung

Madman, thou errest. I say, there is no darkness but ignorance

– William Shakespeare (Twelfth Night)

There is a very real attempt to rewrite history as we speak. A history that is at the root of what organises our world today, for it is understood that who controls the past, will have control over our present and our future.

This attempt to rewrite history is of the most paramount significance because it is what is used today to shape who we regard as a “friend” and who we regard as a “foe.” Thus who controls the “narrative” of history, will also control who we see ourselves “aligned” with.

There is a consequence to this which can only lead to further disunity, to further conflict, to further war. It can only be remedied when the past is finally acknowledged.

There is still time to change this dreadful course.

A Meeting of Minds

The Tehran conference (Nov 28 – Dec 1, 1943) was the first time that Roosevelt and Stalin met in person. It was a historic meeting of the two most important leaders of the Allies that would shape the outcome of WWII.

Roosevelt had been trying to set up a meeting for more than a year, the meeting was of utmost importance because it would allow the two leaders to begin a basis for a solid “trust” to be formed, essential to not only winning the war but for maintaining a stable peace afterwards.

Over four years into WII had passed, and the level of distrust, fear and hatred for the Soviets was still prevalent in the political and military circles within the United States.

This was especially the case within the State Department career officers who were against FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union in 1933, and thus antagonism to him and his policies were pervasive (1). When Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest advisor on foreign policy during WWII, was sent to Europe to check in on the foreign service, he had found many U.S. embassies and legations still displaying the portrait of Herbert Hoover on their walls instead of FDR.

George Keenan, best known as the author of the Cold War strategy of “containment,” was among many of similar fibre, who opposed FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union, stating: “We should have no relationship at all with them…Never- neither then nor at any later date- did I consider the Soviet Union a fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for this country.”

The Foreign Services’ anti-Soviet attitude ran so deep that most were against aid to Russia even after Hitler had invaded, despite the Soviets losing more lives against the Nazis in the first few months than all of Europe combined.

Churchill himself made it no secret that he wanted to make sure Germany would emerge from the war strong enough to counterbalance Russia in Europe (strong… but as he sought to soothingly explain not dangerous).

However, Roosevelt would be the first to recognize that the ever growing barbarism of Hitler was much more dangerous than these foreign intelligence circles were estimating, and that Russia was an imperative ally, in fact the only ally, that could ensure its defeat.

The Tehran conference was a great success in collaborative strategy to win the war, but more importantly, it was a great diplomatic success that would begin one of the most important alliances to have ever occurred in modern history.

The Truth Behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

In 1936, Stalin had predicted how German aggression would break out upon the world:

History shows that when any state intends to make war against another state…it begins to seek frontiers across which it can reach the frontiers of the state it wants to attack…I do not know precisely what frontiers Germany may adapt to her aims, but I think she will find people willing to ‘lend’ her a frontier.

These statements were made before the Munich Agreement which was just that, a “lending of a frontier.”

On March 18th 1939 at Stalin’s direction Litvinov, Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, proposed that France, Britain, Poland, Russia, Romania and Turkey join together at a conference to draw up a treaty to stop Hitler. Chamberlain was strongly against the idea, writing to a friend: “I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives.” (2)

On April 14th 1939, Lord Halifax, British Foreign Minister said that Britain would not extend an alliance to Russia in case Germany were to attack. Russia was clearly being told to go at it alone.

On April 16th 1939, Stalin had Litvinov propose to Sir William Seeds the British ambassador, that Russia, France and Britain make a pact that would bind their three countries to declare war on Germany if they or any nation between the Baltic and the Mediterranean were attacked.

Great Britain and France refused.

The Munich Betrayal had already been signed Sept 30th 1938, where Britain had “allowed” Hitler’s annexation of the German speaking territory of Czechoslovakia, as if it were a British colony that it could do with as it wished.

In addition, the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements, through BoE Governor Montague Norman, allowed for the direct transfer of 5.6 million pounds worth of gold to Hitler that was owned by the Bank of Czechoslovakia.

And lastly, that Prescott Bush on behalf of Union Banking was caught funding Hitler before and during WWII and on Oct 20th, 1942 had its bank assets seized under the “U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act.”

