Browsed by
Author: Joe Lizardi

The Violent Left is in Denial

The Violent Left is in Denial

We millennials have finally crossed the threshold  as a generation, like many generations before us, wherein the political left is willing to justify its worldview and its half-truths with violence. The riots at UC Berkeley and the violent portions of the anti-Trump inauguration protests are not by themselves a threat to the stability of the United States. However, it is disconcerting that the mediasphere,  including a cacophony of histrionic voices on social media from everyday garden-variety leftists, has  already begun to generate a narrative of justification for violent acts as a “legitimate” response to words and/or potential policies they might not like. This is dangerous.

Moreover, this is not a courtesy  that is extended to the political right when the tables are turned. While the neckbeards and Bernie bros cling to the popular vote of the most recent presidential election to justify any and every act of civil disobedience (even when the activities veer into the realm of criminality), they neglect to discuss how and why both houses of Congress are red. The two most likely options are unflattering to this demographic. Either (A) The Democratic Party does not have the backing of the people, including demographics they once thought they held a monopoly over, and are out of touch with the spirit of the current age in America or (B) the demographics out on the streets protesting were too lazy or apathetic to be bothered to vote. This social force’s own inability to connect with and mobilize ordinary Americans is the very reason Trump has carte blanche to enact any conservative reforms he wants.

What are they protesting exactly? Words? Attitudes? A certain “feeling” that Trump will not represent the groups they want represented? (And to hell with everyone else, of course!) Where is the logic in this? The President once engaged in “locker room talk”. Clearly this indicates he means to strip female CEOs of their positions to reallocate them to Klansmen.  Surely, he will send these poor newly jobless women on their way to the menstrual hut thereafter. Look at their slogans: “NO TRUMP, NO KKK, NO FASCIST USA” They’re conflating three separate things. What is this, far-right intersectionality?

Please.

These geniuses could never correctly identify a fascist. If Mussolini ran for office today as a Democrat, they’d recognize and embrace most of his policies as their own . Mussolini in turn would love his new electorate – Mussolini, the atheist who identified as a socialist for much of his early life and career. What are life, liberty, and property rights when weighed against “the cause” or “the state” or “social justice?”

It also goes without saying that the KKK had a long, intimate history of association with the Democratic Party. See more: http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

The silver lining is that their excessive reactions will undermine their own agenda.  The Hollywood elites are distant enough from ordinary Americans as it is, but the gulf will only widen as they throw themselves fully into a revolution no one asked for . We see it over every Trumpian policy. The left loses their mind over a “Muslim Ban” that restricts people of all faiths from the seven Muslim-majority countries (out of about 50) determined by the Obama administration. They lose their minds over Trump’s deportations, even though it is unlikely that he’ll deport more than Obama did. Whether it be an economic proposal that could have come from the mouth of Bernie Sanders, all the way to saying that men can’t use the girls room if they feel like it, the hysteria is truly out of control. Soon enough, even the most complacent and ill-informed Americans will understand the game that “liberal” elites play.

When  Pompey had control of the Patricians, Caesar used the Plebs to his advantage. What would happen if the Plebs ever found out how exactly they were being used, or if they understood that wealthy liberals have something to gain from all their “altruism?” Bread and circuses until the coffers are emptied, anything to widen the gap. It is fine for the poor to be poorer in the long term so long as the rich be less rich, as Margaret Thatcher correctly identified. She only omitted that it was the rich families that the liberal establishment does not like that are reduced. Wealthy families in bed with the liberal agenda always seem to come out on top, greatly enriched; “charity” indeed. Every time a Debra Messing or a Sarah Silverman or a Lea DeLaria tweets to incite violence, the timer starts on when ordinary people will inevitably ask: “Where are they?” It’s not their children being arrested. These celebrities gladly send out legions of fans to do their dirty work. What’s the loss of few pawns compared to “the greater good?”

To the thugs who now call themselves “anarchists,” but eschew the Non-Aggression Principle, I ask: “Where were you for the last eight years of Obama’s statism? Why are you only anarchists when the policies jeopardize bread and circuses?” And finally, “Are you really that dense?”

