A Bibi-Barack Collision?
"Where there is no solution, there is no problem," geostrategist James Burnham once wryly observed.
Ex-Sen. George Mitchell, the latest U.S. negotiator to take up the Palestine portfolio, may discover what it was that Burnham meant.
For Israel's three-week war on Gaza, where Palestinians died at a rate of 100 to one to Israelis, appears to have been, like Israel's wars in Lebanon, another Pyrrhic victory for the Jewish state.
In 1982, after an attempted assassination of their ambassador in London, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon drove through Lebanon to Beirut, shelling the city for weeks until Arafat agreed to pull out the PLO and depart for Tunisia.
The Israelis' triumph quickly turned to ashes in their mouths.
Weeks of bombarding Beirut turned world opinion against Israel. Defense Minister Sharon was savaged for enabling a massacre in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps. Most critically, as future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin ruefully observed, in invading a quiescent south Lebanon, Israel "let the Shia genie out of the bottle."
South Lebanon became Indian country. Hezbollah, born of Israel's invasion, would, 18 years later, force a bleeding Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and its Lebanese allies out of the country, turning Israel's once-friendly northern border into a new battlefront in the Arab-Israeli war.
Moreover, the Americans, persuaded to send Marines to train the Lebanese Army, were punished with terrorist bombings of the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks at Beirut airport, with 241 U.S. dead.
President Reagan would withdraw, and the Americans never came back.
In 2006, Ehud Olmert used the border ambush of an Israel patrol and the kidnapping of two soldiers to launch a second Lebanon war.
Hezbollah lost hundreds of fighters, but its stature soared as it became the first Arab force to fight Israel and emerge unbroken and unbeaten. And the thousands of Hezbollah rockets that rained down on the Galilee destroyed forever the myth of Israeli invulnerability.
Now, in the aftermath of the war on Gaza, which almost all in Israel supported, come the second thoughts. Of 1,400 dead from air strikes and invasion, one-third were Palestinian children. Al Jazeera video of the dead and dying civilians, juxtaposed with video of Barack Obama enjoying a round of golf in scenic Hawaii, were devastating for the U.S. image, as U.S. weapons had been used by Israel to deliver the death and destruction.
Like Hezbollah, Hamas has emerged more entrenched, while the moderates like Mahmoud Abbas are portrayed as Quislings. Now, a rift has appeared between Obama, who has called for a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza to allow aid and commerce to flow freely, and an Israel determined to maintain its chokehold on Hamas.
In none of these three wars was the Israel Air Force challenged or the IDF defeated. In casualties, Hezbollah and Hamas, Lebanese and Gazans, all suffered many times more dead and wounded.
Yet, looking back, were any of these wars necessary? Did any make Israel more secure than when the Lebanese border was quiet? Does the future look brighter today than in 1982, after the peace with Egypt and withdrawal from Sinai, before the war on Beirut?
Three months before launching the Gaza war, Olmert told two journalists that Israel, to achieve lasting peace, would have to return the Golan Heights to Syria and almost all of the West Bank to the Palestinians, and give East Jerusalem back to the Arabs who live there.
"In the end, we will have to withdraw from the lion's share of the territories, and for the territories we leave in our hands, we will have to give compensation in the form of territories within the state of Israel at a ratio that is more or less 1:1."
"Whoever wants to hold on to all of (Jerusalem) will have to bring 270,000 Arabs inside the fences of sovereign Israel. It won't work."
No, it won't.
Like Rabin in 1994 and Ehud Barak in 2000, two of the most decorated soldiers in Israel's history, Olmert had concluded, late in life, that it is either land for peace, with all its risks, or endless war for Israel.
Yet, after that interview, he launched the December blitz and invaded Gaza, killing and wounding 5,000 Palestinians, making of the Strip a zone of permanent hatred and making Hamas, whom he sought to dethrone and undeniably wounded, even stronger.
Enraged that Hamas was not destroyed or disarmed, Israelis are leaning toward the Likud Party of "Bibi" Netanyahu, who opposed the withdrawal from Gaza, opposes a withdrawal from the West Bank, will never share Jerusalem and calls Gaza "Hamastan."
Should he win, a Bibi-Barack collision appears inevitable. Backing Bibi will be the Israeli lobby, the Evangelicals, the neocons and a Congress that could find only five members to oppose a resolution endorsing all the Israelis had done and were doing to the people of Gaza.
