Rep. Ron Paul’s defense of Iran’s nuclear weapons program should surprise no one. The same resentment motivates Ron Paul and the Iranian leadership — a paranoid hostility toward a world that is swiftly changing and has little mercy, and a Millenarian desire to return to a mythical, untroubled past. Get rid of the Federal Reserve, scourge the bankers, return to a gold standard and erect a wall around the United States — and we will return to when? To 1957, when the Russians launched the first space satellite, alerting the United States to the danger that it might lose the Cold War? Then, as always, we prevailed, but by the skin of our teeth. Ron Paul’s program is an American version of the Iranian desire to return to a world of Islamic purity that never existed, any more than did a golden age of American isolationism.
America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America embodies the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Now China has become an agent of creative destruction as well, the consequence of its partial adoption of the American model. China indirectly brought about the so-called Arab Spring, by driving up world grain prices and pricing the Arab poor out of the world market for food. Chinese pigs will eat before Arab peasants; food insecurity (if not actual starvation) undermined the Arab dictatorships.
Iranian resentment is understandable. They recall the Brontosaurus in an old Far Side cartoon, standing at the dais addressing an auditorium full of dinosaurs: “The climate is changing, our food supply is dwindling, and we have a brain the size of a peanut. I’d say we’re in trouble.” Islam is a religion of traditional society, of iron constraints and unquestioned hierarchies. By teaching Iranian girls to read, the late Shah set off a cultural chain-reaction: fertility has fallen from 7 children per female a generation ago to just 1.5 today, a catastrophic decline unparalleled in demographic history. And mosque attendance is down to only 2% by some estimates. Creative destruction has burst in upon Iran and turned its society inside-out. The mullahs still have all the money in Iran’s hydrocarbon monoculture, and almost all the guns, and they will do anything necessary to turn the clock back. Their world is disappearing in front of their eyes. They have nothing to lose.
Of course, the mullahs would have nothing without the global economy; after oil, Iran exports nothing but pistachios and carpets. Without foreign oil companies, the mullahs could not drill, pump, or ship their hydrocarbons. The whole apparatus of Iranian Islam is a theme park, an Shi’ite Disneyland funded by oil revenues, perpetuating a barbaric society that could not feed itself without global demand for the natural resources that, by unlucky accident, happen to be located in Iranian territory.
Mullah Paul voices the same fear and resentment in its milder American form. He has in common with the Iranians a desire to make the world go away, and a fixed idea that an evil conspiracy brought about all the problems. Ron Paul isn’t an Iranian, to be sure; he’s just the closest an American can come to thinking like an Iranian without actually moving there.
Why are we even wasting our time talking about Ron Paul (and all of these other clowns)?
Ron Paul (and the rest of the clowns) have ZERO chance of defeating Romney for the Republican nomination.
It is going to be Romney vs. Obama in 2012. (There may be a 3rd party candidate — Trump, Paul…) You can set it in stone. You can take it to the bank.
The Republicans are going to have to reconcile themselves to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. That is, unless they want Obama to have another 4 years.
The Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are going to have to get over their anti-Mormon bigotry. Their bigotry and irrationality is sickening. “Mormons aren’t Christians.” Don’t give me that crap! It is a sect of Christianity. The Christophobes have taught you that you should hate other sects of Christianity. That’s a Divide and Conquer tactic of the Christophobes. You’re playing right into their hands. It’s like the Sunnis and Shiites fighting with each other… Romney was a missionary for his religion — a sect of Christianity. What have you done for Christianity?
Reality, just an encouragement here, so keep your shirt on: you might want to research bigotry before you share what Christians believe. Mormonism is not of the Christian faith, period, scripture could not be more clear.
Mr. Goldman, I have never seen your articles on here, but for me, your post is another one just like the other ones. I mean you sound like a financial guy taking on Ron Paul from a political standpoint. Why not attack his financial plan? Something just isn’t right about your article and I can’t put my finger on it.
Others: I’ve got to quit reading this stuff on here, really. Not that you care, but I think negativity and articles written by folks who I have no idea who they are or why their new on here makes the point to me that folks are being dredged up to put negative bias toward candidate Paul. I came here to read stuff by Michael Ledeen but he doesn’t post here that much anymore. Have a nice day.
self righteous biggot
Joseph Smith wanted what mohammad had.. mormonism is ‘pale’ islam..
Christianity believes in a Triune God, and certain aspects of Jesus’ nature are critical. LDS teaching does not teach this and denies Jesus’ deity. Ergo, Mormons are not Christians. Not to say that Romney isn’t sincere, or even a good person, but the definitions are rather precise.
The main issue regarding Romney’s faith is simple: Like Roman Catholicism, the LDS church is known for being politically active (just ask anybody from Utah). Like JFK, Romney must answer the question: “will your church elders be able to set national policy.” Not “will you adhere to the tenets of your church”, that is taken for granted, but “who will determine national policy.”
Just as JFK had to answer that the Pope would not be able to set policy, so must Romney answer for the LDS elders.
Oh please, don’t give me that “Christians must believe in the trinity” crap. People were dying in the name of Christ before the trinity was even cooked up. I guess they weren’t Christians either? The origins of that doctrine are well known for anyone who wants to look it up. It was just a big political compromise to keep arguing sects of the Catholic church from splitting up. Now all these “evangelicals” treat it like the Christianity acid test. And they don’t even accept Catholics! The irony.
I’m a former Mormon–now an agnostic. I’m done with all organized religion. But I’ve been around Mormons all my life, and I’ll always defend them. If ANYONE deserves the Christian title it would be them. They freakin’ live their beliefs for real. A Mormon, for instance, would NEVER tell a person who fervently believes in Christ that he isn’t a Christian. Yeah, that would pretty much be exhibit #1 of what NOT to do.
“people were dying in the name of Christ before the trinity was even cooked up. I guess they weren’t Christians either? The origins of that doctrine are well known for anyone who wants to look it up. It was just a big political compromise to keep arguing sects of the Catholic church from splitting up.”
- You shouldn’t stray into subjects that you are quite obviously in the dark on.
The Trinity (three persons, One God) was known to Christianity from the beginning. Writings as early as 70AD mention the idea as already known. A little more data can be seen here, where countless historical resources are listed.
Click Here
The Trinity, as a Christian doctrine, predates any form of political issue it was supposedly invented to solve.
Bodman, this article exemplies the nuttiness of this entire website. Read cautiously, and take everything said with a grain of salt. The entire premise of this idiot’s article is false. He must not have fully functioning auditory organs because Ron Paul hasn’t said anything close to what the title of this article implies. It’s slander. I say this even though I’m not a big fan of Ron Paul.
….Harummmmpppphhhh!
C’mon, Jazzzz….read cautiously here. Yer a bit too strident. Don’t be the pot calling our nice, gleaming, copper-bottomed kettle “black”.
Charlie, he doesn’t get how dangerous Dr. Paul’s kooky policies are to American freedom. Save your breath– hes a lost cause. pete-george
Dude. You do realize, right, that Mormons believe the same thing as other mainline Christians believe with the addition of the book of Mormon? Have you even MET a Mormon? They are some of the hardest-working, most honest, most REAL people you’d ever want to know. I don’t share their faith, but I certainly like the results.
And Reality, I say that as an Evangelical Christian. A lot of people throw around inaccurate information about us. You should really talk to one of us before telling others what we believe or what bigots we are. Most of what you and others like you say just is not true.
And Spengler…I’ll vote for whoever I want to vote for. Usually I find your insights to be…well…insightful. Not so much this time.
Agoraphobic… “I don’t share their faith, but I certainly like the results.” There was another group of relativists who use to say; “I don’t approve of Al Capone murdering people, but he sure did a lot of good for Chicagoans.” In the end, when it’s all said and done, and the Books are opened, isn’t it true that it wont matter how many “good” things one did because all our “good” is like “filthy rags”? And the only question that will matter is; “What did you do with my Son, Jesus”? Believe in his salvation or not. Then saying someone led a good life, though they rejected Jesus, doesn’t help anyone.
2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The Mormon religion falls into this description. They believe their works, as prescribed by their leaders, must be accomplished in order to be a Mormon in good standing, and not the saving sacrifice of Jesus of itself. They have set up an elaborate system of religiosity which includes such things as secret underwear, spending two years riding bicycles to “evangilize”, and tithing money to the “Church” in order to continue it’s work, while all these things look “Christians”, as you said, it’s the “results”, that tells the true story. What is the eternal implications, Plumber? All the “extra” works from Mormonism have no basis in the Word of God but in the new Mormon Bible. So you must ask which is the Truth? They can’t both be.
Here is more of what Mormons believe (link below), for the most part (But like Islam or any other “religion” it depends on who you talk to and what man taught them, this can vary from individual to individual):
http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-do-mormons-believe-ex-mormon-speaks-out-part-two-58494/
Bodman / Realty – Mr. Goldman sounds like a PLANT from the Romeny camp. I LOVE Ron Paul. He is the only one that actually talks about more issues that need fixing then Jobs or the Economy. If we don’t get back to running America by the Constitution, there will be no America.
Mr. Goldman maybe you chold check out this site:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
The 2012 Election will have nothing to do with the ‘small’ stuff (jobs, economy, Iran, etc.) It will have everything to do with where we are going.
Constitution? The first thing Alexander Hamilton did as Treasury Secretary was to massively expand the national debt (read his famous “Report”) on the subject, by having the federal government pay off the revolutionary war debt at face value.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_2s5.html
He did so specifically to create liquid assets to support a banking system. That’s the precedent for Robert Mundell’s argument (before and during the Reagan administration) that an expansion of the national debt to fund growth-promoting tax cuts was the optimal policy.
That’s why I call Ron Paul a “Mullah” — he wants to go back to a supposedly ideal time in history that never existed, like the Iranian nutballs. He’s a demagogue. And remember Karl Kraus’ definition of a demagogue: someone who tries to sound as stupid as his listeners, so that they will think they are as smart as he is.
Ron Paul is more dangerous than a demagogue.
His base expanded to include the farthest fringes of both right and left, with every conspiracy-addled mini-cohort who do not even think in terms of policy.
Jan 5, 2009: Ron Paul does interview (channelling Erdogan) with Iranian state PRESS TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0&feature=related
Dec. 31, 2011: “The Ron Paul Chronicles” (only the Chemtrail Brigade is missing);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WGcy8MhJo9w#!
This isn’t necessarily about Paul’s chances of becoming the nominee. Remember Howard Dean’s moment back in ’04–conservatives did a lot of work exposing him, and it WASN’T because they thought he could win a presidential election. In fact, he would have been a dream opponent to run against, but the smartest analysts knew that the Dean movement was fundamentally unhealthy to the Republic, whatever its strategic advantages. A nation is in deep trouble whenever a non-trivial chunk of the population is possessed by unreason and conspiratorial dreams, whether they focus on a Howard Dean, or on a Ron Paul. Doing whatever one can to break such spells is no waste.
As for your second point, extremely little of the anti-Romney sentiment has to do with his religion. Most Christians consider Mormonism a kind of pseudo-Christian cult–which is perfectly defensible in Nicene terms–but I don’t know many Christians who consider a candidate’s Mormonism disqualifying for the office of the Presidency. Romney’s ideological firmness and checkered executive record is another story.
A very good response. Regarding your second point, I suspect it’s Reality’s bigotry projecting on to non-Mormon Christians. All I’ve read heard and watched agrees with your assessment: “extremely little of the anti-Romney sentiment has to do with his religion.” If anything, that will come from America’s Left if it’s Romney vs Obama.
I would have to agree with y’all, and im sorry, but mormonism is just whacko. Google that cult just to find out what they believe if you don’t want to take my word alone. Polygamy? Are you kidding me? What kind of amoral nonsense is that? Yeah, great idea, lets teach our kids to be unfaithful to their wives by sleeping around and having babies with other “wives.” Polygamy my have a place under the sun in sub-saharan Africa, but this is America! And Joseph Smith was king Kook! The man was a self-proclaimed prophet! Sorry, bud, Jesus is lord! Keep that nutter belief system in the deserts of Utah! – pete-george
There are plenty of really strange things about the LDS, but most Mormons have an outlook similar to evangelicals. This is the United States, after all, and what my friend Jody Bottum calls “mere religion” tends to filter out the eccentricities. In short, Romney’s religion doesn’t bother me especially. He’s been married to the same woman since college and has a bunch of kids who respect him.
To someone who is not religious, like myself, the idea of a mortal man named Jesus being brought back to life is even crazier than the idea of Joseph Smith being a prophet. So when you call someone a “kook” and follow up with “Jesus is lord”, you need to think a bit more carefully about your own “cult” might be viewed. American values include tolerance, so I would also ask you to reconsider your own moniker.
Secondly, you need to get your facts straight. The LDS church explicitly forbids polygamy. But what goes on between two consenting adults is none of your affair.
I’ve worked with a number of mormons and never found them to be anything other than decent, hard-working, law abiding citizens. I hope the same is true for you.
Isn’t all religion full of nutty beliefs? Isn’t that why they call it, “religion?”
Mainstream Chistians believe in Free Will and Predestination at the same time– contradictory doublethink!
Mittens is not a Natural Born citizen..
George Romney is Mexican born to parents born in Mexico.. and he never actually naturalized..
prove me wrong..
and don’t bother using the “14th” defense.. unless you think all dual citizens and jackpot babies are natural born as well (LOL)
“Romney” is such a common Mexican name… you find almost as many Romneys south of the border as you find Gonzalezes and Rodriguezes, don’t ya?
Go back to ThinkProgress and ask them for new talking points.
I do think dual citizens are natural born, because Article VI declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Supreme law means just that- it can’t be subjugated to foreign law, which is what it would be if you declared that dual citizens cannot be eligible to the Presidency.
We have no control over who has foreign citizenship by birth even if born on US soil to citizen parents. Poland, for instance, does not recognize naturalization or service in a foreign military as a means for losing citizenship, so dual citizenship for Polish immigrants naturalized by the US devolves on their descendants IN PERPETUITY, unless actively removed by soliciting the Polish President for its removal. Thus, dual citizenship is irrelevant.
‘myth buster’ you are WRONG a Natural Born Citizen is one who is born in the United States of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS, all the other varieties that you describe are just ‘Native’ born citizens and as such ineligible to run for President as the Constitution confirms. This of course makes Rubio, the RINO’s favourite Hispanic, ineligible too in much the same way as it makes Obambi a USURPER.
First, show me the US law or Supreme Court decision that states that unquestionably.
Second, I never said anything about the dual citizen NOT being born to two citizen parents- only that foreign law cannot be used to disqualify a candidate for President because we have no control over it. I will be eligible to run for President when I turn 35 even though I’m a dual citizen of the US and Poland because it cannot be held against me that my mother and grandparents, though naturalized citizens, retained their Polish citizenship because Polish law does not recognize their naturalization. Foreign law does not matter; only American law matters, per Article VI of the US Constitution.
Before making wild assertions you should educate yourself. It is obvious you know nothing about Christians or Mormons. It might be beneficial to you if you were to read some books on the subject before you put your foot in your mouth again.
Arguments about whether Mormons are Christians are irrelevant. No, they’re not, but it’s not important, because Mormon beliefs are no sillier than any other set of theological propositions when examined from the outside.
If there’s anti-Mormon bigotry, I haven’t seen it. Though I expect that the ex-Mormon forum is going to get slammed.
The problem with Romney is that he’s a big-government manager. That’s it. That’s what people object to. That’s why we still are looking for “not-Rommey.”
THIS is why we oppose Mitt Romney. It has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, real or professed.
“Why are we even talking about Ron Paul…”? I don’t think you’ll still be asking that question next November 7th if Paul does the third party thingy and drains off just enough votes to give Obama another four years.
I agree that Ron Paul can’t possibly obtain the Republican nomination–as to the outcome, my crystal ball is back in Avalon for warranty repair service. But the support Ron Paul garners suggests a nasty mood among the voters, and that’s a concern.
After 2008, I’m just regarding this whole resurgence of the dried apple who walks like a man with puzzled bemusement.
There’s nothing there – Ron Paul’s conspiracy-minded hypocrisy is just what it was before, and I cannot quite take all the “viewing with alarm” as seriously as I ought to. It’s like caring about H. Ross Perot and his delusions – the difference being that at least Perot had some actual competence regarding economics, and Ron Paul touches reality only at widely scattered points.
Perot also cost George Bush Sr. the election. Mullah Paul is delusional, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t dangerous.
If he meant a word of it, he’d be dangerous. But he didn’t mean it in 2008 – despite his ‘bots running around and making vast amounts of noise – and he doesn’t mean it now. He never saw a pork-barrel or an earmark he didn’t like – he enjoys pandering to the suspicion that the smart people are playing the rest of us for saps, but he’s not serious. He doesn’t mean it, he’s frivolous, a hypocrite and a liar. His followers are naive and ignorant, and believe his latest talking point without reservation, and parrot his excuses for past statements.
He’s not dangerous. He’s not alarming. His movement, in the end, isn’t dangerous. It’s just puerile and foolish.
If he is not serious that makes him worse, not better.
It means he is a cheap huckster, willing to incite anything as long as there is a payday in it for him.
We’ve seen that in NYC with Al Sharpton and his crew more than once. Twice it resulted in riots that left people dead.
Sharpton was only inciting in a single city; Paul is inciting across the nation. How many could die in the riots that follow Paul’s followers not getting their way?
I don’t think the issue is whether Ron Paul is “dangerous” in the sense of capable of doing very bad things, but rather in teh sense of diminishing or diverting GOP support such that Obama is re-elected.