They are not anarchists just because they desire to be ruled by a different faction of the elite. They think they’re communists, which makes them useful idiots for manipulative “progressive” elites to maintain their own power, status, privilege, and all the other naughty buzzwords. There is no greater hypocrisy. Black is white and red is blue if a progressive sophist can spin it in a way that favors his master. This entrenchment of privilege manifests itself in the dynasty, the political family.

“Progressive political families.” Isn’t that contrary to all their platitudes about redressing problematic privilege? You bet it is! For example, Senator  Chuck Schumer and “comedian” Amy Schumer are two tentacles of the same squid. Chuckie writes the policy and Amy justifies it to the public at large through her medium. That’s why a fan base is collected. If it’s not a product being sold; it’s an ideology. Progressive news anchorman Anderson Cooper is of Vanderbilt stock. These champagne socialists and limousine liberals really do have blue blood. The American liberal elite are so inbred they put the Hapsburgs to shame. Tell us again about the needs of the working classes. Refugees welcome indeed. To use a Lefty technique: I don’t see any of them volunteering to take in these refugees or illegal immigrants into their homes. Of course not, they just want to use the apparently unlimited budget of the federal government to add more and more people to our spectacular welfare system, and more low-skill level workers into the work force, while we struggle to even take care of our own. The moral posturing is really something. To these privileged progressives: enjoy your cheap labor while a veteran starves.

 

Building Peace in Israel (Without Leftist Sophistry)

Building Peace in Israel (Without Leftist Sophistry)

The Nation of Israel is a friend and ally to the United States. As such, it’s stability and prosperity is intertwined with our own. Understanding it’s complex neighborhood is our key to creating bold new solutions to the troubles that have frustrated diplomats for generations. Applying Conservative principles, such as peace through trade and reinforcing strong, defensible borders, is vital to sustaining order and security. Achieving peace in Israel will, contrary to Leftist lies, benefit the whole world by leaving future generations a more cohesive society than what we have inherited.

Despite all the support a two-state solution garners in the UN and the media, it appears to be a misguided and simplistic, even Solomonic solution that will never engender any protracted peace. The longer-enduring effect of Palestinian statehood along 1967 borders will only create a mismatch of two competing, mutually-hostile nation-states: each claiming the land of the other state as “rightfully” its own in perpetuity. Perhaps such a scenario suits the agenda of some, but it certainly does not build a lasting peace.

Firstly, the Green Line of the so-called “1967 border” is merely a ceasefire line and has never been a recognized international border. Secondly, there has never, properly speaking, existed a State of Palestine. The political structure of the historical ideal of Palestinian nationalists was always one controlled by foreign imperialist entities (the Rashidun Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, and finally the British Empire). Rather than recognize a new state ex nihilo (as the UN intends to do on September 15, 2015), it would benefit all parties (excluding the most radically nationalist) to recognize that a perfectly adequate homeland for the Palestinian people already exists as a sovereign state: Jordan. The majority of Jordanians are already Palestinian and the state of Jordan represents some 70% of the original British Mandate for Palestine.

Historically speaking, the reason for the UN partition plan of 1947 was due to the demographic composition of the land at the time, considering the limited pace of Jewish immigration. The ensuing persecution of Jews across the Middle East led to the influx of one million Jewish refugees from the Middle East alone, discounting refugees from Europe and the Holocaust. Considering the new demographic composition of the land, 70% is an appropriate portion of the land for Arabs, if indeed we are talking about a just solution for all parties and not the wholesale uprooting or annihilation of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

Jordan, with the above considerations, represents a completely suitable right-of-return homeland for those Palestinians who no longer wish to live in diaspora.

How then should the remaining Palestinian territories be administrated? There are at least two options. My preferred option is that all parties drop the arbitrary demarcation of 1967 and instead allow Israel to annex Area C of the Oslo Accords, rather than forcibly evicting Jewish settlers. Concurrently, rather than evicting the Palestinian minority in Area C, they should be given full Israeli citizenship, with voting rights. Areas A and B should continue to fall under the administration of the Palestinian authority which would function as a completely autonomous governing entity or parallel government within the State of Israel, without becoming an independent state, maintaining all the rights of Israeli citizenship except that their voting rights extend only to local, Palestinian Authority elections, the governing apparatus of the autonomous Judea and Samaria region: a status not unlike that of Puerto Rico to the United States.

