I do not think that an average German had been thinking for over 15 years about nothing else but their post World War I consequences. Note that the country's infrastructure was not really devastated by the warfare and life went on even if the body count was high. The Socialists just had woken up the resentments that were hidden for so long – but that's only one element of the puzzle. The other was the global crisis, all the fall-outs of the Weimar Republic, communist threats etc. Hitler's ideological platform presented in his work "Mein Kampf" offered them a new prospect to which they subscribed enthusiastically. Yes, general morale at the time was low and Hitler took advantage of it, but his first attempt (the Beer Hall putsch), right after the war, failed and inflation in Germany had almost reached its peak. So whatever the Germans were feeling at that time it did not make them prone to Hitler's propaganda.
But it did make them prone to his propaganda. It's a historical fact that revolution requires dissent, basically you need to have people in a shitty situation before they decide that their lives are not so valuable that they will sacrifice them without a second thought. Lenin struggled for years to get people to latch onto socialism before the situation in Russia become dire enough that they collectively agreed. That Hitler was not successful initially just shows that he was human, and that things continued to get worse for Germany until he took over.
Most soldiers in the Third Reich were not actually bad people who wanted to commit mass murder, they were people who sincerely believed that they were going to do for the rest of the world what the Nazi party had done for Germany - and in doing so would ensure the prosperity of Germany for forever. The situation of Germany prior to World War II made it easy for Hitler to convince them that their actions were both justified and necessary. Hence why you should always beware a persuasive leader.
When it comes to Jewish support for the state of Israel, well, it's just enough to browse Jewish newspapers issued outside of Israel and their reactions to whatever they think is hurting Israel. Whenever there is an accusation of any sort against Israel (for example the situation with the Gaza Flotilla and the Israeli response) there is lobbying, rallying, letters are written etc in substantial numbers. Maybe it was your bad luck that these people you had met described it like that. Of the Jewish people I know, particularly around my age (19-20) have varying opinions, so I wouldn't say there is a unified consensus. Sometimes the kind of attitude you present is popular amongst not only orthodox Jews but also leftists of different sorts. Also, the Israel lobby in the States and the whole AIPAC story testifies against limited support for the Jewish state. Look at the election campaign in America now: except Ron Paul all candidates make their support for Israel almost a centre point, guess why? There are a lot of voters of Jewish descent who consider this matter important. Also, on a financial side support is substantial although not many supporters are willing settle in Israel, for obvious reasons. As to Zion: there was never a consensus amongst Jews as to what this really means. Nonetheless support for Israel as a state, no matter what legitimacy it holds, was always widespread (regardless of there being some leftist or orthodox groups with a contrary view). Again, just look at the reaction of Jewish societies in times of serious crisis.
I suspect a part of it is different demographic. Most of the Jews I talk to about Israel are over 40, have lost any youthful enthusiasm for it and are rather jaded toward the whole idea. That there is more public support for it amongst Jews in general is no surprise since it's easy to adopt the mindset that to support Israel is to support Jews (and vice versa), many Israelites have family outside of Israel who they tell about the greatness of their nation etc.
There is however, little benefit to publicly opposing Israel if you're a Jew. It's unlikely to win you points with your community, put you in good favour with your rabbi, or put you in good favour with your local gentile community. The same Jew who proposed the theoretical solution also told me he avoids talking about Israel online because it's hard to find people who are well informed and unbiased (at least in public). Other Jews would rather discuss it in private, so it doesn't give anti-semite crazies more ammo for their insane newsletters and very few gentiles bother to learn much about the history, situation, etc.
Basically there's no payoff for you or your community to opposing Israel, but potentially friends to be made over common ground by supporting it.
