What American Independence?

Two years ago, I wisely wrote A Strange Utopia, which remains relevant even unto this day with Trump taking the place of Jeb (both are essentially the same figure for the purpose of the short story, as far as I’m concerned -look at how Trump has kept DACA in place and failed to remove sanctions on Russia).

Today is the day America celebrates its independence. And today is, as a prominent alt-right Twitter poster said (can’t find the tweet; I forgot the exact wording, spent some time searching for it), the first year in which I’ve become rather detached from the whole idea of American independence. What meaning is American independence when the country is bound down by the chains of endless immigration, to promote big government, and ultimately, its decline and supersession by firstly China and, secondly, yes, Russia and Japan, those infinitely media-maligned countries notorious for their low native fertility. Yet, what is the purpose of high native fertility if it is dysgenic; a transformation of the United States into Mexico or, just as bad, the tragic coast of Southern California (where my fellow American George Michael Grena lives, in one of the congressional districts with the most disgusting politics in the country -I, in Michigan, empathize!). Take a look at the Mississippi exit polls by age if you do not believe what America is becoming. Any hint of the expression of the great Democratic platform of 1852, by the 2030s, will be dead. The McGovernites will have won.

Likewise, America remains bound down by the toxic-fruited chains of foreign obligation -and look how its partisans admire them! All but four deeply conservative representatives out of four hundred thirty five -and not one Senator- voted to reaffirm America’s commitment to the horrendous and obsolete (despite the President’s statement to the contrary) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which binds this relatively great (if not as much as it used to be) country to foolishly commit to the defense of such great (if one has low standards) nations as Albania, Montenegro, Romania, and Latvia. Happy slaves so many of your fellow citizenry are, American! And how they cheer their slavery! Independence? Bondage.

And as a final insult, America remains forced by its so-called “representatives” to pay billions of dollars a year in tribute to Israel, a country that has taken advantage of us so much -how can, as the President used to say, we call America great when the other countries are taking so, so much advantage of us in every arena? Now Israel, though a typical Southern European country in many respects, is certainly one that is an example for all the world in its commitment to its national sovereignty. Look at its border fence, its infinite arms and pockets stretching into so many of the great capitals of the world, its pro-natalism, its commitment against being forced to defend, pay tribute, or invite the residents of any other country. And how foolish is America not to follow in that example?

The reason I remain so detached is precisely because of the presidency being occupied by the only man who could even remotely break these chains binding America to slavery -and his consistent refusal to do so.

As long as America is bound down by the chains of immigration imperialism, the toxic terrorist organization known as the NATO alliance, and its perpetual and obliging treatment as puppet by the Jewish state, how can we celebrate Independence Day with any honor?

Author: pithom

An atheist with an interest in the history of the ancient Near East. Author of the Against Jebel al-Lawz Wordpress blog.

4 thoughts on “What American Independence?”

  1. In what sense is Israel taking advantage of the US? I’m not necessarily disagreeing, I just want to understand the argument. Full disclosure, I am a zionist and a [classical] liberal.

    To my mind, the best argument is that Israel is an overpriced foreign outpost in a hostile and different part of the world. Overpriced, yes, but still useful and the good kind of ally to boot, i.e. like us, in many respects (as you say, nationalist, [classically] liberal (in the sense that the US is still liberal, despite a very strong progressive influence)).

    Now maybe you disagree that we should have a listening post in a part of the world that we’d best just leave alone. OK.

    I think that financial support for Israel could be decreased, but it would diminish the US’s ability to influence Arab/Muslim countries. That is, if the US really made Israel “stand on its own,” it would be costly for Israel’s neighbors — so the US bribes Israel to keep a stiff upper lip. I’d be fine with that outcome, but I don’t think it’s Israel that’s the obstacle.

    1. “In what sense is Israel taking advantage of the US?”
      “Overpriced, yes, but still useful and the good kind of ally to boot,”
      I wouldn’t say pushing Congress into constant and counterproductive Iran-baiting and support of the Syrian rebels is being “the good kind of ally”. It could be a lot worse, of course. I don’t mind the listening post, but suspect the CIA/NSA budget is enough to substitute.
      I freely admit Israel’s leadership has a great deal better influence on the U.S. than a lot of the neocons here. But it’s still not a clear net benefit to the U.S., as far as I can see. In any case, you admit it’s “overpriced” -is that not a synonym for being taken advantage of?
      “That is, if the US really made Israel “stand on its own,” it would be costly for Israel’s neighbors — so the US bribes Israel to keep a stiff upper lip.”
      Can you elaborate on this point? I doubt U.S. aid has served to discourage Israeli belligerence.

      1. 1. By good kind of ally, I mean, like us: Israelis certainly have some cultural differences (they are more direct or “ruder” than US standards), but their view of how society ought to be ordered is very similar to ours, unlike, say Saudi, or even parts of central and Western Europe. Certainly Israel’s political culture is not homogenous, but it is by and large liberal (in the sense of individual rights, equality before the law, and limited gov’t [since Begin]). Israel was a natural ally of the US during the cold war.

        Overpriced is similar to “taken advantage of” but the connotation is different — which is why I used that word. I think (but I’m speculating) that you may underestimate the value of Israel’s real world experience and skin-in-the-game to our ability to fight certain (and sometimes shared) bad guys. If a war breaks out in the East, wouldn’t you want the high-IQ ashkenazis on our side ;)?

        2. I guess it depends on what you mean by Iran-baiting. I think the evidence is pretty strong that Iran poses a genuine threat to Israel, and indeed, since Israel would be happy to leave Iran alone, it’s pretty clear that Iran is the belligerent one in that regard. Or rather, from Iran’s perspective, Israel’s existence is (and always has been) the casus belli.

        Indeed, much of what Iran is trying to do is limit Israel’s ability to stand on its own — that is, maintain an overwhelming military edge on its neighbors so as to dissuade any attacks. That’s why, for example, Iran has funded, trained, armed and equipped Hizb’allah on the Northern border. [If Iran is not, in fact, doing that, I’d be curious to see the counter evidence.]

        It’s the flipside of what I mean by “brib[ing] Israel” to keep a stiff upper lip. My recollection (consistent with the chart you linked to) is that US aid to Israel spikes dramatically after ’72, i.e. Begin’s peace with Sadat. If you recall, only 5 years earlier, Israel annihilated Russian armed, trained and equipped Arab armies on all fronts. Damascus, Cairo, Amman, Beirut, and probably Baghdad if they wanted to, were within striking distance. The war lasted six days because the international community (ie cold war powers) made Israel stop. Israel demonstrated that if it had to, it could treat its Arab enemies the way the Allies treated their enemies in WWII — flatten their capitals and make them beg for mercy.

        By sponsoring Israel’s return of Sinai to Egypt (an otherwise fantastic natural defense within reach of Cairo), the US was bribing Israel not to take security into its own hands — for Cairo’s benefit, not Israel’s. It is perhaps the greatest mistake in Israel’s history that it did not invite the Jordanians living in Judea/Samaria to hop on a bus to join the rest of Jordan on the other side of the river. That decision was made for the Hashemite’s benefit, who were (and are) desperately trying to avoid the fate of King Faruk. It’s the Hashemites who expelled Arafat and his crew to Beirut. Likewise, in the 80’s, it was “international” pressure that led Israel to abandon its allies in Lebanon (let Arafat flee to Libya), eventually cede the country to Syrian (now Iranian) influence. Even today, it is “international” pressure (and financing) that pays the hostile ex-Jordanians (now called Palestinians) to settle in Judea/Samaria because (among other reasons), no one else wants them, least of all Arab rulers who fear another “sect” threatening their patrimony.

        Now, to be clear, Israel has learned (sooner than the US) that the devil you know is often preferable — and so it has its own reasons for preferring Hashemite rule, or the PA, for example. Similarly, many in the Arab world increasingly care less about Israel — indeed would prefer openness – but worry about a populist flank, and (perversely) the influx of more Arabs. But fundamentally, Israel can protect itself, if it needs to, by exacting great cost from its neighbors. If Israel decided to rid itself of its enemies within or without, there is not a lot Arab countries could do about it — other than plead with the “international” community to intervene. Iran is trying to change that, however, which can only be described as belligerent, unless you think somehow Israel has designs on Tehran, or even if you think “palestinians” have changed their minds about a contiguous state “from the river to the sea.”

        All of this is a longwinded way of saying that Iran poses a genuine threat to Israel, precisely because Iran understands what US policy makers understand: Israel can exact great costs on its neighbors if it wants to. Iran and the US have different reasons for preventing that from happening.

        Now, maybe you doubt the propriety of helping our allies in the absence of a direct threat to the US. That’s a fair point, but at least it seems to be one about which reasonable people can disagree. It also seems to be a question of degree, but not kind — how much aid, and at one point does one perceive a direct threat.

Read the Comment Policy Before Commenting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: