IrishOutlaw : nationalism

Immigration - Again

IrishOutlaw — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:31:00 GMT

Sometimes I am accused of hammering this issue into the ground. That’s fine with me. It comes up a lot among the different factions of the libertarian movement and, to my mind, has become a good measure of where people stand on individual rights versus...(read more)

The Damning Mentality of the American Right

IrishOutlaw — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:59:00 GMT

Give Peace a Chance

It is funny that a word like “Peace” automatically brands you a commie loving democrat to so many people. The idea of “perpetual war” and always having an enemy to fight is so engrained on the American Right that the idea of peace is a foreign concept. The real American Idol (at least to the right-wingers), Ronald Reagan, is the shining beacon of freedom. After all, he single handedly ended the Cold War, freed millions from communism, and stopped an imminent nuclear attack against the US. All while lowering taxes and keeping his hair perfect. Ok, I know this is a fairy tale and easily squashed and I will probably get around to doing that sooner or later, but the concept of the Cold War and the mentality behind it are what is important about the Reagan reign.

Today the perpetual war idea has us locked into battle with terrorists. Of course, there are other things we are doing battle with like drugs and poverty. Even though those two things are out of the scope of this article, they do play to the idea that we must be locked in a continual struggle for “the greater good”. As I have pointed out before and I am sure most people are already aware of, the idea of “the greater good” is nothing more than another form of subjugation, either by the masses on the minority or by the mini-tyrants of the state on us all. Invariably, the mini-tyrants will take any grain of acquiescence and use it to their advantage, taking the natural good will of mankind and using it as a bludgeon against the people.

Of course, as with all other things involving Reagan, this mentality can be traced further back.

Roots Bloody Roots

The roots of the eternal struggle, which is in essence the perpetual war idea, probably goes back further than Hegel, but the application of it as political theory can surely be traced to him. His theory was that reality is only a creation of the mind, that what you believe to be true is true, regardless of anything else. The second was that history could be explained as an eternal struggle between opposing spiritual forces. The struggle between opposing spiritual forces can still be seen today in modern politics, especially in the United States. We have all been involved in the fight, either against our will or with our approval, against both Godless Communists and Muslim Terrorists. They hate us for our freedoms may be the rally cry, but the slogans themselves denote the struggle as religious in nature. A belief that America is founded as a beacon of Gods Divine Will, and that will being Christian in nature, both lend credence that any disagreement with the religious dogma of Christianity is a direct attack on the US. Of course, no one just comes out and says this, which would be crazy and would open up the person that says it to outright scorn. There are those that would love nothing more than to see the US become a Christian Fundamentalist country with the implicit separation of church and state done away with, but even those people temper their beliefs in the politically correct speech of the day. There are those too who do not notice the relation between religious belief and political policy. Either out of total ignorance or just a desire to distance them selves from the theological discussion, they choose instead the convenient blinders of that will keep them out of the larger fray.

These Hegelian theories were picked up and refined by another philosophical giant, Karl Marx. Marx took the eternal struggle theory and applied it to class distinctions. His idea was that people make determinations strictly based on economic need and that the struggle applied to the person’s relationship to their economic status in society. Instead of reforming the original Hegelian ideas though, which may have been partially what Marx was attempting; it added another level to the original theory. The struggle not only included the spiritual aspect of being, but it also included their very economic survival, a threat to their very way of life.

Unintended Groundwork

The concept of the greater good and the eternal struggle already existed before the Neo-Cons invaded the right. Eisenhower could rightly be credited with expanding the notion to include the military as the tool of enforcing the greater good on a worldwide scale. Of course, his use of the military was aimed at stopping the spread of another Hegelian offshoot, communism. On the one hand Eisenhower sought to “defend” the country against the threat of “communism”, while at the same time he not only kept the New Deal socialism instituted by Roosevelt, but he expanded the programs and made a cabinet position to oversee them. He built the Interstate Hiway System to make sure that the military could get to any part of the country, and this in a sense lent an air of military interventionist policy into the American consciousness. The idea that there was an enemy, right at our doorstep, was easy to swallow coming out of World War II and the attack on Hawaii by the Japanese. The greater good became the defense, at all cost, of the United States from communism. He stated that the US was, “prepared to use armed force... [to counter] aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” Combine that with our Imperial allies losing control in their colonial areas and the real threat of communism taking hold, especially in the Middle East, where the Imperialists were losing ground to the Arab Nationalists, and gaining support from the communists, and we see a pattern of “the greater good” philosophy taking on a distinctly military personality in the US.

Although Eisenhower added to the military aspect of the idea, the eternal struggle had not yet taken on the perpetual war personality. Eisenhower’s actions were hard to argue against at the time, although people like Louis Bromfield, Murray Rothbard, Garet Garret and Ernest Weir were doing just that. Of course, they were accused of being communists and anarchists and denounced by many on the right.