The Zionist movement orientated around the re-settlement of former Judea started long before fascism was practically founded in Italy, however the general idea (of fascism) got roots in the 1880s - similarly to Marxism and Zionism. Although some factions of the Zionist movement after WWII (Irgun for example) appeared to some (eg. Albert Einstein) to be like fascism, but they did not follow 100% of the ideology. Take as an example the lack of authoritarianism and expansionism (outside the land they wanted). Economically the Zionists did not place themselves between capitalism and Bolshevism as the fascists did. They knew where the money was coming from. I agree that the current ethical and moral standards differ significantly from those observed a hundred years ago and this is the reason why we should not justify the events that took place many decades ago by today's standards. It's very probable that if the Zionists attempted to create a state last year the output would not be the same as it was over 60 years ago.
Oh yeah, I was meaning it dated back potentially as far as Psalms, depending on how you want to interpret "goes back to", and we can safely say that at the time when Psalms as first brought into being - standards for the world were quite a bit different. Much the same as if the Catholic Church had waited another 80 years to try to declare the Vatican as a separate nation things would have been more complicated for them.
And all the big decision makes for the original deal are doubtlessly either dead or practically dead now. They would have been old men 60 years ago.
You do realize that the UN is a collection of member states that are divided by their struggle for power, influence, resources, and finally, yes-money? Their respective goals and strategies influence the alliances they knot. As the structure of the UN indicates, not many serious decisions can be taken without consent of all and then the majority of the parties involved. At the moment it's in the interests of the US and some other countries to support Israel almost unconditionally and the UN is not able to change that even if the general Assembly votes for another resolution calling Israel to do this or that. And there are of course countries wielding the veto power in the Security Council. Take a look at what happened with the Palestinian bid for official independence (unilaterally announced by Arafat a long time ago). So this is not the UN as such but those who participate. As long as their interests do not involve even remotely providing statehood for, say, Kurds, nothing will happen. In addition to that there is also a real world outside the UN resolutions. How many resolutions voted by general Assembly were ignored by the US and Israel? This is because they are the real powers there and they can afford to do that.
Yeah, I do. The problem is that they don't accept this situation and continue to write cheques that they cannot or have no real interest in cashing which leads to complicated matters when they ignore their responsibilities as the collective council of what is and isn't legal in terms of international action.
For example, one of my friends is quite adamant that the US invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly legal and okay, because it was approved by the UN Security Council. I maintain it was nothing more than an act of terrorism and the UN signing off on it should just make those members accountable (otherwise where's the incentive for them to get their decisions right?). To the rest of the world it exists in this nebulous state where it shouldn't have been legal but it was and yadda yadda yadda.
Israel's been sitting in that state for sixty years because everyone in the UN basically writes it off as "not my problem" which means they basically write off the whole fucking point of the UN. The members of the UN agree the UN has the power to make decisions, then they agree they are collectively responsible for those decisions. Just like in a democracy we all agree we're collectively responsible for the decisions our elected representatives make... well the rest of the world does anyway.
Now when a single nation fucks up to this extent the UN proudly marches it Peace Corps in and declares itself the saviour etc. When the UN fucks up, it writes it off as problem between the two parties and buries it in red tape. Basically they (especial the Security Council) do not operate with any real accountability and because crises like this only effect small members (East Timor, Palestine, etc) they write it off and instead praise themselves for helping the US bomb Afghanistan.
I don't expect blaming them to accomplish much, other than perhaps remind people that UN approval has less to do with the common good of the world and more to with political convenience.
When it comes to solving the Gordian Knot: I agree that the possible solutions, like the one mentioned by your friend, are meeting great resistance from the politicians working along their own agendas. The idea of Great Israel (like the idea of Great Albania) can't be fulfilled without further escalation of the conflict and so is the idea of partitioning of Israel or returning Palestinians to their former land. This is to some extent another War of Attrition, who will buckle first and make concessions and effectively reach some sort of breakthrough. So far Israelis have been in a much better position because they can continue their expansion without meeting any substantial opposition. The political winds may change though, the prerequisite being Americans changing their Middle-East policy for example because of the situation in Central and Central-East Asia. This is what Israel is trying to obstruct now by focusing the world's attention on Iran.
