On the U.S Mexican Border and the “Colonization” of the U.S. by Mexicans and Israel!!!!
March 28, 2009 by emmarosenthal
These two articles come from rense.com, which seems to be positioned between the neo-liberal (realist school of foreign policy ), and the neo-Nazi camp. The position on palestine of the realists is essentially zionist, in that it differs from the neo-con position, only on the degree of support for Israel, calling for balance, never challenging the pre 1967 borders, and asserts that the reason to oppose the current position of the U.S. vis a vis Israel is U.S. interests, constantly attacking the neo-cons for being more aligned with Israel than the U.S.– as if that were the key question. It begs the question: if current policy were in U.S. interest, would it be okay?
Isn’t the real issue, self-determination and human rights?
And what about findley’s quote below? When has the U.S. been beloved worldwide? what about U.S. intervention in Vietnam (which, as a congressman, Findley supported); in Central america (which Findley supported); in apartheid South Africa (which Findley supported), in occupied amerika (which Findley supported!)
“Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.”-former U.S. Congressman paul findley.
Neo-liberalism disagrees with neo-Naziism, in the degree to which it condemns “Jewish” power and world domination; sometimes differentiating between zionism and Jews, though not always. Neo-Nazis see Jews and Judaism as essentially evil and this evil is the causative factor, often citing obscure passages from Talmud or referencing hoaxes like the “Elders of Zion.” Both groups are concerned that Zionist Jews (as opposed to other Zionists) have dual and competing allegiances, compromising Amerikan interests for the interests of a foreign power. Neo-Nazis also question the significance and number of Jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime during WWII and deny that there was a specific program to destroy the European Jewish population, that all wars have casualties, and Jews were not singled out for extermination, but simply died as a consequence of war.
Both neo-liberals and neo-nazis see amerika as a victim of outside interests and colonization, not aggressors. glaringly reflected in the similarities between the Israeli and Amerikan narrative. Zionists repeatedly refrain that Israel is a small country surrounded by hostile Arabs. Amerikan white supremacists, once surrounded by “hostile savage natives” now lament that Amerika is controlled by forces outside, or outside groups from within, that muddy amerikan democracy and interests.
Realists are not white supremacists in the KKK nazi tradition; it is too simplistic to paint them with the same brush, though they do share many core positions. They are white supremacists in the arrogant assumption of their own entitlement and correctness: the rightness of whiteness; the assumption of U.S. supremacy and interest as its own ethic; the acceptance without question of U.S. hegemony and power. The problem with supporting Israel, to the realists, doesn’t lie in human rights or social justice, but because they (the realists), see such support as a threat to continued U.S. global hegemony. It’s a strategic question, not a moral one, nor one that requires personal sacrifice or loss of privilege; quite the opposite. In this regard (to paraphrase activist, Naomi Jaffe) the neo-cons are the idealists. The realists understand the limits of U.S. global domination and militarism, as well as the price, including the inability of the U.S. to contain popular uprisings and movements within the Americas. The neo-cons wish to expand empire as if there were no limits or consequences to the empire itself.
I provide these links, not as an endorsement of their positions, because mine is quite contrary to the thesis of either of these articles, but rather to expose the iniquity and agenda of these schools of thought.
Politics does make strange bedfellow. But I think it is extremely important to consider who someone is, before jumping into bed with them.