Where there is no solution there is no problem.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
We probably can't do anything about the Israeli lobby and the neocons. But we sure as hell can tell those asinine Evangelicals to shut their traps. Their Bible-thumping is going to ignite a world war.
This probably influenced by Uri Averny's essay in the 1-26-09 antiwar.com.
Mr Salemi, I disagree. I dont think we can tell them anything. They wont listen.
America is a spent force.Instead of being a protagonist in diplomatic affairs it is merely an antagonist.What she lacks in cohesiveness and brains she attempts to make up for in sheer bulk.
The E.U.,Russia,Japan,China,Israel,and Arabia are the principle counters on the international chess-board.Policies pursued by them influence us far more powerfully than vice versa.
Crazy Evangelicals and a venal Congress have abdicated any authority or responsibility that could have been used to steer the ship of state in a direction favorable to the American people's interests.
Our well-being and our future hope lie in Europe.Thank God.
Hey, wait a minute... didn't I read these EXACT same comments to pretty much the exact same article 2 years ago?
Maybe most of you don't want to hear this, but the Muslim world isn't going to suddenly- or even eventually- start liking the USA even if a) the bible thumpers & neocons shut up, and/or, b)the Israelis stop fighting back. For one thing, Muslims consider ALL of Israel to be "occupied territory", not just Gaza and the West Bank. Neither Barack Obama nor the Euros are going to mesmerize them into changing their minds- ever.
Secondly, Muslims do not get along with their neighbors anywhere in the world- not Jews, not Christians, Hindus, or even other Muslims. For centuries, despotic Muslim leaders have used hatred of The Other to keep their people oppressed and divert them from revolt. This is not going to change peacefully
Mike H, well said.
Even if the Evangelicals and the so-called neocons are silenced the Islamic jihad is coming this way. People in the West think they can pay off the jihad by sacrificing Israel (which is just convenient cover for Western Jew hatred) just as they have always sacrificed the Orthodox Christians to keep Muslims busy slaughtering someone else. The Islamic world is just about out of Orthodox Christians so what will you throw to the jihad after Israel is out of their way?
Oh please... the above two comments (@5 and @6) are simon-pure examples of how neocon thinking has turned otherwise intelligent conservatives into pod-people.
The Moslems aren't out to get us, nor do they have anything near the military might to challenge the West. This is pure Tel-Aviv generated propaganda to keep money and munitions flowing into Israel.
The REAL threat to the West is the unlimited immigration of Moslems into our land. But the neocons seem to be unusually silent on that problem. They don't mind posturing in Humvees in Baghdad or Afghanistan, pretending how big and brave we are in those two proxy wars for Israel. But they won't lift a finger to prevent Moslem immigration into Europe and America, much less expelling the Moslem aliens who are here now.
So how about it, you big brave "Heartland" conservatives? If you think the Moslems are a threat, why aren't you bombarding our government to expel the thousands of Moslems who are here, having children, and settling in for the long term? Or do you just want to send your sons to die in Iraq?
This may not seem to be the place, but I'd like to recommend the readers of this blog to watch Clint Eastwood's best film yet, Gran Torino. We'd learn more about what's wrong with the new Detroit, and by extension, America from a well spent $10 than years sitting in the pews of neocon megachurches.
The breakdown of the family, the tolerance of loutishness, money-grubbing, discarding traditions, road-to-hell do-gooding, weak-kneed young whites, lazy immigrants who refuse to adapt to their adopted host nation, reverse racism, urban blight, and an old man who stands his ground, sticks to his guns, and won't back down. It's a film about hope. The young priest is one of the best characters. Surprised? Don't be!
You know, in the First World War, when the Germans realized that Austria-Hungary was more of a liability than a useful ally, the following bon mot made the rounds of the German General Staff:
"We are shackled to a corpse."
The rightist movement in this country is shackled to two corpses: the Evangelicals, and the stupidly superpatriotic "Heartland" conservatives who think solely with their glands.
"So how about it, you big brave “Heartland” conservatives?"--careful Joe, Miss Manners may be listening in.
It should be clear to anybody with an I.Q. higher than that of a sea mollusk that the pro-immigration pro-Israel "invade the world,invite the world" policy is a Jewish design to entangle the West in a needless series of conflicts with the Moslems in order to ease the pressure on Israel by diverting energies elsewhere.
Jewish animus towards Europeans,deeply-seated and of long duration,can thereby be exercised while at the same time making the most efficient use of their,the European's,power in holding down the Moslems.
Killing two birds with one stone.Or knocking two heads together.And with "heads" belonging to clowns like Pastor Hagee of some Baptist Church down in San Antonio Texas(God Bless Texas!)that isnt at all difficult.