I wonder if Paul’s appeal in Iowa might be partially because he looks and sounds, complete with “plain-talkin’ country wisdom” demeanor, like a Midwestern farmer.
I think it’s just as likely that Paul’s support in Iowa is due to mischief on the part of Democrats. Obama is unopposed on the Democrat side* so the field is open for partisan hacks to make mischief on the Republican side.
*Of course, those who think the Iowa Causus is such a wonderful thing will claim that Obama’s “win” next Tuesday just proves how good the caucus is at predicting things. On the Democrat side, Iowa is a good predictor of the party nominee. Of the 8 Iowa Caucus (cauci?) since 1980, 7 have had opposing candidates (Clinton was unopposed in 1996). Of those 7, 5 of the winners of the Iowa Caucus went on to win the Democrat nomination and 2 won the presidency. On the Republican side, in 3 of the Iowa Caucui since 1980 the sitting president was unopposed (Reagan in 1984, Bush ’41 in 1992 and Bush ’43 in 2004) so those don’t count. In the 5 remaining, the winner of the Iowa Caucus won the Republican nomination twice and the presidency once. The Iowa Caucus is a much better predictor on the Democrat side than the Republican side.
No, Ross Perot did not cause George H.W. Bush the 1992 election.
While 1992 wasn’t a “wave” election, the ’92 Reelect Campaign of George Bush, Sr. was one of the more incompetent outings in modern times. As you are fully aware, Mr. Goldman, Bush the Elder had signed on to two job-killing pieces of legislation cleverly foisted on him by George Mitchell, the 10% “Wealth” surtax that went about the business of killing the boat, RV, and small plane industry in this country, and the 1991 Andrews AFB agreement in which GHWB broke his “No New Taxes” pledge that he made in 1988.
Those two moves broke the back of the Reagan Coalition. Once that happened, it was relatively easy for Clinton to win in 1992. Bushies always find a way to lose. Without Perot in the race, alienated conservatives would have either stayed home or found a way to write in the then mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin.
Perot did not cost Bush the Elder that race. Clinton won it fair and square. The Bushies were incompetent at politics. Always have been. Always will be. Except when fighting other Republicans, of course. Democrats usually beat the Bushes like rented mules. The fact that Bush the Younger barely beat John Kerry should tell you something.
That’s a fair point: if Bush Elder hadn’t been trapped in his self-referential Establishment world, Ross Perot wouldn’t have had the opportunity.
I think that the descriptor “dried apple who walks like a man” belongs to Buzzsawmonkey. I didn’t mean to steal it, it just struck me as very apt.
Mr. Goldman, do you (does anyone?)know of studies or polls which explain what so-called Paul voters did in 2008? My impression at the time was that it was a bit scattered; not at all monolithic in favoring McCain. Libertarians to whom Paul had the most appeal could be found voting for Obama, McCain, the Libertarian candidate – whoever that was, and not voting at all; with variability a function of age. It seems to be assumed that the “typical” Paul voter – if there’s ever been such a thing – has been a lock for Republicans in the past. It’ my impression that’s not been the case. However this assumption underlies predictions that the effect of an independent run by Paul or Johnson, the latter apparently a reality, cuts predominantly against the Republican candidate. Given the present volatility of the electorate, such predictions seem premature.
Having said that, I do wonder where these voters are, and in what numbers, who voted for McCain last time, in the face of our over-hyped historic moment, and who will now vote for Obama this time, stay home, or suddenly decide to vote for Johnson, Paul, or some other third party. Obama maxed out his support among minority voters, the youth vote, as well as those who just wanted to be part of the zeitgeist of the moment. Despite this he did not achieve a landslide – against McCain. Obama cannot afford a shift of 3% from last time. How likely is he to hold on to his previous percentages? I just wonder, who has the greater defection problem to deal with?
Perhaps the more interesting question to consider is what effect that nasty mood will have on state-wide and congressional races. It might reinforce the results of the 2010 mid-terms with a vengeance. That would be profound and as important as the outcome of the presidential contest.
The necessary changes to be made that you’ve suggested over the years here and in your posts at the Asia Times Online are not likely to occur even with a Republican President in office after 2012 until the electorate instructs, and most importantly allows, its representatives to make those changes. We’re not there yet, but a reconsideration may be underway.
Mr. Goldman — a “nasty mood” is precisely what the Republican establishment needs in order to survive. It has spent the last twelve years telling its base “where ya gonna go, chump, the DEMOCRATS??” (c.f. all the brouhaha over the “extreme” Paul-Ryan budgetary tempest inna teapot)
The Ryan vote really has little to do with Ryan at all — I agree with Henninger. It’s the base telling the establishment “we’re sick of your crap.”
Mr. Goldman, there is a reason I always read your pieces, you are able to see the forest from among the trees.
There is something lurking behind the support of Ron Paul. We have seen it many times, in this country in the 1930s it never gained enough momentum to sieze power, but in other countries it did. A perpetual threat that emerges whenever middle class people see their expectations for the future dashed.
America can come back, should come back, but not with a community organizer/class warfare instigator as POTUS.
Please, for the sake of the global economy, boot Barry’s butt out the door in November.
Obamassiah’s first four years have been economically catastrophic.
A second four year term would be economically terminal.
I agree, If Obama’s re-elected, the US is in really serious trouble.
There is an eye-opening article in the Washington Times this morning. You would be appalled at the willingness of rural Iowans to give Obama a second chance.
And remember, this isn’t a WaPo wet kiss from Dana Milbank or Greg Sargent. This is the “Moonie Rag” talking.
There are enough stupid people in this country who think that the Nineties can come back. Obama is counting on this.
I am not afraid of the economic harm a second Obama term would inflict.
We survived 16 years of Hoover and FDR, we can survive 8 of Obama.
No, what I fear from 4 more years of Obama are 1-3 more Supreme Court nominations, and 10-20 Republicans voting for them because the President is supposed to get his way on the nominations after the Senate has whined about them, or whatever the excuses they gave for Kagan and Sotomayor.
Mr. Goldman, one huge problem with this piece, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He espouses trade and friendship with all nations. Because he is more interested in dialogue and friendship than invasion and destruction, he is inaccurately labeled an isolationist. Ron Paul supports sovereignty of individuals and other nations, including.
last sentence of my comment was cut off. It should read:
Ron Paul supports sovereignty of individuals and other nations, including Israel and Iran.
Ron Paul is consistent in his outlook. In that one respect he is no different than President Obama. Both differ on principles, but are internally consistent. The internal consistency of both men makes them dangerous, because in remaining consistent, they must throw away nasty facts even after being slapped in the face by them. “The vision thing” is a cruel hoax in light of the complexity of the issues of the day.
last sentence of my comment was cut off. It should read:
Ron Paul supports sovereignty of individuals and other nations, including Israel and Iran.
An Israeli invented a new kind of tourniquet that has saved many U.S. soldiers’ lives. Ditto for the new vehicle armor produced by another Israeli company. They work with us on missile defense technology. Teva Pharmaceuticals produces life-saving drugs that benefit the whole world. The majority of Microsoft Windows coding was done by Israelis. Israelis have won ten Nobel Prizes. Scientific and techical discoveries come out of Israel virtually every day. All of Arabia, on the other hand, has a GDP less than that of Finland and has contributed nothing of scientific or technical significance since the 9th century. Yet if the former faces an existential threat from the latter, Ron Paul would do nothing to help them. Nor would he have helped defend Europe from being overrun by the Nazis or the USSR.
The man is an Isolationist with a capital “I.”
“has contributed nothing of scientific or technical significance since the 9th century.”
and that wasn’t even muslims.. it was the Christian and Jewish slaves/dhimmis that produced ideas.. when they died out, islamic lands became sh*tholes that produced souls for hell as they battered against Europe..
You are correct, and thanks for reminding me. I often say that one big source of the Arabs’ current troubles is that they killed, converted and exiled their Jews and Christians.
Intel produced the microcode and 8088/8086/80286/80386/80486 et seq chip logic at Haifa.
It’s noted in their annual reports over the years.
No where have I read such for Microsoft. It’s a Redmond outfit right down the line.
DLLs are written all over.
The majority of Microsoft Windows coding was done by Israelis.
Thanks a lot for contributing to the upsurge in worldwide anti-Semitism!
That’s only if you accept at face value Paul’s denial that he knew what was printed in ten years of his looney newsletters. And if you’re that credulous, I’d like to sell you some triple-AAA rated bonds backed by subprime home equity loans.
I do, in fact, accept at face value Ron Paul’s explanation regarding the “looney” newsletters. Based on research, the wording in the newsletters is blatantly out of character, and bears no resemblance to any public appearances I have seen on television or youtube. I would like Ron Paul to hold a press conference to more formally explain the newsletters. The majority of thinking citizens can see through the media attempts to smear him just as easily as they see through your article.
I have a simpler explanation. He’s a poltroon (probably shortened his name to “Paul” at Ellis Island).
Okay. You’re the professional journalist, so whatever you say. . .
Cute, but don’t forget that Ron Paul’s military service is the strongest in the bunch. His position on war is most informed by his own experience, as a surgeon.
Nice to hear he had an unimpeachable military record. So did Marshal Pétain.
You are misinformed.
He is trained as an OB/GYN. He served as a flight surgeon which is a bit of a misnomer.
A flight surgeon is a medical job, not a surgical one. It means that in your unit you are tasked with making sure that flyers and other personell are medically fit to do their job. This is who you have to get clearance from if you are sick or injured before flying, or performing other duties related to maintaince or air traffic. It is the basic medical officer who must sign off before you go back to work. Any doctor such as family practice, internist, etc can be a flight surgeon.
It does show that as a doctor he had enough ability to be trusted with this task and did not screw up. It hardly qualifies him as a great gynecologist or obstetrician. Most of those folks sub specialize. He does not qualify as a brave combat surgeon in the thick of things.
Then again he is not running for the chair of OB/GYN at Hopkins so maybe not so important. I would not brag about his medical career so much if I were a supporter. He abandoned that calling long ago.
HG … RP served as a USAF OBGYN during Vietnam but apparently did his service stateside.
OBGYNs would not, of course, be expected to conduct Long-Range Patrol missions in the Mekong Delta. But I’m sure if RP was persistent in volunteering he could have served a tour in Vietnam.
Would you care to speculate as to why RP (that “dried up apple of a man” as Dianna put it) never stepped up to serve, I mean with all that incredible military experience with which you credit him…? Perhaps it is the same reason he won’t come clean about his sleazy newsletters … lack of moral fiber?
BTW, Rick Perry was a USAF C130 pilot.
Just because the writing style suggests he did not write them does not constitute evidence he was unaware of the content. The two are not inextricably linked.
As for more press appearances, Ron Paul has appeared in multiple clips discussing the newsletters.
In the first two, from 1995, he points to the newsletters as evidence of his qualifications to run for Congress.
In the third, from 1996, he claims quotes from the newsletters were taken out of context but are completely factually true, and he approves them.
In the fourth, from 2008, he suddenly changes direction and claims he never read them or wrote them but his staff told him that saying that would be confusing in 1995 so he lied about them then.
In the most recent series from 2010 and 2011 he repudiated them completely, denying he had any idea of the content, or how much he made from them.
Along with that he declared the content was only inflammatory because of the media, tacitly suggesting that he found nothing inflammatory about them himself, even though he still repudiated them entirely.
What exactly would he do in another press conference, come up with a more consistent lie?
Adolph Hitler was an army veteran.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, if his name is on the newsletters, than he is responsible for what is in them. If he cannot handle the responsibility there, why should he be given responsibility for the whole country?
One of the problems with the Libertarians is that, being so few in number, they never had the guts or the heart to do away with the Stormfront crowd.
Buckley, wisely, understood that for conservatism to grow, the Birchers had to be purged root and branch. The Libertarians won’t be able to be taken seriously until they get rid of the Totenkopfverbande and the people who still hate Lincoln over the fact that he used Federal Power to win the “War of Northern Agression”.
I swear to G-d, if you want to conduct a science experiment, go to ANY libertarian website and post a long encomium to Abraham Lincoln on the anniversary of any significant date in the Civil War. It’s like setting off a jack-in-the-box in a room full of Rhesus Monkeys.
The US cornered the Soviets using far less force than the hawks are advocating against Iran. What if Reagan tried to go to war instead? They would have rallied around the flag!
If anything, Ron Paul’s fairness and friendship would help Iran handle their demographic fall more than anything else, and diffuse most of the existential angst. Internet piracy, fast cars, and cheap steaks have a way of pacifying people. You see it countless times throughout history and around the world.
Vastly more Democrats would turn out for Ron Paul than Republicans would turn out for Obama. Nominating someone like Romney or Gingrich is just ASKING for a disgruntled third party run. Ron Paul absolutely needs to win the nomination to get Obama out!
“What if Reagan tried to go to war instead? They would have rallied around the flag!”
Reagan did use force against Iran. It was called ‘Operation Praying Mantis’ in response to Iranian mining of the Gulf. Iran ended up with several destroyed platforms, two frigates in flames with one sinking, and lost a number of smaller craft.
Iran backed off
Actually Iran QUIT the war on the mere presumption that Reagan was tacitly allying with Iraq.
That’s the impression they took from the shoot-down of their airliner.
This cause and effect has only become common knowledge in recent years.
So, with a terrible irony, the downed airliner saved countless lives on the battle front.
HG wrote: “The US cornered the Soviets using far less force than the hawks are advocating against Iran”
I seem to remember that the containment of Communism involved a few minor actions: The Korean War, The Vietnam War, etc. There were also the nuclear face-offs with the USSR over Cuba and the emplacement of cruise and intermediate range missiles in Europe (see DPG’s book).
How about eliminating the threat of Iran and its current government before they field nukes? That way, in addition to avoiding a terrible future problem and providing an example of the failure and humiliation of the signature Radical Islamic regime, we’ll give folks such as yourself and the other Paulians, OWS, etc., years of raw material for entertaining comments about how we over-reacted and mis-judged the mullahs (“they were really environmentalists and womyn’s rights activists!”).
I like you! Go on!
Dianna,
Thank you for your nice comment, but what more is there to say in this case? Reality trumps parody.
I think the whole Paul-bot/ista genre is beyond parody. But let’s attribute that to a failure of imagination on my part.
I will also add to this that taking on the USSR directly was very different from destroying (or trying to) the Iranian nuclear facilities. The USSR was much stronger than Iran and already had nukes. Iran’s power is very far from America’s and it’s best they won’t have nukes which will allow them to act much bolder under the cover of nuclear deterrence. But Iran might try to respond with terrorism on US soil.
One other difference between the Soviet Union and Iran: the Soviet leadership thought that there was nothing beyond the grave. They were not interested in coming out of their underground shelters (if they were fortunate) to preside over a radioactive wasteland. Push came to shove, and they were not going to risk hundreds of millions of dead. (It could happen by accident or miscalculation, but not intentionally.)
Iran’s leaders are quite convinced that they are going to start an apocalyptic war which will end with the twelfth imam presiding over a worldwide caliphate. If they die in the process, no problem, they are off to the paradise of perpetual virgins and perpetually fresh boys. (Yes, it’s in the Koran–I have checked this myself.)
This will make me really popular, but how are the Iranians apocalyptic visions any different than those of some of our evangelical sects?
Some people are all for our involvement with Israel on biblical grounds. How likely is it that if they got control of the button they would push it. Not very, methinks.
If the Iranians were really that batshit crazy they’ve had plenty of opportunities to start some serious shit up to now….
Excuse me: the evangelicals didn’t give plastic keys to small children and send them in mass across minefields. The evangelicals don’t engage in violence. They just preach. You can take it or leave it in a free country. The comparison is odious.
If anything, Ron Paul’s fairness and friendship would help Iran handle their demographic fall more than anything else, and diffuse most of the existential angst. Internet piracy, fast cars, and cheap steaks have a way of pacifying people. You see it countless times throughout history and around the world.
This is the argument that best demonstrates the ignorance of Dr. Paul and his followers. What the citizens of Iran feel is of absolutely no consequence in this matter. They don’t run the country. The mullahs that do hate us, hate our way of life, hate Christianity, desire a world-wide caliphate (and are actively working towards it), and have no qualms about attacking us if they think that they can get away with it. It would be trivial for the Iranians to make peace with us: stop rattling sabers about the Strait of Hormuz, stop sponsoring Islamic terrorists, and stop threatening us.
The libertarian ideology that Ron Paul and the Paulbots preach is something they take on faith. They are impervious to any amount of evidence that reality tries to show them. They’ll go on believing until a real mullah shows up and decapitates them.
John Bolton: If you’re thinking of voting for Ron Paul, think again!
Unfortunately, due to the situation with the Virginia ballot, I have to choose between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Given that choice, I have to go with Paul. I wholly endorse a brokered convention.
“It would be trivial for the Iranians to make peace with us”
This statement proves that you are not a Shi’ite. One may never quiver before the enemy. Such weakness is worse than death. Their current posturing consisting of bellicose warmongering statements is required by their religious principles. Their belief is that the greater the verbal threat, the less likely is the enemy to attack. Unfortunately, it is a complete misreading of the West. Sufficient threatening makes the West man-up. The only question is, “What constitutes sufficient threatening?”
It’s important to note that Ron Paul’s support does not by and large come from Republicans or Conservatives. He only polls well in states where either anyone can vote (like Iowa where you can sign up that day and very few people vote anyway) or New Hampshire (where Independents and Democrats can vote in the Republican primary. Once he has to face a real Republican electorate, like in South Carolina or Florida, he will obviously fizzle.
