Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Isolationism - What Is It To Mean?

The "word morphs", those fog of war inducing folks who learned deceit and propaganda in the war colleges, now want to create a new meaning for a phony debate.

The word "isolationism" will be the vehicle for the propaganda.

They need it to mean something different than what it once meant in accurate academic circles.

They need to change it into something they can use to generate more propaganda in an attempt to keep the stupid wars going.

They know the people are sick and tired of MOMCOM's stupid wars, sick and tired of MOMCOM's brutal killing, maiming, and destroying other nations around the world.

The people are sick and tired of this being done in the name of the people of the United States.

The people are just sick and tired of the loser MOMCOM warmonger mentality.

So what is "isolationism" going to be changed into, if the media lackeys of MOMCOM have their way?

When the people do not want to fight stupid wars, but the corrupt powers that be do want to continue those stupid wars, "isolationism" in the past has been changed to mean something conjured up by associating it with demonized metaphorical creatures such as "peaceniks", "hippies", or "pinko lefties" who do not know "the real world".

It may well be that this time they will try to associate "isolationism" with "liberals", "socialists", "weak on terrorism", or "elitists".

The typical MOMCOM rot.

But the real state of mind politically relevant at this time is that the people are "tired of the stupid foreign policy of the High Priest In Chief Bush II and his neoCon cronies who have severely damaged the United States".

The people want a simple policy of minding our own business and shutting down MOMCOM's thug imperialism that has ruined our reputation and our economy.

In short, the people want to "be a good neighbour to the rest of the world, and want to take care of the people at home".

Once upon a time "isolationism" meant:
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
(Dictionary). It is not the left or center who want to do away with treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, which outlaws, among other bad things, the Bush II policy of waterboarding.

No, that would be the neoCon right who love torturing people, as Cheney has boasted about in public, which has been carried by television around the world.

The left and center want us to have home spun renewable resources to the maximum extent possible, not to recoil from good relationships with the world, but to remove the temptations nations can have to use resources and military power to change national policies.

The people want to be independent of undue foreign influence, free from debilitating wars, but that does not really translate into being isolationists in any bad sense.

The bottom line is that isolation is not the same as self induced solitary confinement.

It is good to be isolationist to the extent it means not meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations, to the extent it means not invading sovereign nations for bogus reasons, and to the extent it means lending a helping hand.

It is bad to be isolationist to the extent it means being a recluse, to the extent it means not being diplomatically active, and to the extent it means not being a friendly nation.


  1. Trouble is, the "center" is being relentlessly drawn to the right by right wing hardliners, in a purposeful strategic effort to enact their agenda. This has long been explicitly spelled out by such GOP operatives as Atwater, Rove, Norquist, and others; who knew that most true liberals are too civil (read politically correct) and simply don't have the stomach for that type of politics.

    The left's first concession was the election of Bill Clinton, who governed as a middle of the road conservative (and was still pilloried for it anyway); and with the election of Barack Obama, one can pretty much say that true liberalism in US politics is dead and gone, most likely forever.

    IMO, the only people left who are truly "isolationist" are the remaining disenfranchised liberals like myself, as those in the "center" seem to have embraced "all war, all of the time" now with no qualms whatsoever. So, yes, you are right that making the word "isolationist" a dirty word so that it can be hung around the neck of those phantom "liberals" was indeed the plan. Things is, it's already been executed.

    Its kind of ironic really. All this talk about those "damn liberals" in the Democratic party, when in fact, no such animal still exists. All the true liberals these days are firmly ensconced on the sidelines watching the muckraking as the GOP uses their name in vain against a Dem party who's too stupid and inept to counter with the obvious retort: WE'RE MORE "CONSERVATIVE" THAN YOU ARE!

    By the way, that's how Obama will get reelected, if he does. By running on his record as a centrist virtual-Republican. Its the GOP that will reelect the two faced bastard, and DAMN SURE not any real "liberals." That's why I think the fix was in all along. He's a Democrat in name only, and for all his academic brilliance, I doubt he can even spell the word liberal.

  2. I do not think either war has been popular for 5 years now.

    If people ever figure out that the wars are attached to the economic collapse the popularity will decrease further.

    If people ever figure out what the reputation of the U.S. is now compared to before the military coup that destroyed our reputation, they would gasp.

    Fear is not owned by left, right, or center, but what is owned by each of those relative descriptions is the analysis people do to determine if they are left, right, or center. Fear is a factor.

    All left, center, and right world views are local, because they are political notions, and "all politics is local".

    Conservative in San Francisco is liberal in Podunk, Texas.

