My Argument with an Anti-Zionist

I warned about people who scream for peace. They are the ones who will murder you in the end. --Charles Bukowski

Recently I had a disturbing encounter with an anti-Zionist. I'll present the discussion as well as I can, both in hopes that I can respond to anyone else who thinks the same way, and so that I can organize some of the thoughts I was not able to articulate during the discussion itself. I also welcome corrections to my limited understanding of mideast history. I know that my point of view may be different from those who are religious, but please keep in mind that the conclusions are the same -- as long as your world view does not call for the destruction of Israel due to prophecy.

An old acquaintance from college dropped in for a visit over the weekend, and after he found out that I'm involved with both my neighborhood and company emergency response teams, he scoffed. Right away we began to argue about the causes of terrorism, which he claimed was 100% preventable and unnecessary. For purposes of anonymity, I will call this person John, because he is a non-practicing Christian, and it suits him well.

Our first disagreement was whether or not we needed homeland defense and emergency response teams only for terrorism. Despite the events of 9/11, John disputed it, saying that terrorism had thus far represented an infinitesimal amount of suffering and death in our country. Second, he asserted that America could stop the threat of terrorism if we would only stop interfering with other countries. Third, he asserted that terrorism is driven by human suffering rather than any ideological bent. Finally, John thinks that people are ultimately reasonable creatures who would not do horrible things unless they were given good reason to do so. This is the basis of his position that Israelis have hurt Arabs in so many ways for so long that their only remaining solution is to resort to suicide attacks.

I disputed all four points of view. Automobile accidents and smoking hazards, which he mentioned as examples of threats we face willingly every day and are much more dangerous than terrorism, are met willingly by the endangered participants. Moreover, terrorists have stated that NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) weapons are their ultimate goal. Whole cities and populations could be decimated by future terrorism. Next, I disagreed that terrorism would stop if Americans stopped supporting Israel and defending its oil interests in the Gulf. I argued that terrorism is largely ideologically motivated, and that it is based on a clash of civilizations rather than mistreatment of Arabs, Persians, and Pakistanis. I suggested that the enmity between Arabs and Jews had been very old, and its vitriol had been updated by recent infusions of Nazism via the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin-al-Husseini. This, too was met with scoffs. John could not believe that there might be a continuance of the Nazi conspiracy against Jews. The issue of Nazism is appropriate, because it serves as one of the most disturbing counter-examples to John's hope that people are basically rational creatures who will not stoop to depravity unless driven by unfair treatment. The spread of the Axis forces around the globe between 1937 and 1945 may have even been slowed by their insistence on rooting out and killing Jews. Yet they used the threat of a Jewish world conspiracy to motivate their citizens to hideous and time-consuming crimes against humanity.

The toughest point of disagreement between John and me went to the root of our arguments. John offered two solutions to the problems facing the peoples of the middle east. I will get to the second, more chilling "joke" he continued to push all night later. His most "reasonable" idea was to ask Israelis to continue supporting true democratic values, and allow Palestinians and other Muslims within Israel to vote. John suggested that now would be a good time for Israel to "learn to get along with its neighbors because their strength and number was growing faster than theirs." I strongly disagreed with this point of view. I reminded him that I believed that the struggle between Muslims and Jews was ideologically based, and that Israelis had a right to protect themselves and their culture against infiltration and birthrate attacks. I suggested that under the circumstances, the best way for Israel to deal with this threat would be to deport all non-Jewish people and discontinue hiring migrant Palestinians for cheap labor. I also expressed fear that Israel couldn't make this difficult choice because of its own history with genocide and ethnic cleansing. I think I horrified John at this point.

John had begun his attack on my pro-Zionist position by asking me how would I react if Israelis came and pushed me off of my land? I answered that force was a viable means for defending a homeland, but that as large as the Arab world is, and as many places that are just as hospitable as Israel, there ought to be other places for Arab Palestinians than Israel. I further asked John to see that after WW2 and the horrors of the Holocaust, it was fair to ask for just one place for Jews to go that they could call their own. The location on the earth where they had been before the Diaspora seemed fair to me, and I pointed out that my father and his brothers had gone to war to fight Nazism and anti-semitism. We had an investment to protect in the Jews, which is why we support Israel. I would have added that access to mideast oil is indeed worth defending, and that given the Anglo history of finding and exploiting it efficiently, we had a stake in ensuring continued access to it, so long as we were fair in our compensation of the native peoples who possessed the mineral rights. John disagreed, saying that we will continue to pay in blood for our support of Israeli oppression of Arabs and our continued interdiction in Arab affairs related to oil resources. I agreed that terrorism would continue to be a threat, but I pointed out that we must be willing to pay the price.