"The rightist movement in this country is shackled to two corpses: the Evangelicals, and the stupidly superpatriotic “Heartland” conservatives who think solely with their glands"--Amen brother!
Which is why a closer association with decadent old Europe is our only way out.
@10
There is a saying out there: a room with 10 tigers in it is dangerous. A room with 4 tigers, 3 gorillas and 3 rhinos is no problem because they'll all be fighting each other. This explains why many well-educated blacks detest Jews -- the Khazars were behind the Charleston slave market. The NAACP was founded and run by Jews like Spingarn until the mid 1960s. I hope the rainbow coalition falls apart real soon.
I dont know, Sempronius. I honestly don't know.
Europe is even more politically correct than the United States, and there sure isn't any freedom-of-speech protection there for persons like us.
I had a chance several years ago to get dual citizenship with Italy, because of my Italian heritage. I had all the papers and documentation ready, including my grandparents' "Regno d'Italia" passports from 1906.
I changed my mind when I realized that Italy, as a member of the E.U., was subject to all those hideous left-liberal laws and principles that the scum in Brussels had decreed for everyone in the Union. I decided to pass.
@Gervaise
The Hebrews learned this lesson well from the Assyrians.They were the first Levantine people to hold their empire by studiously jumbling their subject races together.If we arent one already,we are rapidly becoming a subject race.
Joseph,nooooo!You must get your dual citizenship.Dont worry about the E.U..Italians always outwit their masters.We've been doing it for centuries.Italians only obey those laws they want to obey.
Joseph Salemi, I think you have paleoconservatism confused with plain, old-fashioned jew-hatred. The only thingthe Jews have to do with the "palestinian problem" is that the Jews just happen to be there. If the Irish had settlements in Judea, the muslims would be fighting them.
I submit that you don't want to admit that the muslims are a problem for all of western civilization- partly out of your blind jew-hatred, and partly because once admitted, the question arises of what to do about it. Feel free to plant your head in the sand- or... err- elsewhere
When dealing with a mentally challeneged type like Mike, one has to be very clear. Let's try to be baby-simple:
I certainly DID say that the Moslems are a problem for Western Civilzation. That's why I suggested expelling them from the West. Can you read, Mikey? Go back to my post @ 7 and take it more slowly.
You say if the Irish had settlements in Judea, the Moslem would be fighting them. Well, DUH! Yes, of course. One normally fights an occupying power.
As for my "jew-hatred," well, if it existed why would I have dedicated my doctoral dissertation to my Jewish friend Sophie? Why would have more Jewish friends, colleagues, and associates here in New York than gentile ones? I think you're confusing being anti-Israeli with being anti-Jewish. That's a typical neocon ploy in argumentation, but it won't work here, pal.
Go to another website, Mikey. You're totally outclassed here.
Mr.Salemi,
To paraphrase, "there you go again!" You write:"The REAL threat to the West is the unlimited immigration of Moslems into our land." Partially true. But the greater threat to the West is a failure of the West itself. Evangelicals thinking the "kingdom of heaven" has its geographical location in Palestine (or anywhere else on earth) is indeed bad theology. Yet,the birth rates in our tired Western world are pathetic. It is a failure of the West to embrace or even attempt to understand its own Tradition, its essence or in a word its religion, that is ruining the West. That is simple and that is all. The main arteries for the transmission of our ancient culture from generation to generation are clogged and have been clogged for a long time---families,the crafts,teaching,journalism,literature, education, music, liturgy, etc are all hardened with the worst sort of decadence. The death rattle echoes from the outer room. You know this and I know that you must know this. Bible thumpers are sometimes stupid, divine revelation is not. Hordes of immigrants are a problem but they are also a symptom. Choose your words more carefully so as to reveal the thoughtful defender of civilization that you are. In matters of true religion it is not as important to follow the money, as it is to follow the saints. In matters of manipulative politics or carpet biting emotionalist dressed in Shepherd's skin, follow the money. And this applies equally to columnists like David Frum, David Brooks, and George Wiegel as it does to shouting heads like Hagee, Robertson and that little twit in Atlanta, who once headed the Christian coaltion? If they make it embarrassing to be a christian (and they do) that is no excuse for our failure to act like men in facing the devil in the details.
I'm sorry but I really don't quite get the drift of your argument. Let me respond in a piecemeal fashion.