Paul’s nutcase supporters bother me even more than the candidate himself. His supporters know no history (he gets much of his support from the 18-29 year old age group) and they lack wisdom.
Ron Paul’s belief in the Golden Rule for all is a misreading of human nature and recent history; you can’t offer the Golden Rule to nations that know nothing of it and don’t believe in it.
Remember when the whole world’s approval of America went up about 10 percentage points when Obama was elected? Double that, and imagine it staying there, if Ron Paul were elected. The golden rule is nice, but the kind of goodwill America would get from choosing a peaceful leader would be very, very real.
The average Iranian or Palestinian can imagine fighting someone like Bush or Cheney. Rightly or wrongly, everything about those guys smelled of imperialism. An anti-war Republican, on the other hand, is about as cordial as it comes in geopolitcs. The effect would be similar to 9/11, in terms of international political capital.
You’re not listening: the Iranians hate us because the creative destruction we have unleashed on the world is destroying the remnants of their society. The world America has created has no place for them. They are finished, whatever we do. “Peaceable leader”? Don’t make me ask. But the same creative destruction has brought forth a generation of Chinese and Indian kids who ask no mercy from the world, who study 12 hours a day in the hope of being one out of 500 accepted at the top universities, whose life experience have told them that the only the best and toughest will make it. Either we compete with them head on in the new world we have brought into being, or we will be poor, miserable, insecure, and, quite often, dead. My objection to Ron Paul is that he gives us pretext to think that we deserve a place in the sun merely because we’re Americans.
I think you’re confusing Ron Paul with Mitt Romney.
Ordinary Iranians love America. American propaganda would have us believe otherwise.
The ordinary Iranians who don’t hate us also don’t rule Iran. The ones who do hate us, do.
DPG – “But the same creative destruction has brought forth a generation of Chinese and Indian kids who ask no mercy from the world, who study 12 hours a day in the hope of being one out of 500 accepted at the top universities, whose life experience have told them that the only the best and toughest will make it. Either we compete with them head on in the new world we have brought into being, or we will be poor, miserable, insecure, and, quite often, dead.”
There is the crux, folks. Mr Goldman has nailed it squarely on the head. We Americans can run and gun at each other all we want, subject our candidates to a circular firing squad, argue the appropriate size for our national government and discuss/dispute/cuss the myriad issues that face us, bt if we don’t return to a philosophy of hard work yilds the best results, and nothing good comes without effort and sacrifice, then we’ll be overwhelmed by Chuina and India regardless of who’s arse regularaly rests on the chairs inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in DC. Yes, we face a massive problem with the upcoming election, and it’s appropriate to make our views known, but if we neglect the idea behind those two sentences above we may well be done as the world’s best and brightest.
OK, some typos in the above post. Sorry.
If only “the best and the toughest will make it,” what will happen to those who are not the best and the toughest among us? Even if we succeed per your urging, are you not recommending a policy whereby large portions of the American population will come to an equilibrium with the poorer among the Chinese and the Indians?
You are right that there is no alternative but to compete on equal terms with others, but I doubt that such a country would still be America.
Forget about China and India, Chinese-American and Indian-American children, right here in the U.S., study for hours, while most of their Occidental counterparts are watching TV, listening to rap music and playing videogames. And note that these super-achievers are non-white “Third Worlders.” Indeed, I wonder if Mr. Goldman has noticed (and would care to comment), in his work experience on Wall Street, that blacks holding mid- and high-level positions, tend to have African and Jamaican accents. That definitely was the case, years ago, when I worked at Smith Barney.
To avoid the “nightmare scenario” you posit, all that is necessary is for American kids to study as hard as Asians and Indians because whether they do or don’t, they are going to have to compete with them.
It’s not that they’re not listening. It’s just far too complex a thought process for a Paulistinian – or an Obaman for that matter. Best save your breath – err, typing.
Lol. David you are scared and naive. I finally get it now. You neocons are terrified of the world and see enemies behind every corner and in every nook and cranny of the world. It’s pathethic, and It causes you to do stupid things. You admit that the Iranians hate us because we have unleashed creative destruction on the world, and yet you still want to pursue that idiotic policy? Why? to prove they hate us? The world America has created had no place for them? God, I almost threw up in my mouth. Why would anyone except that station in life? You praise indians who study and do all this hard work thinking they will submit to America’s place that is designated for them, but they won’t. They will make their country better and help their citizens. We should do the same but if we keep listening to deluded old white men who think they know ever gd thing, we are doomed.
Because the Iranian leadership is evil. They deserve no place in this world. I don’t care whether they like it or not, because they deserve to be erased from history. Islam is the inverse of Christianity; superficially it condemns the same things, but when it comes to the weightier things like justice, fidelity and truth, Islam encourages what the Bible condemns as vile. May the name of Mohammed be held in everlasting derision.
So you propose we exterminate swaths of civilians because their leaders are “evil”? News flash! There are a ton of evil people in this world. You can’t kill them all. There is a better way to deal with Iran, there has to be.
You asked why the mullahs should accept their station in life. I replied that I don’t care whether they accept it or not, because they deserve far worse. Let them crumble and rot. What they want is of no interest to me whatsoever.
Your comment shows that you did not understand this essay at all.
Pay closer attention to what the author is really saying. You may need to look up the term “creative destruction.” You seem to be taking it literally or mistaking it for a military term. Once you understand that it is a common expression in business circles, you might have better luck with this essay.
The author is talking about the global nature of the economy and the interconnectedness of the world. He is pointing out that these factors cannot be changed–we can’t go back to a less connected world that doesn’t have a global economy. The essence of this post is that both the Iranian mullahs and Ron Paul (and many other people who are naive for any number of reasons) share the delusion that the clock can be turned back to a simpler time. It’s a great insight.
Thank you for the clarity.
No myth buster! Not the mullahs! The iranian people that end up being looked at as cannon fodder because they have a bad government. Pay attention!
No, Sarah, I understand exactly what is meant by “creative destruction.” There is truth to the destructive part of it. Ron Paul is not simply saying we should roll everything back to simpler times. He is saying we need to stop meddling with countries–telling them what economic systems they should have, telling them how they should create democracy, and invading them under false pretenses. So you have misunderstood Ron Paul. Creative destruction is a marxist concept anyway, then it became a laissze-faire concept. It is a an observation of capitalism at its worst. And it is happening in the middle east because of destructive, neoliberal economic policies that benefit elites and leave all the others to fight over scraps. Read about it. The shock doctrine is a good starting point. And don’t get too caught up with the woman’s political beliefs. I don’t necessarily agree with all of her political beliefs, but the book is spot on and is well researched and referenced.
I think you missed Mr. Goldman’s point. “Creative destruction” is not some force or plan that the U.S. “unleashed” on the world, it is simply average Americans getting up every day, going to work, worshiping on the weekends – in a society based on freedom – economic, speech and religious – where merit is rewarded, but most of all, where they are free to pursue their dreams without needing leave from, or being directed by, the government. Arabia and Europe are falling behind because they continue to purse the fantasy that a “planned society,” whether by mullahs in Teheran or bureaucrats in Brussels – or Berlin, or Paris – can ever be as successful as ours. Asian societies, on the other hand – Korea, Hong Kong, etc. – realized the superiority of the U.S. system long ago, have sought to emulate it and today are succeeding wildly. Sadly and ironically, we Americans, the ones who created the greatest, freest form of government on earth, are governed by a president who denies the superiority of the U.S. system and is as delusional as the mullahs and Eurocrats in believing that their systems are not historical dead ends headed for the “ash heap of history” and failing before our very eyes.
Interesting that the birth rate in Israel has been increasing, and not only due to the arab or haredi population (Israeli Arab birthrate is declining), even as the economy has improved and everyone is literate and educated. The opposite from what you would expect. It is now higher than Iran and as far as I know the only top tier developed economy where this is happening. I have no idea why but am very happy to see it.
Paul is a novelty candidate for now. Even if he were to get the Republican ticket Obama would bury him. Heck I would switch sides if that were the case.
I’m going to vote my conscience in the primary and Republican in the general, but has anyone else noticed that the voting game is rigged in this country? There’s always just two choices – red or blue. And just like Kool-Aid, the main difference is the color. There are differences at the margin, but it all comes from the same source: major corporate campaign contributors. Yeah, Wall St gives more to Democrats, while oil and gas gives more to Republicans. But most industries don’t discriminate; they bribe both sides equally. And the rest of us have to made do with letter writing campaigns.
The Republican-Democrat cartel has controlled access to government power since before the Civil War. DeBeers and Standard Oil have (had) got nothing on them. This game is rigged.
1. The election system is rigged so there’s only ever two choices. A vote for a third party is guaranteed to be wasted / elect your enemy. And we wonder why we keep holding our noses and voting for RINOs? The game is rigged.
2. The campaign finance system is rigged so that established interests control who has the money. The Establishment chose Romney, and look how he’s held in there despite 80% of the Republican electorate being “anyone but Romney”.
3. The House districts are so rigged we even have a word for it – gerrymandering. Everyone knows about this, and still nothing is done. The Democratic-Republicans conspire to divide up the voters, making your vote even more meaningless than pure numbers of 300 million:1 would suggest.
4. The ballot access rules are rigged to make it incredibly difficult for anyone to meaningfully challenge the party choices at the primary or general elections.
—
There are two changes that have to be made to introduce real competition and accountability in Washington DC. And they depend on breaking the power of the two-headed beast permanently residing at the heart of Capitol building.
1. Change the voting system to Approval or Range Voting.
2. Change campaign finance. Constituents only. No corporations.
How to get there from here though remains a bit of a quandry. In each election cycle the two-headed beast keeps the electorate distracted with debates on crony capitalism v. crony socialism, and pro-life v. pro-abortion. And no one takes the time to say “This time, we’re just going to fix the electoral system.”
I don’t see where Range Voting would help minor party/3rd party candidates at all. For that, you’d need a Parliamentary system, which you don’t mention.
Plus: the gerrymandering likewise does no damage to 3rd parties. They are a deal the Democrats and Republicans have made to give themselves secure House seats (the Senate is not susceptible to gerrymander). The alternative would be constant redistricting so as to create new districts having close to a 50/50 party split–in effect, permanent swing districts. There’d be a lot less seniority and a lot less backlog of administratrive experience. Do we want that?
A Parliamentary system would allow minor blocs within a population to have “best fit” representation. Like Greens and Libertarians. But approval and range are even better, because it allows a given population to find a true consensus candidate. Someone who gets 75% of the vote beats any Republican or Democrat with 52%.
It’s not about getting fringe parties in office. Hello, gridlock. It’s about electing your conscience every time without throwing your vote away, and the most popular candidate actually winning.
Rochefoucauld may have been speaking of Ron Paul–defects of the mind, like those of the face, grow worse with age.
Garet Garret condensed many of the facts which are in the minds of Paulbots, but he never drew the odd conclusions we hear from Paul.
The rhetoric from Paulist commenters reminds me of the rhetoric from Obama lovers. It’s starting to sound like the emanations of a personality cult. Remember, voters: he’s just a guy.
A very stupid and potentially dangerous guy.
The second page seems to argue against the first. Yes, we need to compete globally. How does our foreign policy facilitate that? It’s quite the contrary. Our massive aimless occupation of the middle east is the dinosaur with a pea sized brain.
Men and women are plucked from their communities not to work for private companies but for the state and essentially be in the service of countries on the other side of the world who are totally foreign to us and don’t pay us taxes. manning checkpoints in iraq benfits Iraqi, not americans and of course we are all taxed to pay for this which means less wealth here.
If we have sanctions on Iran, american companies can’t do business there. isn’t THAT isolationism? China doesn’t have bases in all these countries. india Brazil, etc It’s not part of capitalism.
I don’t care much for Ron Paul, my first choice was Sarah Palin, but i am being forced to support RP because he is the only non-progressive left with any kind of a shot at winning, if the RNC would get behind a real conservative like Bachmann or Santorum i would drop RP like a hot potato, i will NOT EVER vote for a progressive republican like Romney, Newt or Perry.
NOT EVER!
I would have preferred Sarah Palin–but realistically, she is not corrupt enough to get elected. Ron Paul as the Republican nominee guarantees Obama’s re-election. I would prefer not to have Romney–but if that’s the nominee, that’s our only chance of stopping Obama’s second term. Ron Paul’s baggage (and not just on foreign policy) will make him unelectable. His conspiracy theory baggage, his reluctance to reject 9/11 Trutherism, his John Birch Society connections, his unwillingness to reject support by neo-Nazis–would make Obama a landslide victory.
Just out of curiosity, Shoey: Did you vote for McCain in 2008?
….hey, Shoey….
Any mention at all of Sarah Palin abruptly brings to mind the fact that she quit her Governorship of Alaska. I’ve forgotten just why, but the fact remains that she gave up that job…..apparently after doing a credible job. Why did she run in the first place?
How could you vote for someone like her to be our Commander In Chief and President of the United States? Would she “want out”?
Who knows, who could tell what was/is in her mind?
fed up with the GOP, they are not serious about cutting anything, they are liars and decievers, almost as bad as the dems.
that only leaves the libertarians.
I don’t really like RP but at least he isn’t a progressive/progressive enabler.
and if you don’t like what I say, think hard about who brought about this situtation (hint: it ain’t me or people like me, we just want the government to leave us alone)
I love libertarians, but Ron Paul is a dangerous nutball.
“Mullah?” Is that the best you can do to discredit a candidate, sliding into an Alinsky style long drawn out ad hominem attack? I guess your intellectual quiver was empty and all you could come up with was a typical neoconservative serving of steaming bovine excrement.
Not ad hominem. I mean something very precise by “Mullah.” I mean quite specifically that Ron Paul supporters like you have a milder form of the Iranian disease: paranoid rage against the creative destruction that is uprooting your lives. I am drawing a direct analogy between Paul (and you) and the Iranians, although there is a world of difference, to be sure, between an enraged and paranoid American and an enraged and paranoid Iranian. Nonetheless, they have in common rage and paranoia, both of which stem from the same source: the world is changing at a rate that would have been incomprehensible a generation ago, and is still incomprehensible to some people (like you) now. Iran wants to go back to a mythical Middle Ages that never existed; Ron Paul wants to go back to a mythical halcyon period of American history that never existed. None of the Iranians will make it; the culture is doomed and Persian will be a curiosity rather than a major language a century from now. There’s no hope for Egypt, either, and a lot of other places. But there’s still hope for the USA, provided we decide to take the world on rather than shut our eyes and try to make it go away.
As a matter of fact, for the past eight years I’ve been lambasting some of the neoconservatives–my friends–for the folly of occupying Arab countries in the Quixotesque hope of building democracies. Or maybe I missed your meaning: by “neoconservative,” do you perhaps mean, pro-Israel?
“As a matter of fact, for the past eight years I’ve been lambasting some of the neoconservatives–my friends–for the folly of occupying Arab countries in the Quixotesque hope of building democracies”
isn’t that exactly what you’re advocating though? and exactly what Paul is against?
and if you think the Middle East is such a hopeless hellhole why do you want US to be so involved with it?
“The same resentment motivates Ron Paul and the Iranian leadership — a paranoid hostility toward a world that is swiftly changing and has little mercy”
that analogy is way off. it applies much more to the DC elites who have margenalized him. His candidacy is famously, or infamously, internet driven and by young people in particular.
David Forward used the term, “neo-conservative” and DPG challenged him to clarify what he meant by it.
I’m just taking a wild guess and a flying leap into conjecture, but I think he means “Jew” or “Jew who is a lot smarter and more successful than I’ll ever be”.
If you accept the idea that both parties have moved markedly left, neocon can mean rino. W, who I like and admire, is IMHO rino.
The GOP needs to fall in love again with small government, conservative, libertarian ideas. (Instead of erecting democrats such as George H.W Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and now Romney). I’m resigned to a second Zero term. It may be too late to change course.
“China indirectly brought about the so-called Arab Spring, by driving up world grain prices and pricing the Arab poor out of the world market for food.”
Wasn’t the Quantitative Easing by the Fed a bigger factor in all commodity price rises?
just asking..
Food commodities don’t typically act as a store of value under conditions of inflation. In any case, quantitative easing didn’t produce a lot of inflation because the high-powered money went into a liquidity trap. Ethanol, of course, had something to do with higher grain prices. But the main driver in the long-term rise in food prices is demand.
demand from China has been steadily rising and this demand has led to more food being produced. what isn’t increasing is the oil and thus it’s price has gone up BUT you can allow for higher food prices because of transport prices which include oil. However, to say the massive quantitive easing that has gone on around the world hasn’t also affected those prices is crazy.I’m not a quantitative theory adherent but when you triple the money supply it’s going to affect prices.
David,
Unfortunately as much as I admire your work this anti-Ron Paul screed was about as predictable as the Sun rising. While I greatly admire your insights into demographics and your fundamental insight that lack of faith is leading to economic collapse worldwide, I can’t say I’m surprised you hopped on the PJM bandwagon of ceaseless Ron Paul hate expressed over the past two weeks when it became obvious that he could actually win in Iowa. Peer pressure is a very strong force, as is the massive amount of misinformation that has been spread about Paul’s views on Israel. If Paul really hated Israel the way he’s been accused of, why in the hell would he have not joined the chorus that condemned Israel’s bombing of the Osirik reactor back in the 1980s? Instead he spoke up for Israel at a time that the Reagan Administration felt it had to condemn it.