The insidious use of “might makes right” and perpetual war came after Eisenhower left office. If Eisenhower introduced the idea of military necessity to the American mainstream, the Neo-Con movement found a way to use that idea to their advantage.

Neo-Con Infiltration

The Neo-Con movement is an interesting, yet oft ignored, facet of American politics. Eisenhower’s continuation of New Deal programs, combined with other factors, such as the waning of communist power and internal fighting among the various communist factions, proved fertile ground for a political movement in the US.

Disillusioned with the failure of communism taking hold of power, by 1965 the Trotskyites had “renounced” communism and were looking for a place to land. At first glance it would seem like the Republican Party would be the last place for them to take hold, but they played a tune that resonated with the conservatives in the party, conservatives already resigned to the idea of the New Deal. The message was that the might of the US military could be used to spread the American ideal of right and wrong around the world. Sold as defending our country from the spreading threat of (fill in the blank), conservatives fell neatly in line.

The movement gained ground with Reagan. In Reagan they found a sympathetic ear to military intervention and growth. Reagan himself had come from the left (having been called outright a communist by the Republican Party of California) and his holding onto the idea of “the greater good” idea was parallel to the Neo-Cons. They found in Reagan a “soul-mate” and they helped perpetuate the idea that Reagan single handedly used the mighty power of the US to overthrow the Soviet Union. The idea that the US had a noble calling to rid the world of countries that disagreed with the “moral” foundations of the US has proven to be a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the Republican Party. Irving Kristol, often referred to as “The Godfather” of the Neo-Con movement, in “The Weekly Standard” of August 25, 2003, had this to say…

“Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20^th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.”

The idea behind the Neo-Con movement is still the same Hegelian theory of a battle between good and evil. It has been ingrained in the American political system as “compassionate conservativism” and everyone that wishes to be considered a conservative in the current climate must accept the same philosophy that Marx accepted, that there is a material struggle against evil morals that must be won at all cost. Spending or military action are nothing in the face of the overall struggle and nothing is out of bounds to achieve the goals.

Perpetual War

So the struggle goes on against this scary threat that is right at our doorstep. The Cold War is over, communism is all but dead, but that doesn’t mean we are out of enemies who “hate us for our freedom”. Every country that doesn’t live how the United States say they should, who doesn’t accept our moral creed (largely based on a spiritual concept not shared by others), will face the might of the US. Even if everyone loved the US, it would be necessary to find an enemy somewhere. Possibly even to create a boogeyman to go after.

Of course, with the US still involved in the struggles of the old Imperial powers, empires that are for all intents and purposes are long dead, we will have no shortage of enemies. The words of Ernest T. Weir in "Leaving Emotions Out of Our Foreign Policy," that he wrote back in the 1954 still ring true…

“(W)e have to accept the fact that it is not the mission of the United States to go charging about the world to free it from bad nations and bad systems of government. We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that there will always be bad nations and bad systems and that our task is to contrive some basis other than warfare on which we can live in the world.”

The sane voices have been calling for it forever, but the crazies are in charge. The general “for the greater good” cry reigns supreme. Not only has the right learned this lesson, they have met the left and surpassed them.

The people that speak out against the ideas of an eternal struggle between good and evil, against the idea of perpetual war, of overthrowing dictators and chasing “bogeymen” through the hills of foreign countries, will still be called communists and anarchists and denounced by many on the right. But don’t feel too bad, you are in good company.

The No Name Group Project

Immigration Smokescreen

IrishOutlaw — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:39:00 GMT

First Thoughts

First, let me say that when I say "illegal immigration" it is just to differentiate the topic, not because I think any immigration is illegal or in any way different from any other immigration. My personal view (from an anarchist’s perspective) is that people can't be illegal. Every person born has the same natural rights and liberties and no government borders can change that. One of my favorite anarchists was Thomas Jefferson (people think I am crazy for calling him an anarchist), but something he wrote applies to this thought. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those rights are for everyone and they don't come from a government, we are born with them. I think that applies to everyone, everywhere. Doesn't matter where they are born. The reason the government raises and issue with illegals has nothing to do with them taking jobs, or using welfare, or any of the stuff they talk about illegals being a problem for. The money for those programs doesn't come out of the governments’ pocket, so why would they care about it. The only problem the government has with illegals is that they don't have the power to tax people they don't know about. That’s it. PEOPLE that have a problem with illegal immigrants are very upset and vocal about the problems they perceive them causing, but if you notice, the government hasn't really done anything to address their concerns, except when it will get them votes. Politicians that still feel some obligation to US citizens have tried to do things to address it, but it doesn't gain much traction. Partly because some of the politicians realize that, despite the cost associated with "illegal" immigration, a simple economic principle is in play. People are capital. They represent a real unit of capital. It is ALWAYS good for a country to get more people into it. They stimulate the economy, even if they aren't paying taxes. The not paying taxes part is probably the ONLY part the government is really concerned about. I don’t buy the, “They could be terrorists” argument.

Beat Down

I have to point out that government has a monopoly that they force on the people. They have a monopoly over a bunch of things, but the particulars related to immigration have to do with taxation, control of land, and the use of force to require compliance. It is in their best interest (not the interest of the people) to define an area of land as theirs and theirs alone. The idea that we have private property in this country is really a misnomer. The government can force anyone to comply with anything they want, even though a person owns a piece of paper that says the land belongs to them. They charge a yearly rent for that land in the form of taxes. They make rules about what you can and can't do with that land. And if the mood strikes them and they think they can do something better with that land than the owner, they can and do take it for themselves. So what does that have to do with illegal immigration? The main reason for borders is to show the world where their sphere of influence lies. If they fail to enforce those borders, at least to make a showing (no matter how half assed), than they are saying we don't really care about this area or our influence over it. The reality than is that they care less about who comes in those borders than who goes out those borders. I mean, yes they are going to be opposed to other governments trying to move in to that area and trying to assert force on the people inside them, but as far as people crossing them, it is mostly in their best interest to have more people to be able to exert that force over.

We the People?

But, as you know some people inside those borders are opposed to other people coming over them. I would say they have some legitimate concerns based on their perceptions of what is going on. They know that the government is going to force them to give up money to pay for stuff. They know that people that come over those borders without paperwork that makes they share in being forced to pay for stuff are getting a free ride for any of those things they are forced to pay for and the newcomers aren't. It pisses people off, but they are pissed at the wrong parties in my opinion. I would personally be pissed at the people who are exerting the force and are REALLY stealing from the people, which is the government. If there were no illegal immigrants, there would still be welfare programs. If there were no illegal immigrants, hospitals would still have to see people that won't pay for the services, because by law they still have to treat people regardless of ability to pay. The illegal immigrants really are doing jobs people don't want to do, along with some jobs that people probably would want to do, but either way, first come first serve. Ask the onion farms in south Texas about the jobs that Americans won't do. Because of the rhetoric concerning illegal immigration, lots of people that usually work the fields didn't show up to work this last harvest. And it wasn't just in south Texas fields either; it was all across the US. Even the ones that have come to do the work legally didn't come this year. There were advertisements looking for workers, paying in some places $20 an hour to do the work. But the reality is that the work sucks. 12 to 14 hours a day, hunched over in the beating down sun, usually 7 days a week. Most Americans don't want to do that, for any amount of money. So I don't buy the "taking jobs Americans would do" argument at all. The social programs that are being taken advantage of will exist regardless of who is using them. So the argument goes back to what the governments argument is, they aren't paying taxes. On that point I can only say, good for them. No one should pay their taxes. Anything that is getting taken out of your check is theft, plain and simple. Any other taxes we pay, illegal immigrants pay the same taxes. Any illegal immigrants that are using phony social security numbers are also paying income taxes, and that is free money for the government, because no one will ever try to claim a return on it.

Freedom of Association

I think there is also a constitutional issue involved with illegal immigration, even though I don't hold much for the constitution itself (which is a different topic for a different time). The first amendment says in part, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". If you think, like I do, that "the people" applies to all people (that everyone is born with equal rights), than stopping people from assembling anywhere is wrong. If you believe that the constitution only applies to US citizens, it is still an abridgment of my rights if you want to keep me from assembling with illegal immigrants by keeping them out of the country. But really it is all probably a moot point.

Nationalism

I think nationalism is the same as racism. To me this is the reason, even if people don't realize the reason behind it, that some people see the anti-illegal movement as closet racism. It is about feeling that one group has more rights or a better station in life, merely by accident of birth. With racists it is by being born a certain race, with nationalists it is being born in a certain country. Everyone is free to feel however they want and to associate with whoever they want. But excluding people for whatever reason cuts a percentage out of your possibilities. Instead of looking for the things we think are wrong with illegal immigration, we should look at what is in it for us. If the government is doing something that is unfair to us, instead of saying the immigrants are taking advantage, we should place the blame on the ones who are forcing us to participate. If social programs and taxation are being taken advantage off, we should cut them off, no matter who is doing the taking advantage of. Let us give our money to programs that will spend it how we want, or lets us keep our money, either way. We shouldn't be forced to participate in things we think are scams. We shouldn't be forced to associate or not associate with anyone.

Blame Game

We do have a problem in this country and I think illegal immigration makes it glaringly apparent. But it doesn't have to do with the people, but with the government abuses of all of us. We need to quit letting the government shift the blame, especially when experience tells us that they have no real plans to do anything about it.

I don't think people are ever illegal. I would never tell a man he can't cross an imaginary line in the sand to feed his family or make a better life. There are some real issues that should be dealt with that the immigration problem points out though. I could also probably go on for a couple of more pages on private property rights and the difference between private property and "public" property, but I will let it drop for now.

The No Name Group Project