All the things you say about our decline are quite correct. It's due to a soul-sickness in the West that has been eating away at us since the Enlightenment. So I don't see why we should argue about that particular can of worms.
Moslems invading the West are just a "symptom" of this larger problem? Well, OK... but they're going to be more than just a symptom if we don't get rid of them real fast.
How can I "choose my words more carefully"? I choose words to express meaning, nothing else. With all due modesty, I think I'm pretty good at it. Am I supposed to censor myself to avoid offending the Bible-Belt loonies?
I simply don't understand your metaphor of "following the saints" rather than "following the money." Skip the figurative language; just say what you intend.
At the end of your post you seem to be admitting that the Evangelicals are a bit of an embarrassment, but you are also trying to somehow defend them. But you aren't specific. It's hard to know what to answer.
Why can't you admit that the Evangelicals are the loudest cheering section that the Israelis have here in America next to AIPAC? And why can't you admit that some of their proposals, like letting the really fanatical Orthodox Jews tear down the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple there, are sheer suicidal insanity?
What does "Divine revelation" have to do with anything? God hasn't sent us any battle plans. This is a struggle between peoples and races and cultures. Bringing extraneous religious issues into this political powder-keg is exactly what has driven things to the desperate point that they are in now. We don't need any Bible-thumpers, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Moslem!
The other rather obvious point that people like Mike H don't acknowledge (and presumably hope that others don't realize) is that even IF an argument would be based on so-called "Jew Hatred" (which, to some, seems to encompass everything short of a Jew-supremacist position), it could still be correct.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that Copernicus hated the Pope. That wouldn't make his heliocentric model of the solar system any less correct.
Recommending "Gran Torino" is an excellent post from EG.I'm old enough to have driven one...I'm old enough to have a visited a functioning Detroit.Let me recommend another movie,"Fitna".Heard of it?Funny how I have to read over and over and over again about alleged Zionist control of the media.They must be persecuting Gert Wilders,right?Hmm...look forward to the passionate article on the free speech rights of Wilders or Mark Steyn or Robert Spencer or the late Orianna Fallaci.Hmmm...must be the Zionists trying to shut them up....couldn't be anyone else?PC Roberts...wipe the cream pie off your face and tux...and get us your umpteenth article on Zionist repression of free speech...some people here are beginning to waver.
Joseph,
This: "What does “Divine revelation” have to do with anything? God hasn’t sent us any battle plans. This is a struggle between peoples and races and cultures. Bringing extraneous religious issues into this political powder-keg is exactly what has driven things to the desperate point that they are in now. We don’t need any Bible-thumpers, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Moslem!"
is no help and is the philosophy of a mean secularism that believes culture is more important than the revelation upon which it began, which in turn leads to the idea that politics is more important than culture because of more immediate effect, and finally to the doom that economics is more imortant than politics which is exactly the half truth we are embracing today. We have had this discussion before and I see no reason to tear each other to shreds again. I simply think that your reducing "ought" to the realm of political power is hopeless and wrong. I will read your response because I respect you but will not clutter the thread with more of the same. We must attempt to understand divine revelation because it provides a kind of knowledge without which "power will corrupt absolutely,the best lose all conviction, and the worst become full of passionate intensity." Sounds like our own times doesn't it?
Robert @ 22
I really don't get what you are saying. Really.
What specifically does "Divine revelation" tell us about how to handle diplomatic or geopolitical matters in the middle east? Where is the battle plan that God has given us? I'd like to see it.
We are not going to save the West by saying the rosary, or fulfilling the Fatima consecration, or getting more people to hear the Tridentine mass, or by quoting chunks of Scripture, or passing Sabbath Laws, or worst of all, by encouraging crackpots in Israel to rebuild the heap of stones once known as Solomon's temple.
You know, at the end of the Roman Empire there was a huge interest in astrology and horoscopes. As the great Catholic writer Frederick Wilhelmsen put it, anxiety-ridden Romans said "Let the stars save us, for we cannot save ourselves!"
When people on the right spout religious chin-music as a response to our predicament, its the very same delusional escapism.
Joseph,
Frederick Wilhelmsen was a friend of mine and he knew very well that you cannot have a culture without a cult. As I said before I respect you and appreciate your responses but there is no reason to continue this. One of the principles of bad teaching is to answer questions that students do not care to know. We are speaking past each other. Fritz once praised Bill Buckley's sister for slapping a feminist who said less insulting things about the Mother of God than you do,if I ever meet up with you I might consider providing another blow for civilization if there is crowd around to appreciate it. Enough !!