Our disagreements had a fundamental root, and the argument deepened. John said that no culture had a right to survive over any other. For example in America, Irish culture was not inherently superior to Italian or Polish. I pointed out that Americans had a right to defend their use of the English language, as Anglos had come here first and built the entire nation and its set of laws and standards of public exchange. John suggested otherwise, and said that we had no right to keep Irish Americans from outpacing Anglos in their birthrates and overtaking English-speakers. He said eventually in this hypothetical situation, reinstituting Irish as the primary language for our country could be quite normal. He also made the point that we had unfairly decimated the Indians in this country, and that this wasn't the best way to go about integrating cultures.

My response is probably the most controversial, but I suggested that the culture that is most powerful has a right to win if it can. And I said that force to secure and hold the peace was justified. If I had believed John would listen, I would have said that western democracy, namely American democracy, had a right to exist because it was a quantum leap forward in human liberty. I knew John would not listen, because he repeatedly offered culturally relative assertions throughout the discussion, such as the idea that American liberties might not be interesting or useful to other cultures. I disagree, but I can not prove my beliefs that our founding fathers created the most advanced form of freedom possible for human beings in 1776 when they offered our Declaration of Independence. Such a point would be lost on the likes of John.

Our disagreements continued. To get to each one, I must address the subjects that we agreed were true:

I continued to suggest that Israeli democracy had a right to be defined on the basis of cultural and racial principles. One way to see this is to look at it from the opposite point of view. If Israel weren't defined in terms of Jewishness and Jewish racial heritage, their right to practice their beliefs could be destroyed by Arabs, many of whom teach their children that all Jews are evil and should be killed.

I also argued that terrorism against Americans was based on more than just our mishandling of people in regions where our anti-communist and critical natural resources existed. The communist threat was brought into the third world from outside. We met it with equal, if not clumsy use of force. John and I agreed that in the future, we should fight threats like communism much more directly, and attempt to be more honorable in that endeavor. However, I doubt that we agree on what that means. To him it might mean winning hearts and minds. To me, it means identifying where our enemies are and calling in more effective B52 strikes.

Finally, religion is a point that we both agree has been used to stir up the contention. But I pointed out that Christians and Jews are a part of my culture, my civilization, and my heritage. These people are not trying to kill me, Muslim extremists are. We are not teaching our children to kill Muslims; it's quite the other way around.

At various points throughout the evening, John revealed that his opinions were extreme. For example, John argued that Jews would probably start killing Christians if there were a Christian dispute over the ownership of Jerusalem, for example. He is not totally incorrect on that point since Zionists helped motivate the British to see that it would be in everyone's best interest to let Israel come into existence.

John's most violent position, which he presented with a sly grin and repeated several times during the evening, was most disturbing. He joked that we should strike a forcibly unoccupied Jerusalem with nuclear weapons, thereby causing it to be too radioactive for healthy occupation. This would solve the problem of disputed holiness, he laughed. I'm certain that looking for a location outside the mideast for Israelis to move has crossed many minds, but to put it in these terms was hideous. Just because muslims claim any land they ever occupy is holy, Jerusalem should be rendered unlivable? Just because muslims are allowed an unlimited number of holy sites, Jews are allowed none? Just because Jews had been driven away from Jerusalem more than once, they should never be able to come back again? Just because Jews think they are different from other people due to their culture and sometimes their religious beliefs, they should be forced to allow muslims to make the same claims, yet drive them out of their hard-fought homes and establish a theofascist state where eventually every Jew would be either murdered or driven away?

And what about other groups and nations that wish to stop American influence in the world? Like Noam Chomsky, they cry imperialism and commercialism, and they offer ideological reasons for United States citizesn to return to their homes and even be pushed back across the plains of North America. Envy, a desire for totalitarian power, and fear of competition are behind all of these insults. Americans are not imperialists, and no force in the history of human beings has stood against imperialism more strongly than Americans. These are lies, damned lies, and their culmination is the assertion that America didn't need to enter WW2, didn't need to defeat the Soviet Union, and shouldn't defend itself and its allies today. Our academics will supply the intellectual engines of our own destruction, and our multinational corporations will supply the machines to bring that destruction home.

I took the hint that no further argument could make any difference that night. I smiled and offered Nebraska as an alternative for Jewish people under the circumstances; we laughed together, and our conversation turned to other things. But my confidence in American people was seriously diminished that night. There will be no help for world democracy if we allow people who reason on such terms to regain power. This is what Carter and Clinton had in mind. This is the doctrine of multipolarity, and unchecked, the first result would be the destruction of Israel, and the next would be the fall of South Korea. And finally, our enemies would overwhelm us and defeat America itself and all it stands to defend. John had in the same conversation denounced Patrick Buchanan's ideologies (for other reasons) and then justified his isolationism with a most bitter form of anti-semitism cloaked in an argument that we should abandon our Jewish brethren in arms just because we may again be attacked by theofascist criminals.

Americans did not win the second world war to be intimidated again by the sordid ideologies of Mein Kampf. We will crush this disease again and again if we have to. And we must keep an eye on our isolationist Americans, as well. It is clear to me that their beliefs are centered on themselves, and none of the core values on which this great nation was founded are present in their personal justifications for abandoning Israel.

Finally, I was incensed by John's failure to recognize the horror of 9/11, and the intense psychological pain it has wreaked on the American mind. Regardless of the causes of this pain, it has been intense, and our efforts to both defend against it, and activities such as homeland volunteerism are meaningful. These are practical steps each of us can take to prepare for its almost inevitable recurrence.

I realize that John has been busy with his work over the past three years, and may have not understood how much 9/11 has meant to the average American. We do not take attacks lightly, and I believe 9/11 was 10 times worse than Pearl Harbor. People who fail to realize this have little to offer the American voter. People who ask us to act as if it will never happen again are a danger to the Republic. One thing John and our theofascist muslim enemies fail to realize is that our unity increases exponentially with each attack.

Perhaps the best counter to the anti-Zionist are Dr. Martin Luther King's own words.

From http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html

"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.
"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.
"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.
"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.
This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.
"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.
"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!
"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.
Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."
From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

My dim memory tells me that the Martin Luther King quote is not authentic...

I see you are supported by at least one online resource at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), via Wikipedia. I include it below, without any further interpretation, with some superficial formatting for readability.

Objet: Lettre à un ami antisioniste : texte réconfortant et
canulard,excepté une phrase

Attention : un texte qui circule sur le net "Lettre à un ami
antisioniste" de Martin Luther King ne serait pas authentique. Une
phrase du texte a bien été prononcée par King mais pas plus. Les
recherches d'un organisme aussi sérieux que CAMERA ne sont pas
concluantes quant aux sources du documents. Lire texte en anglais
ci-dessous Pinhas Konopnicki CID
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: CAMERA: MLK letter a hoax, but King did say same message at Harvard

> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
>                                www.camera.org
>
> Shalom CAMERA E-Mail Team:
>
> I am sorry to inform you that the "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend"
> allegedly written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is apparently a
> hoax.  Although, the basic message of the letter was indeed, without
> question, spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at
> Harvard, where he said: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean
> Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism." [ from "The Socialism of
> Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" by Seymour Martin Lipset; in
> Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24. ].
>
> We were initially doubtful of the authenticity of the "Letter to an
> anti-Zionist Friend" because the language in the first paragraph
> seemed almost a parody of language used in Dr. King's "I have a
> dream" speech.  And it was an odd coincidence that the "Letter" was
> listed as being published in one of the few magazines whose archives
> are not able to be checked online. Additionally, we could find no
> reference to the "letter" prior to 1999, which was odd because the
> text is such a dramatic denunciation of anti-Zionism -- one that
> would have been cited widely.
>
> However, we then found the "letter" in a reputable 1999 book
> ("Shared Dreams," by Rabbi Marc Shneier) whose preface was written
> by Martin Luther King III.  Since the King family is known to be
> extremely careful with Dr. King's legacy, we assumed they must have
> verified the accuracy of the book before endorsing it.
>
> Additionally, we found that quotations from the "letter" were used
> on July 31, 2001, by the Anti-Defamation League's Michael Salberg in
> testimony before the U.S. House of Representative's International
> Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and
> Human Rights. The same "source" (Saturday Review, August 1967) for
> the "letter" that was mentioned in the Schneier book was also cited
> in the testimony.  Since many in the Anti-Defamation League had
> actually worked with Martin Luther King, Jr in the civil rights
> struggle, we assumed again they would be very knowledgeable about
> King's work and would have thoroughly checked anything they chose to
> read before Congress.  Based on the apparent verification of the
> "letter" by the King family and the ADL, we sent the "letter" to you
> on MLK Day.
>
> However, because we do not ordinarily rely on anyone else's
> research, we decided to double-check, by searching back issues of
> Saturday Review (Rabbi Shneier's book had referenced the "letter" as
> being published in the August 67 Saturday Review).  Lo and behold,
> there is no such letter in any of the August issues, nor do the page
> and volume numbers cited conform to those actually used by that
> publication. CAMERA also checked with Boston University, where Dr.
> King's work is archived.  The archivists too were unable to locate
> any such letter. We can only conclude that no such letter was
> written by Dr.  King.  (Please note we are not implying that the
> apparently bogus "letter" originated with Rabbi Schneier.)
>
> Since the message of the letter (Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism) was
> one Martin Luther King, Jr. had indeed articulated, we can
> understand why the King family and the ADL did not feel the need to
> verify the "Letter to an anti-Zionist friend."  We at CAMERA
> apologize, though, for not looking past their endorsement when we
> had initial doubts about it.  This episode is a reminder of the
> importance of verifying the authenticity and accuracy of sources,
> even when they appear to be solid.
>
> Below is a January 21, 2002 op-ed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, who
> worked closely with Dr. King.  In the op-ed, he shares Dr. King's
> views on Israel, views which stressed Israel's democratic nature and
> Israel's need for security. And he also relates that Dr. King said,
> "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking
> anti-Semitism."
>
> This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that
> you can use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that
> it came from Dr.  King's 1968 Harvard University appearance, so that
> no one will think it is from the debunked "letter."
>
> The op-ed by Congressman Lewis appears below.
>
> With our sincerest apologies,
> Lee Green
> Director, National Letter-Writing Group
> CAMERA
>
> Monday, January 21, 2002 (San Francisco Chronicle)
> "I have a dream" for peace in the Middle East
> King's special bond with Israel
> by John Lewis
>
> 
> THE REV. MARTIN Luther King Jr. understood the meaning of
> discrimination and oppression. He sought ways to achieve liberation
> and peace, and he thus understood that a special relationship exists
> between African Americans and American Jews.
> 
> This message was true in his time and is true today.
> 
> He knew that both peoples were uprooted involuntarily from their 
> homelands. He knew that both peoples were shaped by the tragic 
> experience of slavery. He knew that both peoples were forced to live 
> in ghettoes, victims of segregation.
> 
> He knew that both peoples were subject to laws passed with the
> particular intent of oppressing them simply because they were Jewish
> or black. He knew that both peoples have been subjected to
> oppression and genocide on a level unprecedented in history.
> 
> King understood how important it is not to stand by in the face of
> injustice. He understood the cry, "Let my people go."
> 
> Long before the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union was on the
> front pages, he raised his voice. "I cannot stand idly by, even
> though I happen to live in the United States and even though I
> happen to be an American Negro and not be concerned about what
> happens to the Jews in Soviet Russia. For what happens to them
> happens to me and you, and we must be concerned."
>
> During his lifetime King witnessed the birth of Israel and the
> continuing struggle to build a nation. He consistently reiterated
> his stand on the Israel- Arab conflict, stating "Israel's right to

> exist as a state in security is uncontestable." It was no accident
> that King emphasized "security" in his statements on the Middle
> East.
> 
> On March 25, 1968, less than two weeks before his tragic death, he
> spoke out with clarity and directness stating, "peace for Israel
> means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its
> right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of
> the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous
> example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into
> an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means
> security and that security must be a reality."  During the recent
> U.N. Conference on Racism held in Durban, South Africa, we were all
> shocked by the attacks on Jews, Israel and Zionism. The United
> States of America stood up against these vicious attacks.
> 
> Once again, the words of King ran through my memory, "I solemnly
> pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews --
> because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all."
> 
> During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death,
> a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of
> Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, "When
> people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking
> anti-Semitism."
> 
> King taught us many lessons. As turbulence continues to grip the
> Middle East, his words should continue to serve as our guide. I am
> convinced that were he alive today he would speak clearly calling
> for an end to the violence between Israelis and Arabs.
> 
> He would call upon his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yasser
> Arafat, to fulfill the dream of peace and do all that is within his
> power to stop the violence.  He would urge continuing negotiations
> to reduce tensions and bring about the first steps toward genuine
> peace.  King had a dream of an "oasis of brotherhood and democracy"
> in the Middle East.
> 
> As we celebrate his life and legacy, let us work for the day when
> Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, will be able to sit in
> peace "under his vine and fig tree and none shall make him afraid."
> ***
> 
> U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat, represents the 5th Congressional 
> District of Georgia and worked closely with Martin Luther King Jr. 
> during the civil rights movement.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 2/01/02

John had begun his attack on my pro-Zionist position by asking me how would I react if Israelis came and pushed me off of my land?

I figure you are spinning your wheels, this guy is so full of false information and half lies that a decent conversation is impossible. For example the quote above, if the Jews had pushed the Arabs off of the land there would not be a problem would there? The fact is that the Arabs pushed the Jews off of the land and the Jews did not. That is why all areas that Arafat now controls are Jew free and the areas that Israel controls contains Palestinians.