The desperation on PJM’s part and of the neocons you’ve so eloquently criticized to discredit Paul is palpable. I’m reminded of what one of the leaders of the Sanhedrin told his fellows when the Apostles were being persecuted in the book of Acts. He said if this Nazarene movement is of men, then it will be flash in the pan and fail, but if it is of G-d, you will find yourselves fighting against G-d. Similarly, even if Ron Paul the man is defeated as I expect he will be, his movement will carry on, with Rand Paul, and your peers at PJM will not have such an easy time finding dirt or ‘kooky’ quotes on him when he comes forth with a simple refrain of ‘we…can’t…afford…it.’ in response to all the weeping and gnashing of teeth over the late great American military base empire.
“You’re not listening: the Iranians hate us because the creative destruction we have unleashed on the world is destroying the remnants of their society. The world America has created has no place for them. They are finished.” Then if the mullahs are finished why do have to wreck what’s left of the Western economies with air strikes that will close the Strait of Hormuz and result in $7 a gallon gasoline?
Why can’t containment work with a society that you’ve pointed out repeatedly is already dying with its Islamist regime? You’ve even admitted that perversely all the turmoil in the Middle East you say the U.S. should exploit like Richelieu has increased oil prices and has been one of the last pillars propping up the rotting Islamic Republic. Why confirm Pakistan’s paranoia and give the mullahs the chance to buy a bomb from Pakistan after we bomb their reactors, thereby clinching Iran as a nuclear power?
Why pretend that Ron Paul’s view that Israel can take care of itself vis a vis Iran and no U.S. air strikes are necessary is the view of the recently retired Mossad chief? Why do his views expressed in Haaretz never get repeated in the NYT, or the WaPost?
And last of all, what is futuristic about a group of bureaucrats and mediocre academics such as Mr. Bernanke sitting around a room, decreeing how much is an adequate money supply not only for the U.S., but for an entire global economy which as you’ve correctly pointed out, still looks to the dollar despite its debasement? Isn’t that as Paul has pointed out a form of monetary central planning akin to the old Soviet Politburo also trying to set prices?
I look forward to your honest, intellectual attempt to grapple with these questions, rather than the kind of crude, visceral hatred expressed by smug people who consider themselves to be part of the fiat money-fueled Establishment. Example here:
http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=5901#comment-86006
Your friend,
Senor Equis
America needs reliable allies in a dangerous part of the world. Israel is already selling key military technology to the US and has other capabilities that benefit us. The military alliance with Israel is the most cost-effective investment we make in our own defense.
If Iranian-backed terrorists can operate under a nuclear umbrella, you’ll see oil at $250 a barrel before it’s over. Scotching the snake now is the only sensible thing to do.
As for the Fed: I’ve always supported a Mundellian price rule as opposed to absolute Fed discretion, and I’m no admirer of Bernanke. But the Fed is the least of our problem: the dollar has been rising (from Euro 1.60 to less than Euro 1.30 and long-term interest rates are falling because we are in a global deflation caused by incompetent fiscal policy. The way to get growth is a flat tax and regulatory rollback. A global agreement to link currencies and reduce the discretion of central banks would be good in this context, and a gold price rule could be part of the plan. But I don’t think Ron Paul has the slightest idea of what a gold standard means (or how many “gold standards” there are). Robert Mundell, the grandfather of supply-side economics and the intellectual author of the Reagan revolution is the great authority on this.
http://robertmundell.net/economic-policies/gold/
I don’t think providing an analogy which compares RP to Jesus Christ is over-the-top at all … not one bit … you Paulians are smack dab in the middle of the Republican mainstream, yup.
“‘You’re not listening: the Iranians hate us because the creative destruction we have unleashed on the world is destroying the remnants of their society. The world America has created has no place for them. They are finished.’ Then if the mullahs are finished why do have to wreck what’s left of the Western economies with air strikes that will close the Strait of Hormuz and result in $7 a gabely, I’m against air strikes, I think we should remove the regime. But I’ll settle for air strikes because the process that will finish the mullahs – the shrinking of future generations because of the lower birthrate today, will take much longer than it would take the mullahs to build, and detonate, an atomic bomb. And it would take only a relatively few to detonate the bomb – or bombs. Which is Mr. Goldman’s point: The switch the last Iranian throws will not turn out the light, it will detonate a nuclear arsenal – if we’re dumb enough to let them get one. Like Ron Paul.
The mullahs are engaged in economic agitprop.
They have no intention of actually shutting the straits EVER. They are the route for Iran’s food imports — and gasoline, too.
But saber rattling sure does wonders for higher crude prices.
“Chinese pigs will eat before
Arab peasants;” Perhaps if they get hungry enough, the Arabs will eat imported Chinese sweet and sour pork with pan fried noodles? What was that saying? Necessity is the mother of invention (and rote repetition is the mother of society).
They have to be able to afford them. The problem in Egypt right now is that the government – who provides subsistence rations to much of the population – can’t afford to purchase grain.
“paranoid rage against the creative destruction that is uprooting your lives.” And lastly David, it’s not paranoid to rage against a Federal Reserve raising prices for everyone as. It’s not paranoid to quote Italian bankers on the BBC who ought to know that Goldman Sachs really does run the world or at least think it does. It’s not paranoid to notice which TBTF banks got bailed out and which did not, and draw conclusions about who really tells Mr. Bernanke what to do. It’s not paranoia to point out that Mr. Corzine still walks a free man after presiding over one of the biggest account heists in the history of American finance.
Like I said, disagreeing with RP is fine. But David, I sincerely believe you’re under a lot of pressure from the PJM brass and others I won’t name to denounce Paul in all kinds of hysterical terms. And that’s very sad, but also a sign of Establishment GOP panic. It’s akin to Soviet Politburo members getting shrill and desperate cerca 1985. The only thing we seem to agree about at this point besides demographics and their economic impact is that the status quo in the U.S. is irreparably broken. If you and PJM think some mild mannered 76-year-old is a grave threat to the Republic, I’m afraid you haven’t seen anything yet.
I just submitted an article to PJM about the historical errors behind non-interventionist foreign policy, and that’s not because of “pressure from the PJM brass” but because I contributed money to the Ron Paul 1988 presidential campaign, worked actively in the LP in the 1980s, and have concluded that Paul’s ideas are profoundly dangerous. Whether Paul’s foreign policy would be more dangerous, long run, than Obama’s economic policy, is a difficult question to answer.
It’s good to see a libertarian who cares about advancing libertarianism renouncing Ron Paul. He is a dangerous nutball.
David, see my note to Michael Ledeen re: his buddies enthusiasm for supporting Muslim Brotherhood ‘freedom fighters’ in Syria. It’s rare that one gets a chance to talk back directly to the Beltway bandits, but there it is. Supporting the MBO is suddenly patriotic, apparently. I wish someone in Israel would finally speak up and rebuke these lunatics, but no one in Jerusalem is allowed to say that anyone in D.C. is more hawkish than they are these days, sadly.
See above. See my “Civil War” post prior to this one. I haven’t had so much fun since the hogs ate my kid brother.
….Gasp!
YIKES!
Sorry here it is:
Mr. X
2011-12-29 15:19:21
Let me elaborate — neocons deserved to be criticized on the House floor as they’ve learned nothing and publically regretted nothing since Iraq, with a few exceptions (maybe David Frum?).
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/28/obama_administration_secretly_preparing_options_for_aiding_the_syrian_opposition
Now they’re lining up to get behind a Muslim Brotherhood-led opposition in Syria. Isn’t that going to turn out just ducky for Israel, having these guys on the Golan Heights? Or are you so delusional Mr. Ledeen that you think that as soon as they throw out Assad and achieve power that they won’t start persecuting Syria’s Christians for allegedly supporting Assad (and perversely, plenty of Iraqi Christians who fled to Syria after the U.S. overthrew Saddam) and piling up rockets opposite the Golani Brigade’s positions?
Why are the people in your D.C. circles Mr. Ledeen getting in bed with the Emir of Qatar and perhaps even the Saudis to fund these ‘rebels’? Why does al-Jazeera not report that the rebels are massing at Incirlik and other NATO bases? Why do you stick your head in the sand and pretend Israel hasn’t been putting out feelers to Russia for the past few years as it starts worrying about a U.S. economic collapse, and a Washington that in some respects is more hawkish than the former Mossad chief? You pretend that doesn’t happen, I’ve seen it already happening in Moscow with plenty of Israelis working at Skolkovo.
You fear people like Russia’s Dmitry Rogozin, because he knows exactly how perverse these unholy alliances are, and how they’ll end up blowing back. You fear Islamists, but you want to play the great power game against your no. 1 adversaries China and Russia far more. From personal experience I know just how nuts the likes of Jim Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, and all your other pals really are.
End of thread for me.
I’m the guy who broke the story about Israeli-Russian talks about buying the Fullback fighter bomber. Whaddymean, head in the sand? But the US-Israel defense relationship is stronger than ever, at least where the Pentagon is concerned, and Israel is becoming a key supplier of high tech weaponry to the US. I’d be funding the rebels, in a heartbeat. Developments in Syria are terrific for Israel, as I’ve been saying all along. The Syrian military’s fighting capacity (and Syria’s capacity to fund a modern army) will be drastically degraded. The Russians are sore because they had a naval base and weapons contracts lined up. And the US economy isn’t collapsing, in case you hadn’t noticed. Europe is.
I’m trying to read all your stuff at once. I’m not sure about the Mid-East material, because I don’t know it well enough, but the things you’re saying about Europe agree so well with my opinions that I’m deliberately trying to poke holes in your arguments so I can at least say I’ve tested them.
Europe is in more trouble in 2012 than anyone has admitted.
“… the Iranian desire to return to a world of Islamic purity that never existed …”
———–
Might I add, especially in Persia. Harun’s reign was the apogee of the Abbasid Empire … in terms of wealth and power, but the Abbasid were the nadir of Islam in terms of righteousness.
Today’s theocrats have nowhere to go but up.
Paul of Arabia, I love it!
The rage and paranoia is Goldman’s. Ron Paul doesn’t want to commit American blood to fighting another one of Israel’s enemies, and all of a sudden this old libertarian dude becomes a “mullah” and a “Nazi” and worse. I don’t notice any rage or resentment about Ron Paul, which is why this article seems so silly. He wants America to follow its constitution, and he’s serious about cutting spending. He’s not an anti-modernist or anything like that, and I don’t know where you pull that from. Ron Paul’s policies are actually going to accelerate American economic development if they are put into place. And from a conservative point of view, he’s very weak on immigration, wants open borders basically. Everyone knows this is all about the fact that Paul doesn’t want to involve the US in another war on behalf of Israel.
Iran is here to stay, they’ve been around for over two thousand years. It is Israel, which can’t even defend itself against Hezbollah, whose days are numbered. When Iran gets the bomb–which it will–this alone is going to encourage emigration out of Israel and stop immigration, which is why Goldman et al are so desperate.
Oh and China and India did not “adopt the American model.” They’re confident nationalists who do not ask people to “turn their backs” on their history and ancestral identities. Apparently this is good for them. Why isn’t it good also for Persians and for white Europeans?
Lesson #1, or Israel and the U.S.: Never elect a left-wing prime minister or president if you believe in the necessity to pursue victory and are willing to do so. After dawdling for 30 days, Ehud Barak finally freed the IDF to go all out. Within hours, Israeli troops reached the Litani and were in a position to crush Hezbollah and Nasrallah was on his knees, begging the “international community” to intercede, with they did, including, sadly, George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Just as they stopped Israel from decisively defeating her enemies in ’48, ’56, ’67 and ’73. Part of the concern, understandably, was that the “brave fighters of Hezbollah” – a non-governmental paramilitary group at the time, were hiding behind women and children, siting their missile launchers among the civilian population. Israel would have had to invade in force, on the ground, fighting house-to-house in civilian neighborhoods and would have had to target and destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure.
Today, Natanyahu is prime minister, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and Netanyahu has made it clear that in any future war, he will not hold back – which, given Netanyahu’s reputation, really should go without saying. Nasrallah certainly heard Netanyahu’s reading of the Riot Act; if the Iranians expect their proxy to attack Israel in the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, I suspect that we are going to see a lot of disappointed mullahs.
I also note that Netanyahu travels as freely as any political leader, visiting multiple countries, while Nasrallah cowers in his bunker.
The 2006 war was a complete strategic cockup on the part of the IDF. They were unprepared to fight a protracted war of annihilation against Hezboallah. By the time they were ready to actually fight, the political support for the war had evaporated, due to the incompetence of Ehud Olmert and Dan Halutz.
I grow tired of people blaming Israel’s incompetence in 2006 on George Bush and Condi Rice.
Fortunately, Israel has a government worthy of the name today.
It can take 10,000 men to build a road but only a half dozen to block traffic. An animal is most dangerous when it is wounded. What is not generally understood is that Iran’s nuclear ambition is a greater threat to the USA than Israel because America is target number one. Americas borders are more porous, its muslim population more diffuse, its sits at greater distance and the consequences of a nuclear strike will have greater effect on the global economy then a strike against Israel. This is understood by the American military which is why military cooperation with Israel is growing. What Ron Paul doesn’t understand is that American isolationism will not make Americans safer even if it puts more money in their pockets.
” Scheduled for May, the drill is called “Austere Challenge” and is expected to see the deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel. It will also include the establishment of IDF command posts at European Command headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a largescale conflict in the Middle East.
The US will also bring its THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and shipbased Aegis ballistic missile defense systems to Israel to simulate the interception of missile salvos against Israel.
The American systems will work in conjunction with Israel’s missile defense systems – the Arrow, Patriot and Iron Dome – and live interceptions are expected to take place during the drill. ”
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=251504
The thousands of American soldiers being posted will be not here to defend Israel. They will be here to observe and learn in order to bring lessons home. One doesn’t build an enormous structure, bridge or military campaign no matter, without a working model first.
I concur. Too few Americans realize that NYC, DC and America’s coastal refineries are more tempting targets than Israel. For the Mullahs destroying Israel would be a pleasure, destroying America is a necessity.
The places you mention would certainly be primary however an attack of this nature anywhere on American soil, G-d forbid, would have horrific effect. Israel has always been viewed by the terrorists as a projection of American power. An attack on Israel still leaves a powerful America to deal with. An attack on America weakens both countries as much of Israel’s weapons depend on spare parts and other material that is American made.
Er, nominally sane people? Michael Ledeen is getting savaged by Paul-bots in the Tatler. It’s pretty appalling. Help?
ITS SAD THAT YOU WRITERS, OF ALL PEOPLE, USE YOUR WORDS TO DESTROY A COUNTRY, WITH PROPAGANDA.. SO YOU CAN PRETEND RELEVANCE IN THIS BACKWARDS..PC WORLD. AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. WE WELCOME YOU TO MOVE TO CANADA, EXPERIENCE THE DEPOPULATION DEVICE OF DEATHCARE RATIONING..OR THE GENERATIONAL SLAVERY OF CHINA, PACK YOUR BAGS BUDDY. BUT, REMBEMBER YOU SCUMBAG.. YOU SIT IN JUDGEMENT, IN A COUNTRY, THAT GAVE YOU.. EVERYTHING. THEN YOU SPIT ON IT.
Well, you can’t please everybody.
ITS SAD THAT YOU WRITERS, OF ALL PEOPLE, USE YOUR WORDS TO DESTROY A COUNTRY, WITH PROPAGANDA.. SO YOU CAN PRETEND RELEVANCE IN THIS BACKWARDS..PC WORLD. AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. WE WELCOME YOU TO MOVE TO CANADA, EXPERIENCE THE DEPOPULATION DEVICE OF DEATHCARE RATIONING..OR THE GENERATIONAL SLAVERY OF CHINA, PACK YOUR BAGS BUDDY. BUT, REMBEMBER YOU SCUMBAG.. YOU SIT IN JUDGEMENT, IN A COUNTRY, THAT GAVE YOU.. EVERYTHING. THEN YOU SPIT ON IT.
It’s all for naught..The republics toast. There is no one talking about how broke we really are. This should be worrying to any observer. Sooner or later the markets will stop lending to an entity that pays out twice as much as it takes in. Also. No one is addressing the decay in civility and lack of education in the forthcoming generations. It’s not like they will have work in a factory, the historical safety net. How to pay for all these unemployable dopes. It’s only getting worse and coarser by the day. We’re Doomed…Doomed I tells ya.
“We don’t get out much anymore”… sound familiar.
Dude, I don’t know who you are, but America hasn’t embodied creative destruction since before the 2nd world war. We are not allowed to be creatively destructive. GM Chrysler BOA too big to fail!
Endless war is to be feared.
I’d point you to G Washington’s, and D Eisenhower’s farewell addresses. No foreign entangling alliances and the warnings about the military industrial complex. I’m here to tell you we have more alliances than we need and Boeing/Lockheed/GE/SAIC/BAE/DOE/DOJ/HLS-TSA/DOD is a military industrial complex.
The cold war is over. Get the US out of NATO.
Cheap energy is prosperity. Drill here, drill now.
Re-elect no one.
Mr. Goldman:
I have to pick at least one nit with your article. The appropriate title for the main subject of your article is “Dhimmi Paul”, not “Mullah Paul”.
“he’s just the closest an American can come to thinking like an Iranian without actually moving there.”
A turn of phrase that exemplifies why I always read your work, Mr. Goldman. The thought of this lunatic every reaching the White House gives me the same hives as the thought of Obama remaining in the White House.