Now this is too much. When, where, ever did I insult the Mother of God?!/!?
Escaping into Wordism.
Say again, please?
We worship words, and now we reap the effects. Being displaced by aliens we never bothered to ask the most basic questions. Even if for entertainment purposes, imagine asking a Charles Krauthammer or a Bill Kristol what they think of the people of small town America that produce the trigger pullers for the globaloney racket. Being displaced by aliens who make sounds that we recognize is still genocide, but we worship words, and its a kinder gentler form of death, the slow strangling death of cognitive dissonance, words not matching reality.
Alright, what do people here think about the prospects for Israel in the long term? Will it survive, and if not, where will all the survivors go?
D. Simmons @ 28
Well, I'm still not sure what you're saying. As for Krauthammer and Kristol, they are neocon garbage of the lowest type, and I'm sure they don't give a swiving hump about the American soldiers who die in our proxy wars for Israel.
Dee@28 writes:"imagine asking a Charles Krauthammer or a Bill Kristol what they think of the people of small town America that produce the trigger pullers for the globaloney racket."
I am sure it is similar to what Mr. Frum said about us and others who did not agree with the wisdom of pre-emptive wars based on doctored intelligence: "UNPATRIOTIC AMERICANS!" (tell that to Colonel Bacevich who lost his son in the very war he tried to prevent!) And as Pat Buchanan said at the time," It is not that there were too many Jews involved with neo-conservativism, it was the fact that there were too few conservatives." example: Ask Ilana Mercer what happens to a talented, Jewish, writer who opposes the PC crowd. It is the same for jew and gentile alike.
10@Sempronius
Cartoonist Frank Miller creator of Sin City and 300.
Comics can affect culture by allowing the world in, reflecting what we see. There is a reason, Miller says, that most of the great comics heroes were created by Jewish people that lived through the early part of the century. To a certain extent, they were creating a golem, a hero they needed to exist. Their comics were a response to the times they lived, something that comics have largely gotten away from and need to return if they’re going to be a significant voice in modern culture.
The harsh truth is that we’re facing an enemy that keeps telling us what they are and what they want,” declared Miller, adding that people refuse to believe it. “They have made it plain they want to exterminate the Jews, to bring down the West, to achieve world dominion,” Miller warned, likening Islamic extremists to the Nazis in the 1930s.
He pointed out that all of the major superheroes of the 1940s were created by Jews during a time of anti-Semitic persecution: “Superman was a golem.” … Miller nonetheless issued a call to his fellow authors: “Let’s revive our tradition and get back on the job.”
- quoted from Publishers Weekly, 2/28/2006
12@Etienne Gervaise
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agenda. —–Dr. Stephen Steinlight, Former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish organization in America, the American Jewish Committee. From :”The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demographics.” (2001)
Well Joe you worship words, and so comes along a Bill Kristol for example and he spouts a few cliched bits of our history, melds them into some semi-coherent ideology and then you debate him as if you two are interchangeable people. But you never ask, who are you, where do you come from, or from what culture do you draw your worldview? I thought culture matters to this crowd, and culture as I understand it is the means and arts of a specific people, but here we are debating the hideous politics of the Levant like the Israelies were our cohorts at Valley Forge. As an old stock American shaped by its history I view the Levantine fanatics as monsters to avoid not intermingle with.
32 Could or would Frank Miller define what exactly is the "West?" We seem to never ask these most basic questions, and why we take Miller at something of face value is astounding and naive. For arguments sake I must presume the West is a subordinate unit to Miller's people, its new golem. Bill Kristol says "freedom" and off march the trigger pullers from small town America to do battle with the enemy as if the man is Charles Martel himself. Perhaps we are in a new Caste system and people like me do not know their place and what limits are on us.
Could or would Frank Miller define what exactly is the “West?”
Yes, this would be helpful for all of us to define our terms. For me,the West is Christ --- the incarnation of the spirit and the inspiration of the flesh--including the history and culture that was prepared before his coming (Greek and Roman)and that history which followed his death and resurrection! Simple and quite complex. Is there anyone else who will now attempt such a definition of the West? Anyone else?
Joseph Salemi- It's hard to know where to start with your drivel. You begin with "The Moslems aren’t out to get us," only to follow up with "The REAL threat to the West is the unlimited immigration of Moslems into our land." It's impossible to take such a contratiction as anything but nonsensical babbling. You say that the muslims are fighting an "occupying power", which makes sense only from a jew-hating perspective: Jews have inhabited that region continuiously for thousands of years- Islam wasn't even invented until approximately 622 AD and bases it's claim on the land more or less on the theory that because they conqupred it it is theirs in perpetuity. At any rate, who are the occupiers they are fighting in the REST of the world?