    Essentially media political discourse is purposefully vague and it changes with political winds, like desert sands change when desert winds blow.

    I think the lack of integrity, including election integrity, makes Afghani, Iraqi, and American elections a discourse based on unknowns.

    These vagaries are evidence of military propaganda, because the military want intellectual anarchy so they can solve the "problem" with force ideology.

    Their delusion is to think that is really a solution, when in fact it is the basic problem.

  3. I think you underestimate the conservative hard right. They'll support war with their dying breath and blame any ill-effects elsewhere. I grew up in the midwest among such types, and my entire extended family still lives there and believes that crap to their very core. They will deny any connections and tell you to go fuck yourself (literally) should you try to point them out to them.

    Believe me, the true believers have no lack of faith. The GOP has been running and winning on that fact for years. Now the Dems have caught on too, and not surprisingly, they're where the GOP used to be less than 10 years ago.

    A better summation would be to say all politics is local, all local politics is centrist, and all centrist politics is conservative. The left has mostly given up (for good reason, they've been pummeled) and the hysterical/wacko right is rapidly marginalizing themselves, although as I said above, that might be deliberately part of the GOP's larger overall strategy to skew the debate in their favor.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. First of all, I'm going to take credit for being the FIRST to elicit a four part response on the Dredd blog. I think that's noteworthy.

    Second, yes Dredd, it's ALWAYS possible that I've been giving the public (or any other entity for that matter, see my pen name - Hey! I'm not in the habit of giving credit where none is due IMO) too much credit.

    All that said, politicians need fool citizens to elect them, so I don't see this "calculus" as being all that hard to solve. Stupid people elect stupid but opportunistic people to "serve" them, who then "rape/take advantage" of them (predictably), thereby allowing the best of both worlds: the idiots who elected them to claim that they were somehow "robbed," while the idiots thus elected rightfully claim that the rubes who elected them "asked for it."

    Its the perfect trifecta of political calculations! No one asked for it, yet everyone got it. The poor got poorer, the rich got richer, EVERYONE (in the sense of the public) got fucked, and almost NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN IT!

    Umm... I just did!

  9. There is lots of debate on the origins of Mithraism, but as far as it went in the Roman Empire, where some scholars believe it originated (others do not) it clearly is a militaristic religion:

    "Upon enlistment, the first act of a Roman soldier was to pledge obedience and devotion to the emperor. Absolute loyalty to authority and to fellow soldiers was the cardinal virtue, and the Mithraic religion became the ultimate vehicle for this fraternal obedience. The Mithras worshippers compared the practice of their religion to their military service."


  10. Randy,

    Yes, I was simply focusing on an empire that had similar sentiments, as far as the ruling class of MOMCOM goes, and the Roman Empire with its militant religion is a good example.


    Here is an active link to your inactive (non-clickable) link.

  11. I moved my comments here into a post that will appear tomorrow.

  12. disaffected,

    "almost NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN IT!

    Umm... I just did

    Thanks for explaining why you are going to vote for them in the next election. ;)

  13. Actually, I'm not voting again until there's a legitmate candidate. Unfortunately, I don't see one out there. Ron Paul's close, but of course he's held in contempt and/or ridicule by the power brokers. You simply can't unseat an entrenched corrupt bureaucracy by the ballot box, and the power brokers know that full well. The Obama mirage is proof of that. After the crash maybe something good will happen, but I expect it will just get a whole lot worse before it gets better. Even that's better than the status quo.

  14. My team, the American public, tells it like it is:

    "Former President George W. Bush gets more blame for the country’s economic troubles than his successor or the Democrats who control Congress, according to a Harris poll out Wednesday."

    Hey, its the jury system stupid, the system yo momma put in place to save your raunchy ass.

  15. Wow! Ol' Georgie boy was looking pretty gray and weather-beaten in that Politico photo. I'll bet the idiot doesn't age too well now that he's out of the public eye. Unlike Clinton, I don't see a lot of political, business, and/or academic groups clamoring to hear his "enlightened" perspectives on the great issues of the day. He has to know that his moment in the sun is over and that history - in spite of all his assertions to the contrary while he was in office - is not gonna be kind to his legacy.

    He's an idiot who rode his daddy's coat tails to power, he fucked it up in just about every way that it could possibly be fucked up, he's going to be revealed as the single worst president in US history (by a LARGE margin!), and he's pretty much powerless to defend himself now without a presidential microphone in front of him (even though that usually only amplified his problems). He'll long be reviled, but he'll never be missed. It's all downhill from here on out Georgie boy!