The critical problem is really that nobody wants to admit to being a bad guy. Zionists don't want to admit that they're doing anything wrong by reclaiming "their" land and Palestine extremists don't want to believe they're doing anything wrong defending "their" land. Getting people to voluntarily admit guilt and then accept concessions on the basis of that is about as politically viable as asking Superman to mediate.
Though honestly I think the Internet has been the biggest impediment to Israel's progress through Palestine. They can no longer control what the world hears about their operations there, and as such a lot of people I know in the US are now becoming less Pro-Israel and more Pro-Peace as they now get to hear about the details of events "Israel levels three villages in relation for sniper shooting" rather than just see an report on the news they used to get "Israel seizes three villages while seeking to apprehend extremist assassins".
Iran is certainly buying them time, but now the drama is playing out on the world stage instead of just in some obscure corner of the world nobody cared about it's getting a lot harder for them to get away with all their old tricks.
I would say the US really needs a transition from a debt-based economy to a savings-based economy, end fiat currency, immense cuts in spending, a refurbishment of the monetary system, along with many other reforms. Paul is the only candidate who wants to do these things. Unless you want to encourage worldwide depression and a wholesale collapse of the financial system, you just can't continue printing more money and watch debt being inflated away.
The problem with all those shifts is they don't actually improve the US's financial situation, just stall it where it is and (hopefully) prevent it from sliding any further. The US has immense resources, massive unemployment and entire cities that have fallen apart due to their key industries dying (Philadelphia - steel, Detroit - automobiles) and greatly suffered from it's government
not spending money to stimulate it's industries and keep it's economic machine functioning.
Even doing something as simple as adopting similar tax brackets to Australia (thus generating billions more in tax revenue without being harsh) then investing that money in health care and a worthwhile welfare system so their people would remain healthy and be in a position to take the risks involved to start businesses (and seek out the American Dream) would be a massive help to their economy and reviving some of their economic graveyards.
All Ron's solutions are typical conman consultant ideas: They look good in the short term but fall apart if you examine them more carefully. Switching from the fiat system to a metal standard seems like a great idea while gold is high, silver is high, etc. But what people forget it this basically places the entire currency at the mercy of a single market. If they adopted a gold standard today and gold tanked tomorrow like it did in 1980 then the US could literally have it's dollar value drop to half or a third.
Because gold has no real value, it's value is just as much a product of the Tinkerbell Effect as fiat currencies.
Really there are no good solutions for the US in the short term, what it needs to do is trim back it's spending, raise it's taxes on high earning individuals, close a shitload of tax concession laws for individuals and corporations and start working on rebuilding it's economy from the ground up.
That means:
* Installing a functional, progress focused national education system rather than the current piss-weak quota orientated one
* Using money to stimulate new businesses, which is not robbing the rich to help the poor when you consider many of the old businesses in the US (such as cotton) already enjoy massive concessions
* Join the rest of the first world in establishing healthcare and welfare programs that are focused on keeping their population in a state where they have the opportunity to be productive. Some people will abuse the system, but that's just like if you're running a business you know some stock will be faulty and some will be stolen.
* Stop volunteering for military action until their economy is stable again and slowly start downsizing their military spending
Won't get results this year, won't get great results next year, will get results in he next ten years.
Flave makes an extremely valid point on this (among other things). The Department of Education does not work – this is a fact. There are many flaws with the government holding a monopoly over education, the current situation in the US is a good example of such ineffectiveness. People can ramble on how having a centralized education system is good, while those on the opposite can say how it’s better in the hands of the states. Both have flaws and benefits.
The Department of Education does not work, it does not work because it is hampered by bullshit like No Child Left Behind, huge scholarships available for playing football, religious fundamentalists interference, society deciding parents are not responsible for their children while at school and batshit crazy things like Texas wanting to re-write history to suit it's political agenda.