Despite all of this, it is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that has been selected by “historians” to go down in history as a deep stain on the moral character and true “face” of the Soviet Union. Confirmation that the Russians should never be trusted, for they would side with whoever wielded the greatest power, no matter the ideologies held.

This could not be further from the truth, and is in fact a gross disregard of the responsibility that Great Britain and France held in creating such a desperate situation for the Soviet Union. They had left her destitute because they wanted to see her destroyed.

Stalin was under no illusion. He knew that it was an impossibility for the USSR to coexist with a Nazi Germany, specifically because the existence of the Slavic people was considered unacceptable to the latter. Hitler, who described this belief in detail in his Mein Kampf, made no secret that he thought the Slavic people an inferior race and that after his conquest he planned to turn Russia and Poland into slave nations. Hitler would boast “The conflict [in the east] will be different from the conflict in the west.” The people of the west were to be subdued, the people of the east were to be annihilated.

Poland’s foreign minister Josef Beck who controlled foreign policy was strongly pro-German, and was adamant that Germany would never invade Poland. Some say Beck was a Nazi agent. It is curious that his son Anthony would in fact find after his father’s death, among his possessions an entire album filled with photos of Beck posing with Nazi generals and various officials of the Nazi government elite. (3)

Poland’s refusal to strategise a defense put the Soviet Union in an understandably difficult situation, since Poland shared a border with them. If Poland were to be invaded it would be used as a launching pad to attack the USSR, which had happened numerous times in the recent past, including during WWI.

Despite the fact that Poland would have absolutely no ability to defend itself in the case of a German invasion, Lord Halifax used as his excuse for putting off serious negotiations with the USSR that it was due to Josef Beck’s refusal to allow Russian soldiers to enter Poland, even if it were to drive back a Nazi army…who wanted to exterminate the Polish race as Hitler explicitly stated repeatedly. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Middle East Is More Stable When the United States Stays Away

Posted by M. C. on January 8, 2020

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/06/the-middle-east-is-more-stable-when-the-united-states-stays-away/?utm_source=Trita+Parsi&utm_campaign=bf1a8aed42-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_06_09_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bf648b5618-bf1a8aed42-274183893&mc_cid=bf1a8aed42&mc_eid=ba0ace703b

By
 
t has been a mantra of U.S. foreign policy for a decade or more that, without the United States, the Middle East would descend into chaos. Or even worse, Iran would resurrect the Persian Empire and swallow the region whole.

Yet when U.S. President Donald Trump opted not to go to war with Iran after a series of Iranian-attributed attacks on Saudi Arabia last year and declared his intentions to pull troops out of the region, it wasn’t chaos or conquest that ensued. Rather, nascent regional diplomacy—particularly among Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—and de-escalation followed. To be sure, the cards were reshuffled again in January, when Trump ordered the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, one of Iran’s most important military figures. Courtesy of Trump, the region is once more moving toward conflict, and the early signs of diplomatic progress achieved during the preceding months have vanished.

 

It is thus time for Washington to answer a crucial question that it has long evaded: Has America’s military dominance in the Middle East prevented regional actors from peacefully resolving conflicts on their own? And in that way, has it been an impediment to stability rather than the guarantor of it?


Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, U.S. President Jimmy Carter proclaimed a new doctrine: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region,” he stated, “will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In the context of the Cold War, preventing the Soviets—the main outside force Carter was worried about—from gaining control over the energy-rich region had a strategic logic.

But over time, that logic shifted. In the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan expanded the doctrine to include threats to the flow of oil originating from inside the region, too. As the geopolitical context changed still further, subsequent presidents found even more ways to justify America’s growing military presence in the Middle East. What started as a policy to prevent others from establishing hegemony over the oil-rich waters of the Persian Gulf morphed into a policy of asserting American hegemony in the region in order to “save” it.

What started as a policy to prevent others from establishing hegemony over the oil-rich waters of the Persian Gulf morphed into a policy of asserting American hegemony in the region in order to “save” it.