Alternatively, one could revive for the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, as the territory is known in Israel) the three-state solution in which Jordan would assume control of the entire territory, including Area C. My main concern regarding this proposal is that the borders are completely indefensible. Compared to having the nice straight line of the Jordan Valley as a border, this plan would put an international border in place that would divide the city of Jerusalem. Historically, we know that divided cities are not sustainable, to say the least.

A particularly thorny impediment to peace is the status of the Gaza Strip. The Hamas-led government there refuses to cooperate with either Israel or the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. The conclusions left for the Gazans is that they must either be granted full independence or else left in a legal limbo (which would be inadvisable, inhumane, and I do not by any means advocate). Proponents of the three-state solution would have Gaza handed over to Egypt in a similar fashion to how the West Bank would be annexed to Jordan. However, today the Egyptian government is having difficulties pacifying Islamist insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula. The last thing the Al-Sisi administration needs is more Islamists to deal with, such as Hamas.

Here’s where this proposal veers into radical idealism:

In order to foment a lasting and sustainable peace, I propose a monetary and economic union for the nation-states of the Levant. Beginning with a customs union and slowly progressing stage-by-stage to a full economic and monetary union under the Israeli shekel, this war-torn region may achieve peace by commerce. The European Union has done much to promote peace in Europe – a lasting peace – and has as an institution, even been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The security and stability of Europe began and evolved from a simple trading bloc. My ideal would have this process replicate itself in miniature throughout the four states of the Levant (Israel, Jordan/Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria).

It is my hope that Israel could take a stabilizing leadership role in the region much as Germany has done in the EU. In doing so, Israel could both potentially export democracy and raise the standard of living among its neighbors in exchange for new markets for Israeli enterprises to explore.

Now, moving on to a bigger and more complicated topic, which is an important factor in regional security, yet far too big to do justice in the context of this article.

Whichever faction prevails and becomes the government of whatever is left of Syria (if such an outcome is even possible) will require aid, in terms of security and financial assistance, to begin reconstruction. Israel and Jordan can muster some support and fill this void, along with the rest of the international community. These actors particularly because they are directly affected by the aftermath of the Syrian Civil War in terms of their security. Whether these nations like it or not, any foreign policy mistakes will lead to domestic consequences when it comes to states in such close proximity.

Further incentive for implementing a full economic union with the embattled Syrians, outside of peace and security, is Syria’s lucrative oil reserves, though Israel’s huge, newly discovered sub-aquatic natural gas reserves as well as the slumping price of oil may diminish the magnitude of the incentive this would bring to the negotiating table.

The economic prospects are interesting, but undeniably it is security that serves as the major catalyst for action in the region. The threat from groups such as Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra necessitate regional security cooperation. Lebanon has both lessons to offer and lessons to learn concerning its confessional system of pluralist representation. Linking a religious sect to their own parties has the benefit of ensuring representation in a sense, but it is by no means a perfect solution as it enables and perpetuates division between the sects. More important to the Israelis would be the tolerance of the Lebanese for militant group Hezbollah, a major security concern. In myriad ways, all participants would benefit from further cooperation, yet the main impediment to any formal moves towards that end would be the violent militant Islamist groups: Hamas, Nusra, Hezbollah, and ISIS.

Further Balkanizing forces in the region include Kurdish and Druze separatism. But that is another article altogether.

Were such a union of the states of the Levant to defy the odds and come together to unite against religious fundamentalism, provide security, and create new dynamic investment opportunities, the trajectory of human and economic development could experience unprecedented success for the region. Furthermore, economic and monetary union would serve as a bulwark and counterpoint to other influential hegemonic spheres such as that of Iran or the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Factions used as proxies by outside powers within the Levant such as Hezbollah and the Assad regime (Iran) and rebel groups such as Ahrar al-Sham (Turkey) and Nusra (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) have served only to destabilize the Levant and embroil it in conflict.

United, the states of the Levant can stand together against the neocolonialist ambitions of foreign elements and in doing so preserve the cultural, economic, and political autonomy of the Levantine peoples, bringing peace to a region of the world in desperate need of stability.

Follow by Email