I love this paste from Spengler’s article….” Chinese pigs will eat before Arab peasants; food insecurity (if not actual starvation) undermined the Arab dictatorships.”
Why do I paste this right here amongst these comments about Ron Paul? Because I take this to be the key part of this election coming up: China/Islam/America are the three poles, if you will, of the coming decades. It’s not Ron Paul potential to win any election. Phrase it this way:
Base who gets your Presidental vote on how he will handle those three “poles”. Our “sphere” has two poles……one mentioned here has to be removed….Islam is the one to be removed as a threat to America, not by conventional war, but by our organized resistance….resistance…to Islam’s subversion.
China is an authoritarian Capiltalist entity. Islam is a barbaric theocratic authority…not a civilization.
I’ll choose Chinese energetic, hustling, opportunistic neo-Capitalistic civilation over Islamic theocratic authoritanism any day….any day.
That’s why I liked ….”Chinese pigs will eat before Arab peasants; food insecurity (if not actual starvation) undermined the Arab dictatorships…..and will cause major unrest inside Islam.
Absent that unctious Damocles dripping-oil, and it will indeed be absented when we get our act together with domestic drilling and we start exporting again as we did in our past, Islam will remain our chief subversive, cellular threat.
Again, vote for who has the ability to meld our Domestic priorities with our National Defense priorities.
Gingrich/Perry or Perry/Gingrich have the most potential. Romney’s too slick and smoooooth, Ron Paul is an anacronism. The others are “out of it”.
Haha, “Chinese pigs will eat…” lets talk about American cars burning corn. How any American can criticize Chinese policies while the US government spends billions to disrupt the world’s food supply with their “Green” AgroBusiness subsidies is beyond me. Arab peasant will be fat and happy before sub-Saharan Africans eat. Let the bastards starve in the dark as long as American hippies feel good about themselves.
It’s curious the author of this article brings up the Cold War in a comparison with Ron Paul and his positions on Iran. Judging from the debates, the other candidates could not declare quickly enough their desires to bomb Iran. Now, forgive me if I’m incorrect here, but we didn’t win the Cold War by bombing the Soviet Union, now did we? Economics brought down the Soviet Union, not bombs, precisely Ron Paul’s argument, and this author has the temerity to bring this up as an indictment against Paul?
Now, I presume that the author is smart enough to know the difference between isolationism and non-intervention. Calling Paul an isolationist is pure dishonesty by the author. And if it isn’t, then implicit in the author’s argument is that the only way the United States interacts with the world is through bombing and warfare. After all, engaging in other ways that are not warfare is simply isolationist, right?
Of course the author knows better, and is simply trying to smear the only small government candidate that is among the front runners. “Mullah Paul”? Seriously? This is what passes for political commentary? The author should be ashamed with his smears, and his childishness.
Now, I don’t completely agree with Paul’s foreign policy, but the simple truth is he is far “less bad” on foreign policy than Gingrich or Romney are “bad” on domestic policy. If anyone who ever claimed to love liberty, the constitution, or are founding principles finds himself/herself supporting Gingrich or Romney over Paul, I would say that person has never been a believer in a limited government.
I propose a new name for Ron Paul’s ideology: National Solipsism. Instead of trying to understand the actions of other nations by critically examining their history, culture, religion, and leadership, liberals and libertarians regard every foreign act as a response to something America did (e.g. everything wrong with Iran is because the CIA overthrew Mosaddegh in 1953). If we just apologized, pushed the reset button, and stopped interfering, everyone would love us, or at least stop attacking us.
“National Solipsism.” Wish I’d said that. I probably will.
Bravo.
This is egregious crap. Dr. Paul does not now, nor never has, defended governments who have heartburn against the United States unless one considers advising against nuking whoever fails to see the wonder and glory of our political and diplomatic class to be “defending”. Mark ny words. Keep puffing out the national chest, keep threatening other peoples with the nasty things we are capable of, and apparently all too willingly, to do to them and their people. When the bright light appears over a city near you, remember how tough we were.
Paul goes far beyond not wanting to “nuke” other countries. He votes against most, if not all, Congressional resolutions challenging foreign governments that violate individual liberty and basic human rights. These resolutions don’t spend any money, and they don’t call for military action or even economic sanctions. They simply express support for the basic liberal (in the classical sense) ideal that government does not have aribtrary power to violate the personal and property rights of the individual.
When Ron Paul is asked to make simple, official statements on individual rights versus government power, he consistently chooses to take the position that the use of government power should not be criticized.
Ron Paul is clearly on the side of the Mullahs and stands against the freedom, democracy, and human rights aspirations of the Iranian people. It is no surprise that Islamic Republic state sponsored terror television PressTV use Ron Paul for propaganda purposes on both their broadcasts and news sites.
Ron Paul is not “for” Iran nor is he “against” Israel. He is for the sovereignity of the American citizen and against the usurpation of this sovereignity by elite statists. PJM lost me when they began to speak of Israel as if it were the 51st state. To them, a ctiticism of knee-jerk support of Israel is somehow clear disqualification to be the President of the American people. It would seem the condition of the Israeli people then is more important than the condition of the American people. Well, as much as I admire the Iraelis and sympathize with their position, Israel is not the 51st state until the Congress accepts their petition and the rest of us have our say.
Dont even get me started on “Dr.” Paul. The absented minded, delusional cook that appeals to the base reptilian emotions of the liberal mind. This whacko might as well run on democratic ticket; thats where most of his supporters come from. If this yahoo had any clue why the lobotomized masses support him he would have a coronary. Hello, Dr. Paul! Is anyone in there! These folks are the pot smoking, amoral fornicaters that want to party all the time and sleep all day! Earth to Ron! Earth to Ron!
*kook
And where his funding is coming from.
The Democrats are going to queer the caucus vote…
That’s what the RP ‘surge’ is all about.
David, your analysis of Congressman Paul is on the mark concerning his foreign policy, but you throw the baby out with the bath water when you discredit the good doctor’s call for an audit of the Federal Reserve, as well as reform or abolishment of that organization. The Fed, while it performs some necessary housekeeping and other functions, is fundamentally flawed and essentially lawless. It is a cartel of private banks which has been given the veneer of a public institution, but which remains unaccountable to the electorate. Since the Fed was established in 1913, the USD has been debased over 95% via inflation driven by the Fed. Inflation is a polite word for taxation, or if you will, theft. Rightly, you have noted our profligate ways these last 30-40 years, but our financial troubles predate that recent era by a consderable margin. If you have not already done so, please consider reading “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” by G. Edward Griffin. It may change your perspective on this all-important issue. Ron Paul is wrong about many things, but he is utterly on the mark concerning the Fed.
It’s interesting, how people that consider themselves sane, apparently thinks it’s OK to be robed blind in broad daylight. That is somehow sane and normal. It’s like “hahaha that Ron Paul is just crazy” all the while a swift adjustment of the interest rate kills a lifetime of savings. And they don’t notice anything is amiss.
A swift adjustment in the interest rate kills a lifetime of savings? The reason interest rates are low is that there is no economic growth. Do the math. Zero growth means zero profits which means (ultimately) zero interest. To keep your money in cash means a negative real rate. The Fed doesn’t set the 10-year yield — the market does — and that’s at 2%. What that means is, if we don’t get growth, we’re cooked. I agree that the Fed was too loose through the 2000′s and that contributed to the housing bubble, but no-one held a gun to the head of the American people and forced them to take out liar’s loans with zero down and spend the proceeds on flat screen TV’s and trips to Disneyworld. You want to find someone to blame for your problems? If that’s the best you can do, you deserve to be poor.
enough about the idiot Paul …I want to know if some one is going to draw back the curtain and expose the banking corruption.
You (David Goldman) must know that there is no solvency in the market or banking system. How long can it be papered over? Presently policy seems to be there to strip the remaining real money from 401′s and private accounts.
does the gold even exist …beyond the paper that says it does?
I don’t know the answer and I think that it is possible to unwind the system and fix it if (and it isn’t) the political will was there to do that.
there is not enough money in the entire world to fill the debt hole that has been dug ….not even a 10th of it.
The Volcker Fed saved the country in 1980 and afterwards. The “Mundell twist” (tight money and tax cuts) got us growth and disinflation at the same time. But the first two years were painful and the Ron Pauls of the world were screaming for the abolition of the Fed back then. Georgiaboy, this is just plain hick ignorance.
“Georgiaboy, this is just plain hick ignorance.”
Not so much. It’s called “the Austrian school of economics.” Mises, et. al. Surely you’ve heard of them.
This is a very ugly characterization, David, and I’m frankly surprised. Dr. Paul understands the Austrian position very thoroughly; he’s anything but ignorant. You have a philosophical disagreement on that point, that’s all, but an alternative perspective on money is evidently so offensive to you that it cannot be allowed to be examined, much less taken seriously. This grieves me, because I do truly admire your work. In general, you are clearly a person of gentlemanly sensibilities, but in this instance you obviously have an exposed raw nerve.
Not many comments back, you denied your attack on Paul is ad hominem. I’d advise a bit of self-searching here, because this is DEFINITELY an attack on the man, in lieu of the ideas he holds.
In comment 21 at your last posting I pointed out that Paul’s Austrian prescription for what ails us would definitely hurt. But the catastrophic damage the banking cartel has done to us in the last century has become so severe that the medicine to counteract that poison must by necessity be in proportion to the magnitude of the evil that caused it. And I also acknowledged that since you are intellectually married to economic the status quo, you defend it reflexively. Perhaps this is why anyone who rejects central banking seems to you ipso facto “a nut ball,” and you have no idea that, by definition, saying so is an ad hominem attack.
Think about that.
Also, please consider the challenge I laid out in that comment: in the hundred years before the Fed’s creation a dollar actually INCREASED in value; the hundred years since has been systematic destruction to the tune of 98% of that same dollar’s value. As a moralist, defend that.
I now add another challenge: explain how the banking cartel, should we allow it to continue ruling our economic environment, in any way produce, beginning fairly soon, a hundred years of currency appreciation (which no morally decent person–think of the widows and orphans– can deny would be A GOOD THING)?
Not even sure where to begin with how bad this article is…you just go from straw man to wild assertion after wild assertion, without even trying to tie all this crap together. Likely because you realise that it’s impossible given what a crap-tastic hit job on Paul this is. There are legitimate criticisms of Paul, but this is not it. What are you doing?
I am saying that there is something amiss in the character of Ron Paul supporters, as well as the Poltroon himself.
That’s right. There is something amiss, yet you can’t put your finger on it, so why not resort to hyperbole and character assassination, wrap a picture of him in arab garb and call him a mullah to settle it, right David?
Mr. Goldman was very clear in his article, Paul and his acolytes, including yourself, just can’t, or won’t see it. The good old days, in the aftermath of WWII, when Europe’s industrial base, on both sides, lay in ruins, and China and India were command-economy basket case, and Americans could produce products of whatever quality, sell them at whatever price, and pay unionized workers whatever they asked because we had no competition, are gone. The days when we could ignore military threats lurking over the horizon and react to them only after we are attacked rather than station troops around the world and preemptively attack, are gone, too. They are gone and they will never come back. Paul can abolish the Fed, place tariffs on foreign goods bring all the troops home; nothing will change that reality. The days when Americans can enjoy a secure and prosperous lifestyle without having to out-save, out-work, out-study competing countries who not only have embraced American capitalism, but excelled at it, gone. The world that Paul and the Paulites envision will not – cannot – ever, ever exist. Trying to create it will fail and ultimately leave us farther and farther behind.
Get it?
Awwww, Jazzzzzzyyyyy,
……cool it…..go away.
Another day, another Paul hit-piece. It’s getting old.
You may want to figure out why Paul is popular among a wide swath of Independents and fiscal conservative Republicans and give it some thought. You may also want to consider how to reconcile with them if and when Romney is the nominee. This continuous demonization of the one non-Rockefeller Republican in the race is only going to convince a lot of people that the GOP ain’t for them.
Paul is only popular in Iowa, whose primary, I predict, he will not win and after which, he will disappear from the political scene for another four years.
Ron Paul is the GOP’s Denis Kucinich and that’s on a good day. Most of the time, he’s the GOP’s Al Sharpton.
Check out Justin Raimondo’s latest defense of Ron Paul:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/29/ron-paul-and-the-future-of-american-foreign-policy/
At one point, Raimondo shamelessly claims he’s worried that Ron Paul’s detractors are so filled with hatred and anger, they might lash out violently at some of Ron Paul’s supporters, or even assassinate Paul himself. UNBELIEVABLE!
Anybody who’s been reading the comments sections of recent internet articles and youtube videos knows that it’s Paul’s supporters who include in their ranks many hate-spewing bigots and fanatics with malicious intent toward their fellow citizens.
I’m not accusing Ron Paul of being a racist himself, but his candidacy is certainly unleashing a torrent of hatred from unashamed bigots. On this point Raimondo is deafeningly silent. In his twisted view, the only hatred that exists is directed AT Paul. I’ve seldom read ANYTHING so transparently dishonest.
There was short bio piece on Ron Paul in National Review 2 or 3 issues ago, I think (not sure) by Kevin Williamson. The authort tried to be sympathetic or at least sympathetically understand why many people are devoted to him, but concluded that while he has some goood ideas, there is a weirdness about him and his selective blind spots that the author characterized as his “Ronnness”. Very good piece, I thought.
Add David P. Goldman to the ranks of amateur psychiatrists – diagnosing paranoia in Ron Paul’s hostility towards the serial hypocrisies of the ruling class. Of course, as a Ron Paul supporter, “there is something amiss” in my character. Among my many flaws is that I take great amusement in seeing fatuous phonies flail around in desperate and futile attempts to discredit Ron Paul and his Constitution-based policies. Please forgive me.
Paranoia is a political not a psychiatric category in this case, as in Daniel Pipes’ excellent book on the paranoid style in politics. The belief that a conspiracy by elitists is to blame for all our problems is a paranoid view. My argument, Kenneth Olsen, is that you, personally, are the problem: you and millions like you. You’re like Mortimer Duke in “Changing Places,” shouting, “Turn those machines back on!” Without the resentful, enraged, bitter people to whom Poltroon appeals, he would be another harmless nutball. America is at a crossroads. We’ve been lazy and complacent, because we got a free ride on a tsunami of foreign capital inflows. Now we’re dazed and battered on the beach, and we have to compete against players who didn’t exist a generation ago (and who wouldn’t have existed except for the Reagan revolution). As I wrote in Asia Times some months ago, what we had was the people’s Ponzi scheme:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MH16Dj01.html
I am deliberately provoking you. I want to get you mad. Really mad. Mad enough to get it all out of your system, and then have a serious think about what’s been happening. I want to change your mind, because I believe that what you think is important–and if you get it wrong, it hurts us all. First blow steam off at me, and then take a look in the mirror.
Dear Dr. Goldman,
Thank you for your solicitous concern. I will agree the problem is me and millions like me. I would add in you and millions like you. Then I would add in everybody else. We are all flawed, and the optimal political solution is the same now as it was at the nation’s founding: severely limit the government’s power. Whatever Ron Paul’s flaws are, his sincere desire to limit government power is the first step in all of our pursuits of happiness.
P.S. Some guy named David P, Goldman up in a reply to comment 8 says of the Iranians: “They are finished, whatever we do.” Is Ron Paul right in suggesting leaving the Iranians alone, or is that David P. Goldman guy just some harmless nutball?
The Iranians are finished but they will go down with a bang and take a lot of us with them if they can. As MarcH wrote elsewhere, think of Hitler in the bunker in April 1945 with an atom bomb instead of a pistol.
Thanks David, but the (great) nuke/Lugar line came from someone else (Gene Schwimmer?). I just gave him props when I saw it. I did use it today at a friend’s Shabbos lunch table, with notable effect.
“Thanks David, but the (great) nuke/Lugar line came from someone else (Gene Schwimmer?)”
Indeed, it was I. Thank you for noticing!
If Paul is really the respecter of the Constitution that he puts himself out to be, he really ought to read it sometime. The president is Commander-in-Chief and can order troops into battle without congressional authorization. Early in our history, President Jefferson sent troops to attack the Barbary Pirates and in total, U.S. presidents have ordered troops into battle 125 times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States).
One can argue whether a particular military action is justified, but to argue that any military action any president, including Obama, has taken, is absurd. It’s also one of the most irritating things about the Paulites – to argue that he “will return us to the Constitution” – which, I guess, would mean before 1803, when Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli. And which leads me to believe that Paul (and other libertarians) want not a “return to the Constitution,” but to the Articles of Confederation.
Compare Ron Paul to Pat Buchanan (I recommend Tim Stanley’s recent book on Buchanan). Ron Paul is a paleo-conservative with a few libertarian ideas to make him attractive to non-thinking libertarians.
Ron Paul is the US’s version of George Galloway (who also appears on PressTV all the time to bash Israel).
The problem is that, for many folks, comparing RP to Buchannan is a compliment. These folks consider Buchannan some sort of sage rather than a faux ignoramus and panderer blowhard on the make (although he used to be an pretty good polemicist on the virtues of Reaganism and the dangers of the USSR)
Mr. Goldman, you read too much nuance into RP. I know it is hard to believe anyone can be so naive as to believe that “if we leave them alone they will leave us alone”, but there it is. Big L Libertarianism involves confusing the fact that reasonable peoples’ best interests foster cooperation with the deluded idea that there are no unreasonable (or downright evil) people in the world – or that they are intrinsically powerless.
David,
Off topic for this thread, but if you have not yet seen this, you really should. Sandmonkey from Egypt on the recent elections (and the current situation generally.)