As long as U.S. allies lack the capability or competence to secure the region, the thinking went, Washington would have no choice but to shoulder this responsibility. U.S. President George W. Bush was explicit about that; without an increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, he claimed, there would be chaos in the region. He missed the irony, of course, that his invasion of Iraq was the single most destabilizing event in the Middle East of the past decades. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The United States Is Not a Nation: The Problem With ‘National Conservatism’ – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

A nation consists of a homogenous culture of which its like-minded inhabitants are acutely aware. By contrast, the United States of America is, and has always been, culturally heterogeneous, consisting of a variety of cultures and traditions.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/allen-mendenhall/the-united-states-is-not-a-nation-the-problem-with-national-conservatism/

By

Mises.org

Earlier this month, prominent names in the conservative movement gathered in Washington, DC, for a conference on “National Conservatism.” Speakers included such luminaries as Tucker Carlson, Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance, John Bolton, Michael Anton, Rich Lowry, Yuval Levin, and Josh Hawley. Representing the academy were F.H. Buckley, Charles Kesler, Amy Wax, and Patrick Deneen. Other conservative writers and thinkers participated in panels. The two figures most associated with national conservatism — Yoram Hazony and R.R. Reno — spoke during the opening plenary.

What is this national conservatism all about?

The succinct answer is the marriage of nationalism to conservatism. The conference organizers defined nationalism as “a commitment to a world of independent nations.” They presented national conservatism as “an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to theories grounded in race.” Their stated aim was “to solidify and energize national conservatives, offering them a much-needed institutional base, substantial ideas in the areas of public policy, political theory, and economics, and an extensive support network across the country.”

Sounds interesting. However, neither national conservatism nor nationalism — whatever the distinctions between them — can take hold in the United States.

The Difference Between a Country and a Nation

Why? Because the United States is not, and has never been, a nation. The founding generation referred to the United States as a plural noun (i.e., “these United States”) because several sovereigns fell under that designation. St. George Tucker called the United States a “federal compact” consisting of “several sovereign and independent states.” If his view seems unrecognizable today, it is because nationalism within the United States is dying or dead—and the United States killed it.

The United States of America in the singular is a country, not a nation. It contains nations within it, but does not itself constitute a nation. Nations involve solidarity among people who share a common culture, language, customs, mores, ethnicity, and history. A country, by contrast, involves political arrangements and governmental territories and boundaries.

From its inception, the United States has been characterized by faction and sectionalism, cultural clashes, and competing narratives — between Indian tribes in what is now Florida and California, Wyoming and Maine, Georgia and Michigan; between the British and French and Spanish and Dutch; between Protestants and Catholics and English Dissenters and nonconformists and splintering denominations; between the Calvinism of Cotton Mather and the Enlightenment rationalism that influenced Franklin and Jefferson. The United States has experienced, as well, numerous separatist movements, including, most notably, the secession of the states that made up the Confederate States of America.

The United States is not a nation.

A nation consists of a homogenous culture of which its like-minded inhabitants are acutely aware. By contrast, the United States of America is, and has always been, culturally heterogeneous, consisting of a variety of cultures and traditions.

A nation consists of a homogenous culture of which its like-minded inhabitants are acutely aware. By contrast, the United States of America is, and has always been, culturally heterogeneous, consisting of a variety of cultures and traditions…

If the people of the United States are united at all, it is by a system of government, the Constitution, republicanism, and the concepts of liberty, checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law. In other words, the United States is a country whose people are connected, if at all, by liberalism. The history of the United States has been the obliteration of nationalism, not the embrace of it…

Be seeing you

NLC: Is Everyone Now for Federalism? | The Federalist Society

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Multi-Polar Cooperative World – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 14, 2018

The only alternative is a multi-polar world with enough cooperation and mutual respect of the rival countries that they live and let live.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/02/michael-s-rozeff/multi-polar-cooperative-world-is-the-only-option/

By 

Because the three major rivals in the world, Russia, China, and the United States, each have nuclear weapons and systems to wipe each other out and make the world uninhabitable, there is only one option that spells the survival of mankind along with its current state of knowledge. No one of these three countries and no alliance of lesser powers can take over the world and form a world government because the others will resist. If one of these attempts to rule the world, the likelihood of nuclear war rises dramatically. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »