I feel obliged as a weblogger
To join in
on the attacks on Francis Fukuyama's pathetic screed
. After my rejuvenating nap, I'm ready post again, and I am ready to tackle this subject.
The great free-market revolution that began with the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at the close of the 1970s has finally reached its Thermidor, or point of reversal. Like the French Revolution, it derived its energy from a simple idea of liberty, to wit, that the modern welfare state had grown too large, and that individuals were excessively regulated. The truth of this idea was vindicated by the sudden and unexpected collapse of Communism in 1989, as well as by the performance of the American and British economies in the 1990s.
The "free-market revolution" cannot compare to the glorious French revolution. Where were the guillotines? Where was the mass murder? To compare the two is to insult the French Revolution.
Communism fell because of the reformist policies such as Glasnost, and the turn away from revolutionary thought. If the Soviet Union had continued to support true revolutionaries such as myself, they would never have lost their sense of purpose, and would still be standing today. If they had not neglected their vanguard, they would not be in the ash heap of history.
Yet the revolution entered a Jacobin phase with the election of Newt Gingrich's Congress in 1994, even as the Clinton-Blair left shifted gears and scrambled to occupy the old center. For many on the right, Mr. Reagan's classical liberalism began to evolve into libertarianism, an ideological hostility to the state in all its manifestations.
I will ignore the swipe at the Jacobins. But please, "began to evolve?" Mr. Reagan was a libertarian before he ever set foot in the White House. He signed a landmark law in California legalizing abortion, and said he was getting government off the backs of the people. If he became more conservative in the White House, that was only the result of Zionist influences. Newt Gingrich was merely returning to Reagan's ideological roots.
Sept. 11 ended this line of argument. It was a reminder to Americans of why government exists, and why it has to tax citizens and spend money to promote collective interests. It was only the government, and not the market or individuals, that could be depended on to send firemen into buildings, or to fight terrorists, or to screen passengers at airports.
Most Libertarians, even the Libertopians in the LP, believe government has a duty to protect its citizens. In fact, they believe this is the primary duty of any government. I agree completely; I have totally neglected improving the situation in the refugee camps, I have embezzled money
to funnel it into the hands of terrorists (there is no shame in admitting this), I have done everything possible to support the military actions against Zionist occupation and have never given second thought to creating a welfare state (if UNRWA wants to do that for me, more power to them).
I must agree with the second notion, however. Hamas gave it their best shot, but they couldn't compete with the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, funded by my government. In their short life (which appears to have sadly come close to being ended), the Brigades carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas ever has
Even if one does not share the view of religious conservatives that embryos have the moral status of infants
If it can't strap on a suicide bomb and kill Zionist occupiers, it has absolutely no value or "moral status."
We already have a clear example of this in China and India, where cheap sonograms and abortion have allowed parents to produce a fifth more boys than girls--a recipe for social instability when these boys come of age and find no mates.
Who wants instability when they could have a formula for revolution? The right way is to have as many children of every sex as possible. Even if half of the boys and men die off, other men can simply take two wives. And then they can have children just as quickly as if all of the males were alive (with UNRWA money this is very possible; even if they die after having kids, Saddam and the House of Saud will pick up the tab). Of course, it is still worthwhile to send female suicide bombers out, for the public relations value--but that is just an insignificant number of women.
Would the child of an African-American couple be "improved" if she could be born with white skin? Would boys be better human beings if they were born with less of a propensity for aggression?
To answer the first question, if it would help him or her to "pass" as a suicide bomber, then by all means yes. To answer the second question, of course not! What is a man if he is not a killing machine? What defines manhood beyond the ability to pick up a rifle and cut down occupation soldiers (Even better would be civilians in the settlements. And best would be civilians in the 1947 borders. If anyone has any doubt as to our intentions, look how we celebrate killings: settlers are worth less than civilians within the 1947 borders)
It is in this respect that the cloning bills before the Senate take on significance.
Whatever the Zionists want, they will get. Why is Fukuyama-face so upset, throwing this fit? Why doesn't he resign himself to the realities of Washington? What he says has no importance unless it pleases the Jews.
The liberalism of the Founding Fathers was built on natural rights. Political rights were seen as a means of protecting those rights which inhered in us as members of a human species that sought certain common natural ends. Thomas Jefferson, toward the end of his life, observed that political rights should be enjoyed equally because nature had not contrived to have some men born with saddles on their backs and others born "booted and spurred" to ride them.
Quoting supposedly great men to argue your points is just a form of cowardice. Say what you really believe, and defend it, don't count on another's fame to give you credibility. General Yasser Arafat never
quotes anyone other than himself.
At any rate, this is a foolish and dangerously wrong concept. Some of us were born to greatness, some of us were born to be revolutionaries. We were born into middle-class families, and attended colleges and universities where we learned the intricacies of revolutionary thought. Look at the heroic martyrs of September the 11th
. They were born to acheive greatness, they were the sons of doctors and lawyers. They were the elite. My own Al-Aksa Martyr Brigades were primarily middle-class
. I was born to acheive greatness, the other Palestinians were born to serve me. I believe my record speaks for itself.
In any case, if Fukuyama is going to quote Jefferson, I can quote Benjamin Franklin
(it is on the web site of the ADL, it is therefore unimpeachable):
There is a great danger for the United State of America. This great danger is the Jew. Gentlemen, in every land the Jews have settled, they have depressed the moral level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty. They have remained apart and unassimilated; oppressed, they attempt to strangle the nation financially, as in the case of Portugal and Spain.
I rest my case. Fukuyama is a dangerous twister of the truth. He plays fast and loose with the facts, and couldn't stage an intifada to save his skin.