None of these would be improved by a state based education system, but you would lose all ability to refer to any education as an "American" education which means their colleges would be fucked working out who they can and can't accept and the rest of the world would start writing off all US educations not from Havard, Yale or MIT as jokes much like Queenslanders write off degrees from Bond University.
It also would basically destroy this idea of "if you don't like your own state's laws, move to another's" since if you had kids you'd basically be setting their future on fire then laughing while you take a piss on it. Moving state would mean that they could have their official record say they're failures academically because of small disagreements from state to state education system.
It's just not workable. It's sad, but sometimes the only way to fix problems is to knuckle down and commit years at a time to making slow progress.
Please get your facts straight. If you'd just read and listen to what Paul has said you'd probably understand that he is actually concerned by the inequality in the prison/justice system, he makes it abundantly clear that many African-Americans suffer inequality, pointing out that rarely do "rich white men" get executed. So what you said is clearly not the case. Another misleading statement is him caring only about "himself" and his "rich white friends". Please note that Ron Paul is not popular with the establishment, he's often ignored by the media and most of his support comes from the middle class and young people (who are not rich, by the way), including veterans and military service personnel. Rich people don't support him as much as the other candidates. Many of his "rich" colleagues in congress oppose a number of his views as well. Paul also doesn't take any money from lobbyists. I think that it’s fine to present a view that you don't like him, but use actual facts instead of "facts" tainted by a very bitter one-sided political bias. I'm just trying to correct misleading/incorrect/questionable statements with the use of actual facts, as well as offer my own personal view/s on the issue.
No he doesn't give a shit. He's a conman. Trust me, I've made a living for the past ten years spotting cons and he is one of them. You will notice this if listen more to what he says and less to what he wants you to hear.
He begins his insane diatribe by announcing that repealing the War of Drugs would help black people because they get convicted for drug crimes. This completely disregards that in Texas they get convicted off ALL crimes and sometimes based on such rock hard evidence as "they were there" and prior to 2001 "negroes are more prone to violence" (You can't make this shit up).
So, to actually, effectively combat the problems with disproportionately high convictions of black folks in the US what they'd actually need is an overhaul of the process that allows the police to single them out, convict them on lesser evidence and not be held accountable when it's later discovered. This, however, would make someone like Ron a lot of enemies in his social circles since it'd mean he'd be telling police chiefs, judges, law professors, heads of law firms, etc that they are failing in their responsibilities and need to elevate their game.
Pitching to end the War on Drugs however, firstly has the safe basis that he can claim it's a whatever group problem he likes (blacks, hispanics, young people, etc), be reasonably confident that it's never going to happen, and if it does happen it will create more business opportunities for rich white people because all their pharmacy companies will now have huge increases in product ranges (and the capital to facilitate production) while the traditional dealers will be left high and dry. Which means, if the traditional dealers are black people... he wants them to stop being criminals and just go back to being poor.
Yes, Ron Paul's lack of corporate lobbyists looks impressive when you look at charts like
this. But in reality it doesn't mean much. Ron's whole carefully crafted image is that of a lone crusader, thus it wins him more votes to be able to announce that he doesn't get lobbyist money. And frankly, he doesn't need lobbyist money.
He has his revenue from his books, which people only buy because of his political position, Libertarians and quiet supporters will unofficially promote him or "grassroots" promote him when it benefits them and ignore him when it doesn't. You can say he's not popular with rich white men, but the fact remains he's worth
$4.9 million dollars, and only gets paid $174,000 a year (so, doing the math he's got a lot of money from other sources) and is not really connectable with his "middle and lower class" supporters. Not that impressive compared to say, Mitt Romney's $200 million, or even Barrack Obama's $10.5 million.
He is however supported by
Peter Schiff and so is
Jim Rogers. I think we can both agree that those guys are pretty fucking rich and know how to make a buck. So basically their support of Ron's ideas would indicate that they know his free markets idea would mean they can make more. What makes it even more fun is Ron's historically funded his campaign through his "campaign store" selling his books etc.
So, if you want to be lobbyist... no need to register a donation... just buy a shitload of books. Be extra sneaky, buy a shitload of them and then donate them to a library system, a school, etc. He can also write off "donations to this web site that exists just to promote Ron Paul" as a non-lobbyist funding, because it's for Frank who just wants to help him... not Ron himself. (
link) Sure, it's got Ron's name on it on his site, but it's not really Ron.
By contrast, his poorer supporters do not seem to know how to make a buck (hence why they're middle class) and are often highlighting themselves to be naive in many areas like racism, implication of being a "truther". In other words Ron promotes ideas to help the rich (other fans of his ideas include Steve Forbes btw) while selling them as salvation for the poor.
He's a conman. It's plain and simple.
And it gets worse when you look at what sorts of bills he actually proposes:
To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by exempting health care professionals from the Federal antitrust laws in their negotiations with health plans and health insurance issuers. I don't even follow how this is supposed to protect the patient... nor does Ron explain.
To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. - In other words the federal government can never support anything to do with sex education, abortion, a woman's right to choose, etc. Women's rights don't matter. Only Americans!
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for replacing an automobile with a more fuel-efficient automobile - So much for commitment to free markets, how much you want to bet Ron has a buddy in the automobile industry?
(Interestingly Ron seems to favour tax cuts in things like new cars, student loans and other stuff rich white people get... coincidental? Probably explains why he thinks they need to cut back on spending with him proposing they stop taxing all of his friends)
To repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage. - Wow, proposing precious metals should be tax free... that isn't going to help rich people over poor! No sir!!!
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act concerning the burden of proof in false advertising cases involving dietary supplements and dietary ingredients. - Which basically makes diet products exempt from having to substantiate their claims, instead requiring the prosecution to prove they don't work. Which, if you expanded this to any other field, would be INSANE!!! How much you want to bet Ron's got a buddy in the dietary supplements business?
To suspend temporarily the duty on lutetium oxide. - Awful specific of you there Ron... got a buddy investing in the glass market?
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes. - It only counts as existing for the purposes of outlawing abortions... oh an to amend court jurisdictions so that neither district, nor supreme court can y'know, potentially protect
constitutional rights in relation to the state charging people with murder over abortion.
To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes. - To backdoor in laws against allowing gay marriage (actualy specifies sexual orientation) and essentially limit the Supreme Court from
protecting Constitutional rights from being violated by state laws.
He also sponsors some worrying stuff.:
Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act - Again, apparently Ron is all for fucking free markets when not convenient to... people he won't disclose in particular.
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that amounts paid for foods for special dietary use, dietary supplements, or medical foods shall be treated as medical expenses. - Anyone else see a pattern here?
To prohibit the Federal Government from awarding contracts, grants, or other agreements to, providing any other Federal funds to, or engaging in activities that promote certain indicted organizations. - which admittedly starts kind of well with declaring the government can't fund group that file false forms etc... but then apparently not confident that it will fulfil it's charter arbitrary names one group in particular and then "Any organization that shares directors, employees, or independent contractors with ACORN." - which means yes, if you happen to hire the same contractor janitor to clean your office - you're denied funding.
Repeal NAFTA - Free markets...
And before you jump to it, yes there's lots of good stuff that he endorses too, but that still doesn't excuse that he generally proposes a lot of right-wing-nutbag shit that outlaws abortions, reduces the taxes on the wealthy, mysteriously subsidises and protects certain industries and generally clogs up the process with a lot of redundant bills.
This is not the behaviour of a man who's dedicated to a fair go for all and who wants to engage in integrity. Arguably his attempts to re-define life (only for the purposes of abortion) from conception shit over the constitutional rights of women to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He claims to care about the constitution, but only in his own interpretation of it and actually wants to subvert protection of the court in favour of laws based entirely off his own personal morality.