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2011/12/20/underneath/
His statements about the military manipulation with regard to the Salafist party rings true to me, even taking the Egyptian propensity to conspiracy theories into account.
the smart kids quit engineering and physics
Well, on the supply side in the ’80s the National Science Foundation (NSF) decided it was paying too much for science labor and in addition to promoting the notion of a non-existent shortage started stuffing the pipeline. Nowadays attempting a science or math career is a marginal proposition … although recently more popular as the prospects of others have declined.
For the engineering and technology parts of STEM, besides offshore outsourcing of iffy quality and results (but note it saved Intel’s bacon when AMD was eating them alive, three guesses in which country that happened
, in the ’90s the usual suspects, again promoting a mostly non-existent labor shortage, opened the floodgates to non-immigrant STEM workers thought the H-1B and other visa programs. H-1Bs are particularly attractive since they’re essentially indentured servants, mostly paid quite a bit less than their American peers and subject to deportation within weeks if their employer fires them.
After the dot.com bust enrollment in the US computer science programs fell off a cliff as students put all this together along with their parents and friends of that generation telling them about the vicious age discrimination in the field (outside of the fields of embedded programming and classified works, a normal, salaried career ends between the age of 35-40 unless you can hide you age). MIT’s EECS Department, which for several decades had 40% of the Institute’s undergraduates lost half of them. (Quite recently this has reversed, at least at Stanford and MIT (don’t know about U.C. Berkeley and CMU fixes its class size at 135 students per year).)
On the demand side things have been mixed, but since you mention physics, let me mention that in 1993 the day after the Superconducting Super Collider was canceled there was a physical line outside the undergraduate EECS office of physics students with applications to change their major. I don’t have current information, but as far as I know physics is still a pretty marginal career.
You are correct, but don’t try to tell the wiz kids that. One other trend: most web developers have no formal training. They’re learning that you can teach yourself, and let your product speak for you. I know a very successful web developer who has a degree in poli sci from Brown, and dropped out of law school to do web and graphic design. Meanwhile, graphic artists from art schools are a dime a dozen.
All part of the educational bubble fixing to collapse on itself.
Not a Paul fan, but I think you completely miscomprehend his economics. Quite the opposite of the Pat Buchanan “fortress America” model, he’s an “open borders” advocate. Are you confusing him with Buchanan?
I tried to ask this before, but my comment was not approved. How is Ron Paul trying to take America back to some mythical past age? And how is he full of rage? Your article seems full of rage and paranoia, Ron Paul comes off as friendly and grandfatherly. And like #51 said, he’s not an economic isolationist, he’s for free trade and he’s also for open borders. This attack on Paul makes no sense; people support him because he promises to cut back govt. spending. Also, more people support him the more they see these kinds of attacks. You guys are really getting desperate.
People don’t care much about Iran, and they don’t want the blood of American boys–even hicks–to be shed on behalf of Israel. Maybe if Israel is such a vital culture, and Iran is so weak, Israel should defend itself? Of course once Iran gets the bomb–which it will–it doesn’t need to even use it. Simply having it will collapse immigration into Israel and accelerate emigration, which is why you’re getting desperate. But Ron Paul not wanting to engage in another ill-defined war on behalf of your tribal cousins doesn’t make him an “isolationist” or a nazi or a mullah, etc.
Oh and India and China did not adopt the American model. They’re strong nationalists, proud of their national cultures, and they do not ask their citizens to “turn their backs” on their ancestral identities and history. The Chinese are also quite racist toward all outsiders. Seems to be working fine for them. Maybe the US and Europe could profit more from the same attitude, you think?
You show your hand, you Jew-hating miscreant, when you write about “another ill defined war on behalf of your tribal cousins.” The Israelis and then PM Sharon in particular counseled the US against occupying Iraq. This is the old Buchanan “amen corner” canarde. That is a good example of what I mean by paranoia. Glad I smoked you out.
I read this garbage everywhere. Repeat a lie often enough, and it sticks. The fact is, no government (including the USA) ever sent troops to fight on Israel’s behalf in any of its wars. Not even in 1973, when its back was against the wall. Nixon did supply Israel with much-needed arms, but not troops. This lie is a variation on the ancient blood libel, because it sets the stage for violent payback against “the Jews” who, once again, stand falsely accused of spilling the blood of others to benefit themselves.
These pernicious liars need to be reminded that Jews fought and died for America in war, and that Jewish brains were essential in the effort to defeat Japan. Those atom bombs inflicted much pain, but they also saved the lives of a multitude of American soldiers.
The Jew-haters must not be allowed to spread their evil lies unchallenged.
One might also mention that it was the Jew, Albert Einstein, who discovered the equation that pointed to the possibility of an atomic bomb and it was this same Jew who wrote the famous letter to FDR advocating that we try to produce one. And it was the Jew, Robert Oppenheimer, who directed the Manhattan Project. The atomic bomb, of course, saved countless American lives and brought the War in the Pacific to a quick conclusion. So can we and the Paulites and the “free world” agree how terribly unfair it would be for the Jews, who played a major, if not the major role in theorizing and creating the Bomb, not to be able to have the Bomb themselves – and to take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent the Bomb being used against them?
American Jewish groups, however, like AIPAC, were very much in support of the Iraq war. They don’t understand Israel’s interest, I’ll give you that much. Just like you don’t understand it when you cheer on Israel-friendly Mubarak’s fall and welcome a revitalized Sunni militant Syria. No one said you act rationally on behalf of Israel. But how else is one to understand this article? You call Paul a Mullah, why precisely? Because he doesn’t want to go to war with Iran…that makes someone a mullah? That’s not even isolationist. Most Americans don’t want another war. And if Israel can’t defend itself against Iran, maybe it’s not such a vital culture as you think. When Israelis move out of Israel to find refuge in America and Europe, will they be “turning their back” on their failing culture too?
Of course you don’t answer the rest of my message. The main point is that everyone can see how inappropriate it is to characterize a man who’s for economic development, free trade, and open borders as an anti-modernist fanatic. No one buys this purely literary analogy.
For your general information, but for US interference, Israel would have dealt with the problem that is Iran a very long time ago, and quite capably so.
Re: “The Volcker Fed saved the country in 1980 and afterwards. The “Mundell twist” (tight money and tax cuts) got us growth and disinflation at the same time. But the first two years were painful and the Ron Pauls of the world were screaming for the abolition of the Fed back then. Georgiaboy, this is just plain hick ignorance.”
David, PatrickMurphy is correct above; your strident and illogical position on criticism of the Federal Reserve isn’t in keeping with your generally very good work. You top it off with an ad hominem attack against me, something that is beneath you. You can probably cite specific examples of intervention on the part of the Fed to “save” the economy, but that isn’t really the issue. The issue is the basic legitimacy of the Federal Reserve itself, and the manner in which its principle institutions have systematically looted our financial system via inflation and various banking ponzi schemes of one sort or another, since 1913. Perhaps you’d consider being less defensive and address the issue at hand. By the way, I am not a Paulbot…. but that fact does not change that he is correct concerning the Fed. Let’s cut to the chase: what is to be lost by auditing the Fed and asking it to disclose the manner in which it does business? If things are on the up-and-up with their operation, there should be nothing to fear and nothing to hide, so why the worry?
By law the Fed is the lender of last resort for our commercial banking system; and the government itself.
So, it’s the Fed’s counter-parties that can’t bear the exposure — to include national governments with atomic weapons.
The defining trait of Paul and his Paulistinians is an absolute refusal to address what other parties will certainly do as a direct consequence of Paulism. ( National Solipsism )
Paulism will implode the international financial markets — which thrive on ignorance and deceit — and trigger a global bloodletting beyond WWII by pulling the props out from under every small nation state far and wide.
He’d take us to 1984 — with the best of intentions — of course.
You sir, win this thread……..
No, he doesn’t….absolutely not. He’s all simplified hyperbole. Unsound.
Spengler,
I won’t comment on this article.There’s hardly anything much to disagree with or much to add…
A very happy new year to you and thanks again for all the insights.
From a recent article:
“He also said military service members favored Mr. Paul in donations to Republican candidates. While there is no way to prove this because only itemized donations over $200 require occupations to be listed — information that is self-reported — a review by The New York Times of federal contributions suggests that active-duty and retired service members overwhelmingly lean to Mr. Paul. He received at least $115,000 in itemized contributions through Sept. 30, almost double that of all other Republican candidates combined.”
Looks like the military supports Mullah Paul and his Iranian-Nazi “isolationism.” Goldman et al just want to beat the war drums and have someone else’s son do the fighting…you know those “hicks.” What are zombie goys good for anyway?
Back from Shabbat.
You are one for the textbooks: confronted with the the fact that my “tribal cousins” never wanted the US to occupy Iraq, you respond that US Jewish organizations supported the war in Iraq. But the “tribal cousins” had no stake in the war. This translates into: “It must be the Jews, somehow, somewhere…” In other words, you are an anti-Semitic, paranoid conspiracy nut. You assume that Jews view Christians as “zombie Goys” and “have someone else’s son do the fighting.” The fact that you feel bold enough to spew this kind of poison on a public site indicates the perverse impact that Poltroon has had on the national mood. I would ban you from the site, except for the fact that you could become an illustration in a psychiatric manual. My diagnosis: you are too stupid to survive in a creative-destruction world, and will spend your life poor, harassed, humiliated, and insecure, nursing hatred against the objects of your paranoid imaginings.
You have nothing substantive to say. I made several points, among them a) Ron Paul gets the most support from the US military (NYtimes article), hardly consistent with calling him “mullah Paul”; apparently the people who actually do the fighting support him b) Ron Paul is not an anti-modernist of any sort, but supports what you call “creative destruction,” his policies would accelerate economic development through deregulation, and he’s for open borders and free trade, hardly an “isolationist” like you’re trying to paint him, and I’m not aware of his trying to return the country to any particular age c) most Americans are not for war with Iran, yet you would have us believe Ron Paul’s desire not to go to war with Iran makes him not just an isolationist but a “mullah” and a Nazi.
The stuff you chose to focus on was instead the extraneous things I said about your biases. Everyone except you sees your hateful, deranged tone in this article, and everyone knows your attack on Paul is motivated by one thing: you’re desperate because you know that if America doesn’t go to war with Iran, Israel is done for. Why can’t Israel defend itself, if it is such a vital culture? This has nothing to do with creative destruction, etc., it’s an absurd charge against Paul who follows the Austrian economic school (founded by Jews); and by the way, I’m Jewish myself, not all of us are tribalists like yourself. My views are indeed, however, becoming far more common than you think because of the in-your-face tribalism and arrogance of men like yourself. Ban me if you like, but you have expressed in many articles, including this one, the belief that non-Jews are “walking dead” (zombies; don’t pretend you don’t use “goy” for “pagan” in private or that this isn’t what you have in mind when you say “pagan”) and here you express your desire that they send their sons to die for your people. Why don’t Jews serve in the US military? They’re 2-3% of the American population, but only something like 0.1% of the military. And yes, you and American Jewish groups were not the cause of the Iraq war–don’t be so vain–but American Jewish groups supported it because they thought it would be good for Israel. And you support beating the war dream against Iran for the same reason.
You don’t know anything about my life. Walt and Mearsheimer seem to be doing quite well though.
Based on personal observation during recent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that American Jews currently serve in the U.S. armed forces in numbers proportionate to others of their age, social class and background. It is also a matter of public record that the sons of well known Jewish defense policy “hawks” such as Michael Ledeen, William Kristol and Eliot Cohen serve or served in Army or USMC combat units during these conflicts (as a matter of fact, I served with Eliot Cohen’s son in Iraq (same brigade, different battalion).
Since a record of military combat service is so important to you, perhaps you’d care to explain how it is that Ron Paul served as an Air Force doctor during Vietnam but avoided any foreign service (especially to Vietnam). As Medal of Honor recipient Senator Bob Kerrey used to say, “during Vietnam they were taking everyone who could walk straight and carry a spoon”. Of course cowardice seems to be in-character for Paul. For example, his notorious refusal to give a remotely plausible account concerning his involvement in the racist swill which spewed from his newsletters for years and which earned him in excess of a million dollars.
Happy New Year.
I have consigned Sanjay to the spam folder. Jew-baiting is not going to be tolerated on this site.
I’m curious. You say that American Jews supported the invasion of Iraq because it would be good for Israel. As if Jews in America calculate their positions based on Israel’s needs. If that’s true, then how on God’s green earth can they possibly support Obama, the greatest threat Israel has ever faced? Certainly, he is an agile liar, and I suppose anyone could have made the mistake of believing his lies in 2008. After all, most Americans had no idea who the guy was as recently as 2007. But after three horrible years, no one can be excused for thinking Obama wants anything good to happen to Israel.
Do American Jews choose their positions based on what’s good for Israel, or not?
Clearly you fail to grasp the diabolical deviousness of the Jewish Conspiracy. It is all a lure our maze into a labyrinth of illogic and contradiction, the better to incubate their paranoia.
Patrick,
You think that’s hard to understand? After Roosevelt, at the behest of his labor union supporters, sent back to Germany a shipload of Jews fleeing Hitler, American Jews voted for him, overwhelmingly.
As the Jews (of which I am one) say, “Go figure.”
“Everyone except you sees your hateful, deranged tone in this article…”
Everyone? From what I can see, your view is very much the minority on this thread and indeed, in the country. Paul will almost certainly lose in Iowa this Tuesday and even if he miraculously squeaks by, Iowa will be his last gasp. Everyone except you sees that Paul is an eccentric, who would be a danger to the U.S., if he were to become president, which he won’t.
“Why can’t Israel defend itself, if it is such a vital culture?”
I’ve got a better question, Sanjay, “Why couldn’t America defend itself, if it is such a vital culture?” As every schoolkid knows, or should know, we needed France – French weapons, French ships and French soldiers – to defeat the British, when we were a small country – like Israel.
But getting back to your question about Israel, one reason she needs U.S. aid is because they are constrained from earning far more by selling advanced military technology to the Chinese and Russians – at the request of the United States.
“The fact that you feel bold enough to spew this kind of poison on a public site indicates the perverse impact that Poltroon has had on the national mood.”
David, GeorgiaBoy is right, you’re going to have to work a lot harder to come up with a coherent defense of the Fed, if not Bernanke, than that. It has gone so far so fast that it would take the 2nd coming of Volcker to restore any credibility to that institution whatsoever, and that’s clearly not in the cards as raising interest rates the way your hero Volcker did to 18-20% from the Bernankster’s current free money for the TBTFs and the Government (and coincidentally, Volcker was the only Fed Chairman Ron Paul ever had anything good to say about, if you watched the Bloomberg debate!) would basically force nearly every U.S. state or perhaps every major country but Russia’s government into bankruptcy as opposed to the current print print insolvency. Not to mention any Fed chairman who proposed hiking interest rates to that point should probably up his life insurance or prepare to get caught with a dead girl or a live boy in his bed (yes I do think GS plays that dirty!). A Volcker 2.0 would destroy all fiat currencies overnight by utterly annihilating the bond market. Which if the ‘solution’ is a global currency like the SDRs, I hate to say this, might all be part of the plan for the likes of George Soros and co.
You and I will simply have to agree to disagree about their being something like a bankster conspiracy. I know why you fear acknowledging it one iota, given the anti-Semitic baggage associated with it. But the last time I checked, GeorgiaBoy is right, the vast majority of the financiers who set out to create the Federal Reserve system at Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia in 1913 were Gentiles, led by J. Pierpont Morgan and Mr. Rockefeller.
Stating that Government Sachs got bailed out via the AIG rescue while Lehman and Bear were allowed to die should be no more controversial than saying the sky is blue or that Jews are overrepresented in nearly all fields of human achievement outside of perhaps the NBA or NFL. And blaming Paul for the existence of anti-Semites is like blaming the Jews for earthquakes in Iran.
The idea that Israel is a big boy now that can take care of itself in my opinion is the very opposite of anti-Semitism, because a genuine anti-Semite is so deluded as to believe that the Zionist entity will go ‘poof!’ the second it no longer has U.S. taxpayer support (or the second Iran gets a bomb, neither of which is true).
Paul is right that one of the first principles of Zionism is self-reliance, and he does not speak with a forked tongue on that, unless you trust the testimony of a single, solitary aide who couldn’t be bothered to step forward four years ago when Paul ran for president in 2008. No the media and Kirchuk only trotted him out suddenly when Paul actually got within striking distance of winning Iowa and the Establishment RINOs panicked there. Sorry David but I call BS on that one, and you shouldn’t let peer pressure in Manhattan force you onto that bandwagon, when if Paul is a temporary flash in the pan no denunciations are necessary.
Lastly, as we’ve seen this weekend in Virginia, the GOP Establishment can change or rig the rules, even after the fact, any time it damn well pleases. So I suspect as more and more contests are rigged to keep the vote from splitting into a Paul versus Romney contest at all costs (why else would Santorum or Bachmann stay in the race with their pathetic numbers if they didn’t see some payoff?) your friends at PJM will calm down about Ron Paul. They always were going to broker a Romney/conservative veep shotgun marriage no matter what the voters said. After all, the GOP Establishment gave the conservative Republican electorate RINO pluralities like Dole and McCain, so what else is new?
I’m quite sure Israel could take out the Iranian nukes (and whatever else it needs to) without American military aid, but that’s not the point; Israel has become a critical supplier of high-tech weaposn to the US. It’s a key relationship.
As for the Fed: I just don’t have the time for you and GeorgiaBoy on the Fed. You’re not even wrong about it. You don’t know enough to be taught. Buy a used money and banking textbook and start there.
“I’m quite sure Israel could take out the Iranian nukes (and whatever else it needs to) without American military aid” – That’s a pretty definite statement. I doubt that, short of employing nukes, the IDF COS would be comfortable making that statement to the Israeli PM.
I’m far from an expert on air warfare, but I would think that a non-nuclear Israeli bombing campaign over Iran (the extreme range of the F16I, even w/tanker support) would take weeks. A lot of unintended an unexpected effects will be generated in the combat theatre and internationally over that time frame. These could derail the Israeli air campaign, even if it had the technical potential to be successful.
Also, consider the mediocre (at least initially) results of the 2006 Israeli bombing campaign next-door in Lebanon. I expect the Israeli PM will look very closely at any IAF promises for a quick and successful non-nuclear bombing campaign over Iran.
Finally, even if Israel did take out the Iranian nuclear program, if the current Iranian regime is not removed, they may rebuild and improve their nuclear program in a few years.
I would say that a US air campaign using B2s and carrier battle groups and incorporating a plan for regime change has a much greater potential for a decisive effect.
Where did I write, “non-nuclear”?
Well, if nukes are part of the plan then that “minor” point should be in 36 pt font.
OT: Thanks for leading part of the “anti-Ron truth and reality intervention”. It was nice to wake up today and see the little weirdo embarrassed. I think it was Roger Simon who mentioned that even Rand seemed uncomfortable and stopped clapping when Ron started talking about foreign policy during his post-caucus speech.
“or that Jews are overrepresented in nearly all fields of human achievement outside of perhaps the NBA or NFL.” Obviously I meant punching above their weight as a percentage of the population. I know about Jay Fiedler so if I missed anyone else from the NFL or NBA, my apologies.
S novom godom!
You just reminded me of the scene in “Airplane” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoACIIz33II), where the passenger asks for some “light reading” and the stewardess, reaches into her armful of magazines and pulls out a postcard-sized piece of paper about “Jewish sports legends.”
I think whoever manages to scroll to the bottom of this increasingly long thread should see this wise comment left at Roger Simon’s post (“Is Ron Paul a Racist?”. And I hope after taking into consideration that the GOP is now set to rig the rules to prevent a straight up Paul versus Romney contest (and keep the incompetent and or doomed campaigns of Gingrich, Perry and perhaps Santorum going long enough to keep the not-Romney vote split) , that some of the hyperventilating and gnashing of teeth at Paul by PJM will subside.
It’s also useful for those who would try to time travel Ron Paul back to the 1930s and ask him what he would do then, when this is neither fair, nor useful, nor logical. As the commenter points out below, WWII was not fought to save the Jews, though the defeat of Nazi Germany certainly did that (I’m also grateful for Lend Lease, as it may have been what saved the life of my wife’s maternal grandfather who served under Zhukov). Of course, as the Israelis recently declared in opening a war memorial to the Soviet dead in Israel, the greatest single force for ending the Holocaust was not the Eight Air Force (thought they did succeed in killing a lot of German pilots to clear the skies for all of the Allies) or the Band of Brothers, but the Soviet Red Army which liberated Auschwitz, which is itself a problematic thing for the neocons and most PJMers to admit!
We live in a world where even David P. admits Israel can take care of itself, and needs only the freedom to sell its talents and wares, and some diplomatic support to defeat the campaigns that would demonize it. Whether Israel can or won’t be able to sell very good military technology to the U.S. without $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer subsidies remains to be seen.
And Sanjah is an idiot for saying Israel is doomed or will experience some mass out-migration if Iran gets a nuke. He might as well say India is doomed while he’s at it for China is likely to have an enormous military advantage which only India allied with other powers can ever hope to match. Thankfully the Chinese seem to have no interest in swarming across the Himalayas, and the Indo-Sino rivarly is likely to be limited to post-EUropean, post-Western collapse neo-colonialism in East Africa and concessions in Afghanistan.
And MarcH, like everyone else who has repeated these charges ad nauseum at PJM, has no evidence to prove Paul made any money off the newsletters, that the newsletter writers did not set out to deceive him, or that the testimony of a single witness (Jewish law requires two, I believe, at least in capital offense cases) is reliable, particularly when that witness failed to come forward in 2008 and only bothered once Paul became more successful i.e. when the Establishment feared him more.
And if David wants me to read up more on why Central Banks should have the right to decree fiat money and give certain TBTF massive, globalized banks first dibs on the trillions they create as opposed to 10,000 podunk First National Banks on Main Street, I will do so. For I fear David fears to follow his own logic about the centrally planned, increasingly corporatist nature of all Western economies to its logical conclusion, for fear at the end of that road is a new gold standard, with Russians and Chinese owning a hell of a lot of the gold.
Victor wrote: “And MarcH, like everyone else who has repeated these charges ad nauseum at PJM, has no evidence to prove Paul made any money off the newsletters, that the newsletter writers did not set out to deceive him, or that the testimony of a single witness (Jewish law requires two, I believe, at least in capital offense cases) is reliable, particularly when that witness failed to come forward in 2008 and only bothered once Paul became more successful i.e. when the Establishment feared him more”.
Victor – if you had spent even 30 seconds on Google you would find that even Reason magazine has offered well documented evidence concerning Paul’s payday from the newsletters: “The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the “welfare checks” comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul’s family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn’t know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback. – http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletterbase“.
It is also now painfully obvious from the various promotional videotapes which Paul made for the newsletters in the 1990s and which are now all over the internet that he was closely involved with the newsletters.
No, sanjai, he calls Paul a mullah because like the mullahs he is a robot under pretense of being programmed by his totemic Constitution as mullahs are programmed by the totemic Koran. He doesn’t say “kill the unbelievers” because, I suppose, he hasn’t the stomach, but his mental flexibility is about equal.
“You don’t know anything about my life…” – sanjai
Er, as expressed in your own words I can pretty much tell that your life is as the life of some wretched crawling thing. Sorry I responded to you as a man above. Happily your idol Paul will never get any closer to the levers of power than he is right now. Put him in a room with Putin and he would be a deer in the headlights. Just imagine!
Viktor – you’re not Victor? Of course not; you’re Mr. X. Nyet? Will explain to you about Presidential war powers and the leadership function some other time.
Happy 2012 y’all!
re: “…the greatest single force for ending the Holocaust was not the Eight Air Force (thought they did succeed in killing a lot of German pilots to clear the skies for all of the Allies) or the Band of Brothers, but the Soviet Red Army which liberated Auschwitz, which is itself a problematic thing for the neocons and most PJMers to admit!”
Viktor, I have told many friends and fellow history buffs the same thing for many years but more often than not get an argument in return, thanks to lingering Cold War animosities, I suspect. However, you are correct – the Red Army broke the back of Hitler’s war machine; 7 of every 10 German soldiers killed in the war were killed by Stalin’s soldiers. However, one really cannot say that the 8th Air Force or the RAF – or the Anglo-American armies for that matter – were inessential to the war effort. Why? Because it took the combined force of arms of all the Allied nations to defeat Hitler’s Germany. The air war over Germany forced Hitler to pull back an enormous number of men, a vast stock of war material, and anti-aircraft artillery (especially the deadly 88mm cannon) that was desperately needed in the east. Likewise, the western armies forced Germany to fight a two-front war, thereby halving her forces. If the west hadn’t fought and won these battles, to say nothing of the Battle of the Atlantic, the USSR might have fallen in the open weeks of Operation Barbarosa. As it was, it was very near-run. When the Wehrmacht was within sight of Moscow, Stalin almost surrendered.
A final point: America was the lynchpin of the Allied War effort. Why? First, we were the “arsenal of democracy” (or of the Allies, anyway). Second, no other nation on Earth during the period 1941-1945 was capable of marshalling and deploying the resources to defeat Imperial Japan, over the vast and trackless Pacific Ocean. As impressive as Britain’s military might was, she didn’t have the global reach we did. Without us, the PTO would have been lost to Japan. Thus freed, Japan might have struck into eastern Siberia – in violation of the non-aggression pact signed by Japan and the USSR. Stalin would have had to divide his forces, making Germany’s position much stronger. And so on…
We were the arsenal of Stalin, too,
Half of all his copper — refined and as finished cable — to include Western Electric land lines for secure communications to his armie. (!)
Essentially ALL of Stalin’s steam locomotive replacements for his horrific loses.
ALL of his Tungsten Carbide tool bits — the ones that increased production 7 times over for the same machine. ( THIS was the reason for the Tankograd miracle. )
Hughes Tool rotary drill bits and rigs — boring for crude at 25 times the former tempo. ( NOT a typo: 25 meters drilled in the same time the old rigs punched holes. See “There Will Be Blood” for a Hollywood depiction of the bygone oil drilling machines. )
America provided ALL of Stalin’s RADIO TUBES. Kept a state secret for decades after the war — Germany destroyed Stalin’s ONLY tube factory on the western outskirt of Moscow in late 1941.
This caused the Red Army to endure most of 1942 without ANY radios in their tanks. THAT’S why the puny Mk III panzers dominated the T34c machines all summer long. ( Read “Panzer Battles” for an account of what that meant when the 11th Panzer chased down columns of T34c tanks. Entire battalions were shot to pieces because the tanks in the rear could not alert their fellows in the front! )
America de-bottle-necked Soviet refineries. This is where all of the astounding surge in fuel came from.
AND…
The Red Army ran on Studebaker trucks — and NOTHING else.
The importance of capturing an Enigma machine came by way of the British and the Egyptian battle of Tel-el-Isa — no, not the Second Battle of el Alemain — this was a Special Operations gambit to seize the heart of Rommel’s B-Dienst detachment. Instead it was destroyed — and its documents seized. These revealed that Rommel had been reading British signals forever.
This led directly to Auchinlek’s removal — with a host of talkative subordinates.
Every aspect of this war turning battle have been suppressed for decades as its focus was and is crypto-war.
British traitors made sure that Stalin was alerted.
Subsequently the Red Army repeated the British Special Op — against a German signals unit sent north to the Hungarian Army by 6th German Army. This deployment was against explicit Fuher orders ( on pain of death ) as the loss of the Enigma machine could cost Germany an army.
Instead it cost them the entire war in the East.
Enigma machine in hand, STAVKA broadcast orders in Hitler’s name over ruling long standing deployments such as the 29th Motorized Division. That last little order cost Germany 6th Army and its associated units — 22 divisions in all. (!)
———–
So…
You’re right.
Stalin won the war on his own and really intended to fall back to the Volga.
RIGHT.
Re: “As for the Fed: I just don’t have the time for you and GeorgiaBoy on the Fed. You’re not even wrong about it. You don’t know enough to be taught. Buy a used money and banking textbook and start there.”
Horse hockey, David. You don’t know enough to admit that you might be wrong, or perhaps lack the humility to acknowledge the possibility. The fact that you refuse to even discuss the issue and make ad hominem attacks instead shows the essential intellectual bankrupcy of your position. I suppose every smart man is allowed one intellectual failing… this one is yours. And spare us the insults and presumption of intellectual superiority. They are beneath you and your otherwise fine website. You are a bright man, but that proves nothing. Our history is replete with examples of the “best and brightest” who led our nation into one disaster after another. If you have not already done so, read Taleb’s “The Black Swan,” and then eat some humble pie – it would do you some good.
Nope, I just don’t have time to give elementary lessons. Up to my ears in writing assignments, not to mention my consulting business. Tabeb’s Black Swan is trivial. Remember, I had 140 professionals including a couple of dozen PhD quants working for me at Bank of America. You don’t even know what the issues are. In a couple of months I’ll have a piece in Journal of Applied Corporate Finance on the subject — will post that when it comes out. In the meantime buy a textbook.
Point taken on Lend Lease…though the USSR largely turned Hitler away from Moscow before receiving much of it, as the convoys to Murmansk in autumn of 41′ were savaged. Certainly though it’s incalculable how much hope it gave the Soviets to fight on even after sustaining more terrible losses in the failed Kharkov offensive in spring 42′ with no prospect of a Second Front in sight. And when the Germans were driving on Stalingrad, Rokosovskiy knew they would have the materiel (truck beds for the new ‘secret weapon’ Katyushas) to spring the trap. It’s hard to evaluate how many 88s were diverted, but there’s no doubt they were the most feared of German weapons for both the Soviet and Allied armies.
Like I said, David’s failing is not intellectual — he’s brilliant, and I say this as someone who disagrees with him because demographics/faith tribe is brilliantly simple, like a Kalashnikov rifle. Unfortunately the real issue is that David like many brilliant people fears following his own conclusions to where they lead — collapse, in much the same way plenty of very smart people by the early Eighties had figured out both from within and without the Soviet system that it was doomed (I’m speaking of course, of the KGB, who became the kryshe or roof for the first generation of Komsomol capitalists, though some like Khodorkovsky may have enjoyed some Western agency help via Soros or other ‘ground floor’ investors as well). I am starting to fear that the notion of any soft landing for Western Corporatist capitalism — including its Chinese outsourced workshop — may be just as fanciful as the idea Gorby had that the USSR could transition away from central planning and still maintain the state intact, ala China.
But perhaps David would say I’ve just read too much Zerohedge, Taibbi and Club Orlov (author of Reinventing Collapse). And oh yes, one time I did meet Igor Panarin, Mr. ‘U.S. will collapse like the USSR’ on a Moscow subway platform. Perhaps he performed some Vulcan mind meld on me. At any rate you will notice that this USSA meme has had a strong influence over the emerging counterestablishment, so I suppose that the next talking point against Ron Paul if he does win Iowa will be that he’s been Russia Today TV’s favorite Congressional guest the past several years. Well guilty as charged on that score.
Georgiaboy and Viktor: both of you conclude rightly, I think, although I’d like to add another possibility.
I suspect that it may not be a lack of humility or a fear of where the implications of Austrianism inevitably would lead (although I suppose I did say just that earlier in the thread). It may be that he’s so well-educated in the deep things of the current money paradigm that he simply can’t conceive of an alternative system–so anyone who proposes to replace the entire structure, foundations and all, is obviously not worth talking to.
Samuel Huntington’s book “Clash of Civilizations” is premised on the idea that a civilization is a self-contained world view, and that when two come in contact their mutual incomprehension makes violent clash inevitable. The one simply can’t think the thoughts of the other. That is, from within one’s world view paradigm, the idea that someone could have a completely different set of assumptions about reality is not conceivable.
I want this to be the explanation, because Spengler is such a fabulous resource of original thinking and historical insight. I want to think the best of him, but the uncharacteristic nastiness he’s been demonstrating does leave a bad aftertaste.
As for us Austrians, we are oddballs who grew up in the financial paradigm the Creature From Jekyll Island made, which pervades and surrounds us all, and we somehow were able to perceive it–and then to examine alternatives. Like getting freed from the Matrix. We’ve got to recognize that even really smart people can have no idea there IS a Matrix. In the movie, Morpheus asks Neo: “Do you want to know what it is?”. Evidently, David does not. Too bad he has to be so rude to those who do.
The German 1941 campaign ran almost entirely on Soviet crude oil stock piled between October 1939 and June 1941.
Tyfun ( nee Typhoon ) terminated due to weather and logistics.
In every sense the Germans ran out of gas.
The TRUE reason why Hitler went south and encircled Kiev: the Ju52 crisis.
It is a myth that the Red Army stopped the Nazis in 1941.
The Luftwaffe stopped the campaign. (!)
That’s right — their Ju52s were at the HEART of their deep strike grand tactics. Guderian & company were being resupplied by air as they leapt forth to grab CRITICAL railroad junctions.
It will shock the modern mind but Stalin did not build up his rail net. A mere handful of links existed which carried ALL of the Red Army’s troops and supplies. ( Eventually the system became so strained that troops marched for weeks on end for lack of rail lift; c.f. Siberian troops. )
By merely grabbing rail links far enough east the panzers shut down Soviet resupply. THAT’S how the Germans ran riot in 1941.
Now for the kicker: within 7 weeks essentially the ENTIRE Ju52 fleet was grounded in Russia: their landing gears were all broken. (!!!!)
The Ju52 had never been properly tested for combat load-outs when rough field lands — Russian style — were necessary.
This horrific debacle was kept absolutely top secret during 1941 — and for years afterward. In a total panic ALL of Germany’s top aero-experts were thrown at the problem. Repair kits were flown to the front ASAP.
Hitler went south because such a path could be supplied with roads, rails and such cargo planes still left.
In ALL of the German accounts published for decades after the event the Ju52 debacle is NEVER mentioned. To do so would be to admit that the High Command screwed up victory — even more than Hitler. (!)
Tel el Isa is damning against the British Army…
It pales compared to the Ju52 debacle — which was building up from the very first week of the campaign!!!
————
In the war time Soviet films we witness the greater population of Moscow digging a fantastic tank trap/ super berm ringing the city.
When the Germans encountered it it took all of 90 minutes to get their Mk II and III panzers up over the top.
Tyfun stopped because Hitler had surged his troops until they’d actually run out of ammo. (!)
He was that convinced that Moscow was his.
But then this is a fellow high as a kite on uppers. By the end Hitler was as out of it as any meth addict.
Dig into the medical record — even Himmler had him tested. ( indirectly )
“Dictator Downers” are the reason Hitler could not be medically awakened 6-6-44. His flaming drug addiction is also generally missing from almost all historical accounts.
——-
All of the combatant powers lied to the public back then and for the most part are still lying now. That goes triple for any crypto-war realities.
I urge people to watch this short video clip with Ron Paul answering a question on “why won’t he come out on the truth about 9/11″. It is astonishing and it makes a rational observer conclude that Ron Paul indeed is a truther. Watch for yourselves: http://youtu.be/3u0tgNUfOL8
In your previous post, Mr. Goldman, you posit that with the impossibility of liberal democarcy succeeding in the Muslim world and the collapse of pro-Western dictatorships, the remaining choices in the ME are endless sectarian/tribal war (ie. chaos) or pro-Iranian religious dictatorships. Further, you argue, from an American perspective, chaos is preferable.
Yet I think you give an excellent counterargument in the current post: the fact that Iran’s birthrate is catastrophically low and that mosque attendence in Iran stands at 2% would seem to be evidence that Islamism is its own worst enemy, and cure! Let the MB take control of the Middle East and within a generation, Islamism will have completely run its course and fizzled. Ergo, from an American perspective, the best choice (assuming the mullahs don’t get nukes) is to let the Middle East fall to Islamists.
Actually, I disagree, slightly, with Mr. Goldman on this point. I believe that we can create Arab countries because we did it with Japan. The process is easy:
1. Pursue and achieve total military victory over the countries in question, accompanied by destruction so devastating and a defeat so humiliating that these countries cannot even contemplate, let alone prosecute a war, and the warmongers in such countries are at least discredited and preferably killed.
2. Write and impose new constitutions on these countries as we did with Japan after WWII.
3. “Rewrite” their religion, telling them that they are no longer to believe or teach whatever passages of their scripture, regardless of whether the Jihadists are interpreting them rightly or wrongly, that inspire their actions, just as we forced the Japanese to stop believing and teaching that their emperor is divine and that Japanese are obligated to die for him.
4. Take away their textbooks, replace them with new ones, force teachers to use them and replace any teachers (I suggest Israeli Arabs) who do not comply.
In other words, discredit the current generation and raise a new one not influenced by the current one.
So, Mr. Goldman’s mostly excellent arguments not withstanding, the answer is simple. But, unfortunately, as Reagan said and I believe Mr. Goldman would agree, there are simple answers, but there are not always easy answers. And, as Mr. Goldman has emphasized, we are in a different world today and lest I commit the errors of which Paul and his supporters are accused, I regretfully accept that the old days, when we had no compunction about visiting whatever level of destruction necessary to achieve a complete victory over out enemies, are gone. And in that sense, I must, sadly, as a practical matter, agree that Mr. Goldman is right – not because I think my solution would not work, but because I don’t see how it could be applied, at least for the foreseeable future. Instead, in my idle moments, I try to imagine what the Middle East would be like today if Israel had been allowed to go all the way to Cairo, Damascus, Amman and Beirut in ’67 and we were, today, in our third generation of Arabs who had been brought up with Western values as happened with Japan, whose culture was at least as different from ours as is the Arabs’.
Good luck with that. Not even the Roman Empire had enough power over its denizens to force a religion down their throats. And the Romans were willing to crucify, when necessary. We’re barely willing to waterboard.
Besides, our government will not even admit that religion is the problem — that is, when the problem comes from the Middle East. (They are perfectly willing to admit that fundamentalist Christianity poses a terror problem.) You don’t fight bad religion with tanks and bombs, but with a better religion. We have one. But it is not politically correct to say so.
Monsieur,
Your book (kindly sent to me by a relative in America) puts the Iranian birthrate at 1.7. In this column you have 1.5 (which in the book, you say, is just for Tehran). Which is it? I can report, Monsieur Goldman, that things will be getting nasty here in France as both major parties in this election year will ‘stir up’ the minorities (in their own ways) in order to then show how only they are the protectors. Many I know are, without precedent, considering voting for Mme. Le Pen, but I think, like me, that they will come back to M. Sarkozy. In any case, here in France we open the year with many ‘points noirs’, which your book only accentuates, but sometimes one must hear uncomfortable things.
Take away the Baluchis and a few other highly fertile minorities and the Persian/Azeri fertility rate probably is at 1.5 already; the UN low-fertility variant scenario for Iran, which has been closer to the actual throughout, would put the rate at 1.34 at the moment. Pardon the imprecision, but this is a blog.
Iran has been here for more than two thousand years, and will continue to be here. There are 80 million Iranians and only 6 million Israelis. They don’t need a high birthrate. It is Israel that is an artificial state, only 60 years old, with no culture of its own. With an Iranian bomb, no one will want to live in Israel, and most Jews will emigrate back to Europe and to the US. Even now what Goldman et al are not telling you is that Israeli society is mired in anomie and depression, it has lost its confidence and culture, its youth just copy America “rasta” and hip hop styles. The broken nature of Israeli society was revealed in its fight against Hezbollah, when it lost against an Iranian NSA proxy and retreated in shame. The people of the US and the world are tired of hearing Israel’s whining, it either can secure its own existence or it can’t. Don’t blame Ron Paul for the failures of that society.
Here is an idea. Goldman supports third world immigration into the US because he thinks it will make it stronger. Maybe Israel can import 1 million Nigerians. I hear they have a pretty high birthrate, so Israel should become even stronger, right? I’m sure Ron Paul would be glad to provide them transportation too, he’s for open borders like Goldman.
I’m not for open borders. Who said that? I’m for highly selective recruiting of skilled immigrants. I’ll take all the Chinese physics PhD’s I can find. If there are 10 million of them to be had, all the better. But I’m for restricting immigration of people whose contribution to the US economy is less obvious.
David – I thought Sanjay was banned, or was that Sanjai? I can’t say I’ll miss him, but on the other hand how many commenters will celebrate Iranian-Mullah society and culture in comparison with Israeli-Jewish society?
Sanjay – Perhaps you’d be so kind as to remind us which society it is that features stoning of woman “convicted” of adultery (most likely rape victims), hanging of homosexuals, clerically sanctioned prostitution, government raping of male and female protestors against stolen elections, and the dispatch of little children to clear mind fields with plastic “keys to heaven” around their necks?
So are you in favor of Israel taking in 10 million Chinese PhD engineers? A million? 500,000?
The Israelis took in a million Russian immigrants including about 150,000 scientists and technicians and as a result have the highest ratio of scientists and engineers to population in the world. In relative terms, that’s like the United States taking in 60 million people.
Nice little deflection there. But that’s not what I asked. I asked if you think Israel should take in 10 million Chinese PhDs as you think the US should? Or even a million, or 500,000?
Chinese. I’m pretty sure everyone here can see the difference between your switcheroo of those “Russians” and Chinese.
I’m not an Israeli. What immigrants Israel takes in is Israel’s business. I’m concerned about the US. And there’s not a lot wrong with the US that 10 million Chinese PhD’s wouldn’t fix. America is a proposition (John Courtney Murray), not a fixed population. Immigrants who contribute to that proposition should be welcome. Semi-literate Central Americans, by contrast, probably should be discouraged.
cherub’s revenge – As a Jewish homeland, Israel takes in Jewish refugees, as well as adventurous and idealistic Jewish pioneers, of all ethnicities. See these examples from India (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330906,00.html) and Ethiopia (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149415 ). Israel also offers substantial freedoms and social equality to persons of all colors and creeds, including Muslims (http://tyglobalist.org/blogs/ishmael-khaldi-an-israeli-arab-diplomat/).
What is your issue? Do you object to the world containing a single “Jewish” state or do you think Chinese immigrants to the US would somehow be different or inferior to Russians immigrants to the US?
DPG: “I’m not an Israeli. What immigrants Israel takes in is Israel’s business. ”
Oh boy, this is too rich. You’ve spent over a decade opining on policies and trends of countries you aren’t a citizen in, but suddenly here you’re going to defer as you’re about to be caught out in a blatant double standard.
I mean you’re not a Spaniard, but you didn’t have any problem suggesting Latin Americans over others to emigrate there. What gives? Suddenly tongue tied. Hmm.
I won’t defer here. I think Israel should take in every Indian, and Chinese engineer that can get a plane ticket.
In fact I would consider it anti-Semitic for the US to hog these tens of thousands of Asian engineers year after year. Why should the US get all of wondrous things that would come with their immigrating here and deprive poor Israel? They should get a majority of the Latin American ones too. I don’t want those Spaniards in their increasing anti-Semitism (your characterization) to benefit solely while Tel-Aviv is deprived.
It would be even better they go to Israel and bless them with their presence, because as you pointed out earlier, Israel is so adept at absorbing immigrants, while the US seem to be struggling at the moment in this area. High IQ Asians by the boatload for Israel, I say. They can handle it and they need all the help they can get.
As for the US being a proposition nation, I’m gonna say no. Who’s that “posterity” referred to in the Preamble of the Constitution? Yeah, I’m pretty sure they weren’t referring to Chinese PhDs.
And the first three immigration acts? No proposition nation there. Nor in about 3 subsequent ones do you get the hint this country is a “proposition”.
Cherubsrevenge, it’s precisely because of the high proportion of people like you in the US that we could use a mass influx of Chinese PhD’s. We need to raise our average IQ, in other words. And we should encourage foreign talent to come in precisely in order to motivate Americans to work harder. And if they take your job away, well, that’s probably because you aren’t as smart as they are, or didn’t work as hard. Why should the rest of us diminish the American economy in order to protect a few second-raters who can’t measure up to the competition? Smart immigrants with skills create jobs for the rest of us. I’m all for keeping out semi-literate peasants from southern Mexico. But why exclude people who start businesses, get rich, and generate income for others? It might hurt you personally, but I’ll happily sacrifice your personal interests for the greater good.
There is no double standard where Israel is concerned: any country founded on an ethnic identity, be it Israel or Finland, will give preference to immigrants of its own ethnicity: every European country will confer citizenship on people who descend from its citizens, for example. Israel has no present need of Chinese PhDs, because it is swimming in technical talent of its own. It just absorbed a mass of Russian immigrants equal to a fifth of its then population, and within a decade and a half — the equivalent of the US absorbing 60 million immigrants. To insist on a direct comparison between the US and Israel is to assert the existence of something like an American ethnicity, which I find deplorable.
Go to Israel and see for yourself, you Jew-hating miscreant. Anomie and depression? How come the Jewish fertility rate is 3 (and that’s 2.7 for everyone besides the ultra-Orthodox)? That’s by far the highest in the industrial world. No culture of its own? You miserable ignoramus: Hebrew culture is 3,500 years old, and still as fresh today as when the Psalms were composed. Israeli schoolchildren get 12 years of Bible study in the original language. Now, that’s a deep culture. How much of the Bible can YOU read in the original language? What is YOUR culture? Israel also is a pocket superpower in the arts, especially in classical music, not to mention its high tech industry (more venture capital than in all of Europe).
Iran will have a 30% elderly dependent ratio in 20 years, up from about 7% just a dozen years ago, and that means economic collapse for a country with $4,000 per capital personal income. Iran has HALF of Israel’s fertility rate. I support immigration of Chinese PhDs and similar types into the US, to compensate for the incurable stupidity and willful ignorance of lazy, resentful, envious people like you.
Using the U.N.’s Low Variant for fertility(which has come in higher throughout than Iran’s actual numbers), Iran will have 32 million inhabitants in the year 2100. With constant fertility, Israel will have 24 million inhabitants. More important: Iran will have only 2.35 million people aged 15-24, while Israel will have 3.43 million, under the same realistic assumptions.
Don’t believe me? Play with the data yourself:
http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp
The Iranians have collectively decided that they should cease to exist; Ahmadinejad calls it “genocide against the Iranian people,” by the Iranian people. Of course, he objects, and I approve. There’s nothing in Persian culture I find worth keeping–not Hafiz nor Rumi nor Khayyam. Of course, if the Persians wanted to keep having children, I wouldn’t object; but if they choose to become extinct, I won’t object either.
The problem is not conservative elites, but Republican elites. If Democrats are the agents of the problem, Republicans are the enablers. Someone (John O’Sullivan? Tom Bethell?) once pointed out that, upon going to Washington, nobody becomes more conservative. The incentives to govern like a liberal are very strong, like gravity, and cannot be ignored forever. They succeed in driving a wedge between Republicans and their conservative base, who have finally woken up to the fact that the GOP does not have their best interests at heart.
Democrats want to be the party of big government. Republicans only want to sound like the party of smaller government.
Does it occur to you that elected representatives do what their constituents want, and for the past fifty years their constituents have demanded more entitlements? What congressman could tell people they should be means-tested for Medicare and get re-elected?
> Does it occur to you that elected representatives do what their constituents want, and for the past fifty years their constituents have demanded more entitlements? What congressman could tell people they should be means-tested for Medicare and get re-elected?
Of course it never occurred to me. I must be a blithering idiot.
But if it’s as bad as you suggest, then why bother having an opposition party?
In at least one old Bugs Bunny cartoon, Bugs draws a line in the sand and says to Yosemite Sam, “I dare ya to step across this line,” to which Sam snarls in response, “Yeah, well, I’m a steppin’,” and does so. And so it goes, repeating over and over again, with numerous lines in the sand stepped across. That’s been the role, pretty much, of Republicans since Social Security. The Democrats could be forgiven for not believing there are any hard boundaries between the status quo and achieving an American Soviet.
Another illustration from the popular culture would be Groucho’s remark, “Well, sir, those are my principles! And if you don’t like them, why, I have others!” This too has been the m.o. of the Republican Party. It is one thing to be beaten by the savages, quite another to don the witch doctor’s head dress and start dancing to the socialist beat.
Republicans wouldn’t today have to sell their constituents on means-testing if they had held the line against Medicare fifty years ago. But holding the line was never what George W. Bush had in mind, was it? He donned the head feathers and performed a spear dance with the best of the Democrats. Again, why bother with having two parties?
If the argument is that socialism is inevitable and inexorable, then all we’re really debating here is whether to schedule our national ruination in fifteen years under the Democrats, or thirty under the Republicans. As I see it, the Dems are driving for the cliff, and the GOP only wants to slow us down. If that. If that’s the argument, then it’s a matter of complete indifference to me who wins it. I just can’t get excited about our prospects as a nation if those are the parameters we’re stuck with.
But if the GOP decides it would actually like to turn the bus around and head away from the cliff, I’m theirs for the taking.
The GOP would have served us far better over the last sixty years or so had they been better at making, or even trying to make, a case for the principles they’re supposed to be upholding. I’m not the only one who believes this — Thomas Sowell has written on this very subject, about how loath Republicans are to stand on and defend their principles, always allowing the media to cast the terms of the debate, forever playing a poor defense rather than mounting a powerful offense or even an effective defense. As every soldier knows and dreads, there are some hills you might have to die on. There are some things that can be compromised, but there are others that can’t be, and the GOP simply cannot tell the difference.
You know someone only when you know what he considers to be non-negotiable. After watching the GOP for my entire life, and I am not a young man, as best as I can tell, and I say this with much sadness, the only non-negotiable in the GOP smorgasbord of issues is that they will do whatever it takes to help established big-business interests, often at the expense of free enterprise or national security. The Democrats have won that particular argument as far as I’m concerned.
And now……
…..a horrendously inflammable polemic by Michael Thomas for Newsweek, presented for your reading pleasure:
“……As 2011 slithers to its end, none of the major problems that led to the crisis point three years ago have really been solved. Bank balance sheets still reek. Europe day by day becomes a financial black hole, with matter from the periphery being sucked toward the center until the vortex itself collapses. The Street and its ministries of propaganda have fallen back on a Big Lie as old as capitalism itself: that all that has gone wrong has been government’s fault. This time, however, I don’t think the argument that “Washington ate my homework” is going to work. This time, a firestorm is going to explode about the Street’s head – and about time, too…..”
“…….But it won’t just end with taxes. When the great day comes, Wall Street will pray for another Pecora, because compared with the rough beast now beginning to strain at the leash, Pecora will look like Phil Gramm. Humiliation and ridicule, even financial penalties, will be the least of the Street’s tribulations. There will be prosecutions and show trials. There will be violence, mark my words. Houses burnt, property defaced. I just hope that this time the mob targets the right people in Wall Street and in Washington. (How does a right-thinking Christian go about asking Santa for Mitch McConnell’s head under the Christmas tree?) There will be kleptocrats who threaten to take themselves elsewhere if their demands on jurisdictions and tax breaks aren’t met, and I say let ‘em go!……..”
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/9142-the-big-lie
lzzrdgrrl – Micheal has a point. How many MORE Wall Street bailouts can the United States withstand before the country detonates into civil disorder? After all being TBTF means YOU pay for their mistakes.
The only way to fix the dysfunctional incentives at the TBTF firms is to hold them accountable for their broken risk management and “shitty deals” and let them GO BANKRUPT even if it triggers financial calamity.
A nation that REWARDS failure and punishes success (via bailouts) has NO FUTURE.
Agreed with the basic intent of the article; but the comments there, and here, have a degree of blood simple to them and that’s what I’m concerned about……..
Would a President Ron Paul use the American military to stop an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites?
If he wouldn’t, then I can proceed to evaluating his other plans.
Hey Guys. Here is a simple analogy even an atrophied minds can understand: Newtons 3rd law — for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, actions have consequences. Wake up from your fairy tale where everything America does is holy and everything a white republican says is Patriotic. The things we do in the world have consequences for us and for others. Especially because we are a superpower. Ron Paul and others ask us to do no more than look at our actions abroad and see if we can be better leaders and actors in the world. Remember that what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily so for the gander. Don’t fall into the trap of conflating the political elite’s interests with American interests.