The problem with this guy is that he has already chosen to hate the Jews and filled his head with mush to back up his pre-chosen position. The above quote is a perfect example of ignoring reality to grasp for a talking point. His head is full of them, easily refuted lies. But you will find yourself batting at windmills all day if you argue with him on this level. As fast as you disprove a lie, two more will be generated to take their place.

You are forgetting the main point of your own argument, this is an ideological battle. What causes the real difficulty, is in trying to handle a spiritual battle from a secular viewpoint. The Spiritual world is very real, to deny that is to place yourself on very shaky ground. Things will happen that seem to make no sense, and other things that seem unimportant, the opponent will fight to the death to defend.

Let me try to lay out the spiritual background of the "big picture". Realize that I am trying to describe color to the color blind, no slight intended.

The Jews are the Chosen people of God, Chosen not because they are special, but because God chose them to tell the world about Him. Chosen is not an honor, or a title, it is a Job. What they represent is the foundation of the Judeao-Christian ethic, an ethic that is diametrically opposed to the standard world view of liberalism, Marxism, evolution, abortion, communism. It is the foundation of conservative thought, that is why you find so many Christians on Freeper, we are at home here.

In politics you will find an irrational, (from a non-spiritual perspective), drive for the world to turn against America and Israel. For example, the liberal hearts internal drive to back the terrorist scum of the earth, the Arabs of Palestine, against the most restrained army on earth, the democracy Israel. Logic clearly shows which side is right, yet the leftists flock to kiss the arse of Arafat. That is a clear indication that the spiritual drive is greater than the logical drive.

You are fighting a spiritual battle with a temporal club, you will only wear out the club. As you get closer and closer to pointing out the error in logic of your opponent, you will find not acquiescence but a further retreat into the illogical to even hysterical levels. If you could stop the conversation at that point and question why the hysterics the subject of the emotional meltdown could not tell you the answer. The answer is deeper than logic, it is the spiritual foundation of the soul being shaken. Your logic shakes the foundation of their world view, they are simply responding to that.

There is a great battle shaping up between those aligned with God, and those aligned against. Most people are aligned against by nature. Very few at this point are wandering in the middle of the street. It seems you are one of the few wanderers left.

God gives man free will to make a choice to serve him or not. Not making a choice falls under not. But God is very merciful and grants grace to those still searching. Those who have not formed the question yet, they still wander. As time goes on you will find yourself painted into a corner with the question before you and no way to avoid it.

My suggestion is to look into the difference between Judeo-Christian ethic and the rest of the world. Which way do you want to go? Then pick a way to go there. As time goes on, the strain of the spiritual will shatter the ability to ignore it. Logic is a very shallow construct in the face of reality.

In short you need to look into the spiritual aspect of the argument to discern the difficulty you are facing in communication.

I think you fought the good fight. Your friend "John" articulates the brainwashing so typical of leftist thought, unconcious of it though he might be.

I don't think I made it clear that "John" is a leftist. It's interesting that you classified him as such so quickly.

I have a theory that gains evidence almost every day: the resistance to Vietnam came not from true pacifism on the left, but a mere selfish mistrust in our intentions in Vietnam. This has had two implictions that have been repeated again and again for both Americans and our client states:

American young people figured out that the State Department was toying around with human life in Vietnam, and might throw theirs away instead of using their deaths effectively. They figured out that it was smart to come up with some belief system that allowed them to salve their selfish consciences and stay home for "peace."
Losing faith in American institutions was one thing, but a faux pacifism was another thing altogether. The net result was an ideology of selfishness and greed that has led us to where we are now: a Democratic party that is often on the wrong side of both foreign and domestic policy to the point of evil.

And to the left of the Democratic party, there are 10,000 professors spewing anti-American and anti-Semitic hate lectures daily, telling us that our freedoms and our priviledges are illigitimate and bloodstained.

I think the left's brief flirtation with self-told lies about why they wouldn't go to fight Stalinism/Maoism in Vietnam spawned an endless cycle of deception that will only end when they realize that it was their fathers and grandfathers who paid for their freedom to recycle fascist and communist hatred in new and amazing ways.

We will always need a progressive element in our society, but progressiveness is dead in the Democratic party, and Republicans have had the baton since Reagan took office. I now believe that nothing surprasses his faith in a "Shining City," and his commitment to national missile defense. There are plenty of other issues to debate, but the Democrats are only moving their mouths; nothing but dispondency and fear is coming out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.