And don't flater yourself over your doctorate. I know plenty of people who have doctoral degrees and very few of them are NOT overly impressed with themselves. I judge you to be a jew-hater becuase that's how you present yourself. Mind you there is no shortage of jew-hating jews- especially among those who fancy themselves smarter than everyone else; it's a very common trait.
D Simmons wrote:"Even if for entertainment purposes, imagine asking a Charles Krauthammer or a Bill Kristol what they think of the people of small town America that produce the trigger pullers for the globaloney racket" Krauthammer and Kristol also fall into the category of Those Who Are Overly Impressed With Themselves. I have to wonder if they exchange sharp elbows-to-the-ribs with Mr Salemi at their weekly meetings, or if their fraternity keeps them on opposite sides of the room?
Again with the label "jew hatred" from mike h. To call someone a "jew hater" in no way diminishes the potential validity of their argument. A "woman hater" may say bad things about feminism, and be absolutely right that feminism is a cultural blight. The fact that he hates women doesn't invalidate his points.
Incidentally, if there really is so much "jew hatred" in the world, why does it exist? In life, individuals who are hated tend to be, well, jerks. Is it not possible that perhaps if there is Jew "hatred" it is because Jews might be doing things that make others dislike them? (Israel's actions in Gaza are just one example.)
As for the argument that a land belongs to someone because they were there first, well, goodness, by that line of reasoning, we should all get off the "Native" Americans' land. Are we to undo all of history's population migrations? Hardly.
Back to the awful politics of the Levant I see. When I hear the word "Islamofacist" a small corner of my brain asks, "Satan did you say something?" We are told to hate Islamofacists but to never question Islam or the actual humans that reside with it. Now the editors of this fine periodical no full well what I mean since they were labled as extremists by the neocons for even warning about Islam and Muslims a decade before 9/11.
I personally don't see how Christ is the "West." What of a Christian in Lebanon or India, a backwater of Central America, are they the "West?" But once words are worshipped anything is possible, next thing you know a million Chinese Catholics will renounce thousands of years of their history and culture and join the "West", or perhaps we will renounce ours and join them (more likely).
Re: No 7 by Mr. Salemi: Sound of hammer hitting nail on head. Thank you, sir.
Not only are the vast majority of Muslims not out to get us, and not only do those who are not have the wherewithal to conduct an effective evangelical jihad, but the GWOT could be won for the West simply by doing two things: 1) stop p!$$ing off the Muslim world and hence creating "blowback"; 2) adopt a policy of "separationism" such as described by (I know, ugh!) Lawrence Auster: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
The neocons, Zionistas and the Evangelicals will never go for this, however, as the neocons and Zionistas, for ideological and ethnic reasons, need America to fight their proxy wars, whereas the Evangelicals are simply stuck on a heretical and nonsensical dispensationalism. None of these folks will listen to reason.
Dee I knew it was a difficult question that you asked. " Could or would Frank Miller define what exactly is the “West?” We seem to never ask these most basic questions" You asked it, my dear.
I intentionally made my answer short and sweet awaiting yours as to what the West is? I eagerly await your definition and not your next smart-aleck remark. Please, I am interested in your thoughts about the essence of the West? Cheers
Karsten, at some point, "X-hatred" discredits one's arguments about X to the point that their validity becomes irrelevant.
After giving it some thought, though, perhaps Jew-Hater is a bit strong for Mr. Salemi- or at least imprecise. Ultimately, though I find his ideas not much deeper than those of the dreamy-eyed, utopian Obamunists.
Expel the muslims from Europe? Riiiiight. Surely that couldn't be any more difficult than expelling someone from Grad School, eh?
Mr Simmons #28 abd after. You are really on to something. Best comments on this blog in a long time. Americans worship words (because they think that makes them superior) and regularly mistake the word for the thing. In my opinion it started with Lincoln's smarmy, dishonest talk which he was able to sell because of the rise of a half-educated public that had neither wisdom nor common sense. . Americans do not even ask for the bona fides of the purveyor of words. They have no cultural and social base from which to evaluate the word sellers. Civilised people would ask, before giving credit: who are these people?, who were their parents?, where were they educated?, who are their associates?, from what basis and to what purpose are they speaking? So, the people are enslaved to the loudest and most superficial "thinkers."