I personally think Ron Paul is the candidate I agree with most and there are various reasons for that. I've read some of his books recently, watched the debates, read his policies etc. I would say that I'm a strong supporter/believer of the constitution (both American and Australian) and having studied American History over the course of my degrees I have to say that the US Constitution is indeed a sublime vanguard of freedom and something that has unfortunately been increasingly pushed aside when it comes to the operation of government policies and individual liberties. This is something Ron Paul often makes clear. For example, the US only went to war against Afghanistan via a UN resolution, not a decision made by congress as the constitution requires. The jig will soon be up when it comes to America's finance system, and the Fed is in desperate need of an audit, that's an obvious step in going forward. Something clearly has to be done. I would say that Obama's "change" turned out to be an extension and expansion of the worst parts of the Bush era.
I don't recall Bush issuing repeals to his own legislation, singing legislation to help Americans with paralysis, ... a fuck it,
read up here instead of on Right wing sites. Obama's biggest hurdle to getting more done is that lack of congressional support due to the closely tied election results and frankly that the GOP things the constitution is great when it's in their favour, but nothing matters when they want to keep their money.
Kind of funny that Ron allies himself with a party he accuses of making massive breaches of the constitution don't you think? Particularly since he supposedly prides himself on not supporting any legislation that contradicts the sacred and holy document...
except if it's the general pursuit of happiness and rights for homos... fuck them! Except if it's later politically convenient to claim neutrality on that issue... and not mention he's trying to backdoor shafting them on their basic rights.
Also, I don't recall Obama picking more countries to bomb the shit out of because he's a "wartime president" (which I personally think was the worst part of the Bush administration) and even seem to recall he's been recalling troops from those countries to mitigate the damage.
America's debt is reaching 102% of their entire economy, if we view America as being exceptional we must actually go back and look at the Constitution - something with links to the idea of American exceptionalism in the first place. Why are people always forgetting the Constitution?! When it comes to the states the US was actually designed so if you didn't like what one state enumerated, you could move to another, many US states today have varying laws on certain issues etc. The US is not a simple nation, but a complex one where it's proven difficult to run everything from a centralized position. I would say that Paul's ideas are rather practical in the current political climate, particularly on important issues such as liberty and property. Paul's record is very consistent, Obama has nothing on him, even Paul's fellow Republican candidates have nothing on him (take a look at the debates, look at the ratio of negative ads etc.). Paul has a very clear and consistent ideology - you know what he's talking about when you read his books etc. This is what makes him stand out. The Republican nomination has been very interesting so far though, we've had 3 different candidates win in three different states, so I think anything can happen.
I've formed a conclusion just like many other people out there. I would say that Paul is actually the only "true" conservative amongst the candidates who wants to accomplish something instead of sticking to the status quo which isn't doing anything positive for the American economy.
Paul's record is not consistent, as I just pointed out. Paul shifts his opinion based off what is politically favourable for him on any given day, then re-invents his opinion and counts on his vocal supporters to drown out people. He has no convictions, no sound basis behind his stances and no real accountability for anything.
Have a look at his record... if you please, from 1997 to 2010 he has withdrawn support from... 1 act. Total.
So either uncle Ron is never bothered by any amendments... or he has a tendency to go to sleep after the bill is initially proposed. Either way, it's not terribly comforting given that he spams congress with his bullshit (I found multiple acts essentially doing the same thing in 2009-2010 proposals alone) and wastes time with his fortune telling... then he can't be arsed to do the rest of his job?
And I don't really care about the candidates at this point... this is the batshit crazy period where all kinds of loonies put their hands up... and sometimes ones like Sara Palin get damn close. When they narrow the field I'll pay attention but for now, Obama's the only one who hasn't babbled batshit crazy... even if he is a red tape nightmare and seems to be worryingly comfortable with the government having some scary powers.
2
