October 19, 2017

Q: What Does A Two State Solution and A Blood Tax Have in Commom?

A: Neither can be obtained without creating an alternate reality that ignores the lessons of the past at the expense of the future!

In 1905 philosopher George Santayana wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” One hundred and four years have passed since one of life’s most simplistic and important messages was introduced to the public domain yet the world teeters on the brink of repeating the sins of the past because a new generation of the world’s citizens live in ignorant bliss.

Worse than forgetting the past is the sin of allowing today’s agents of change to rewrite it altogether. Thanks to a pliable media, a national crisis in education at the public school level and a captive audience that is more concerned about American Idol than American values the world is living a new chapter that looks to be every bit as harrowing as the precursor to some of history’s worst chapters.

Winning council member Joshua Pundit, whose article won despite my omission in the official tally of articles, explained the fallacy of a two state solution for Israel and Palestine. By pointing out the historical facts that are now being glossed over thanks to a concerted effort of Israel’s enemies, JP explains why the world may regret the push for a Palestinian state:

Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is the very real possibility that the Palestinian leadership really doesn’t want a state, not even if it included all of Gaza plus all of Judea and Samaria. Yasir Arafat got offered almost that by Ehud Barak during the Clinton years, but turned it down, to the astonishment of Dennis Ross. Likewise, both Hamas and Fatah refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or to compromise on their demands one iota in trying to come to a peace agreement with Israel – even though that pretty much ends the possibility of a realistic settlement before it’s even started.

It’s not too hard to figure out why.

As Ross has said, when he presented the final outlines of the deal to Yasir Arafat, it specified that this was a complete settlement of all claims and would signify the end of the conflict.

Arafat didn’t sign because he realized that without the War Against the Jews to unify the Palestinians and their victim status, there was nothing to keep them together as a cohesive group. Moreover, there would be no need for Arafat and his Fatah thugs to be in charge of anything, and they would have to justify their existence by actually governing instead of living leech-like off the Palestinians and the aid money.It would have been the end of them, and the finish of the gravy train that has made millionaires out of well placed Fatah apparatchiks while the majority of the people they supposedly represent still live in squalor in refugee camps.

A real Palestinian state would have meant the end of them.

Hamas has the same problem, as Gaza makes plain to anyone but the most biased observer. They’re good at terrorism and violence, but lousy at the nuts and bolts of running a civil society, even with water and electricity provided by the hated Jews and more aid per capita than any developing nation in history.

If Hamas was actually interested in creating a state, the last thing they would have done is to waste resources and money launching rockets and mortars against Israel. After the Jews were removed from Gaza, some state-of-the-art greenhouses and irrigation systems were purchased by the World Bank from the farmers in places like Gush Katif and deliberately left intact for the Palestinians to use.

Within hours after the Israelis left, those greenhouses were looted and destroyed. The greenhouses that used to sell massive amounts of fruits and vegetables and flowers to Europe became rocket launching sites and grow nothing today.

But the problems of Israel are not limited to the Middle East; they are the problems of the world. Revisionist history and selective memories are necessary to meet the goals of those who want to be given an inch as a strategy to take a mile.

It won’t stop there.

In the United States we are faced with a similar problem on another front. Statism looms big as the age of Obama follows the path paved by the likes of American philosopher William James. Non-Council winner Infidel Blogger alliance makes the connection in Obama’s “Blood-Tax”:

James advocated compulsory servitude — but to oppose what enemy? He also claimed that the nation needed an enemy to rouse its citizens from the spiritual laxness of industrial civilization. Men, he said, had a natural instinct for war. James was a pacifist and abhorred war. But at the same time he asserted that the fear of being conquered could unite citizens as nothing else could in terms of being imbued with the spirit of a “peaceful” common cause. If making war was in man’s nature, he asked, why not direct that instinct to more constructive purposes?

If now — and this is my idea — there were, instead of military conscription, a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind, to man’s relations to the globe he lives on, and to the permanently sour and hard foundations of his higher life. To coal and iron mines, to freight trains, to fishing fleets in December, to dishwashing, clothes washing, and window washing, to road-building and tunnel-making, to foundries and stoke-holes, and to the frames of skyscrapers, would our gilded youths be drafted off, according to their choice, to get the childishness knocked out of them, and to come back into society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas. They would have paid their blood-tax….

What injustices would be “evened out”? James mentions that the rich are rich through no credit of their own, and the poor are poor for no fault of their own. A nationalistic spirit would level everything out; the rich would not mind paying taxes to defeat an enemy; the poor would find a better purpose in life. James conceded, even in the early twentieth century, before the income tax and central banking were legislated in this country, that the country was on a path to socialism. What might help make it work would be to instill a militaristic, self-sacrificing ethic in Americans.

Author Edward Cline notes the unprecedented speed at which the Democrats passed Obama’a AmericaCorps; the grand scheme of compulsory National service that will be tied to things such as student loans for college, a key aspect of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.

to the Obamacrats and their allies in and out of Congress, the term “compulsion” is synonymous with “obligation” vis-a-vis “giving back,” the latter being their preferred term. The mental gymnastics of collectivists does not view paying a “debt” to society as a matter of force or extortion. “Society” is the master unit, the individual its indebted but often ungrateful servant. After all, runs the patter, if it were not for the existence of society, where would the individual be? Society makes his life tolerable and comfortable; it is only fair that he “give back” something.

As Cline notes, this has all been suggested and tried before; at one time proposed by James and adopted in part by Hitler and Mussolini.

Substitute “race“ for “collectivity” and “Germany” for “the United States,” and one would discern little difference between James’s rhetoric and any one of Hitler’s public harangues to a rally of the Nazi converted. Remember that James uttered these words in 1906, when Hitler was just a “troubled teen“ and Mussolini was a twenty-something feeling his socialist oats. Indeed, as Leonard Peikoff points out, Mussolini credited James with much of his corporatist/fascist ideology.

Remember, what has been done and forgotten in the past can be tried again by people that share the same ideological notions today.

The “green revolution” and the anti-industrial movement have supplanted James’s “warfare against nature,” which means warfare against man. To the pragmatist open to the vociferous moral proposals of others (so long as they “work“), reason and reality can be dismissed as the subjectivist leanings of others and disregarded. Man is destroying the planet, those others claim, so something must be done about it, even if that means compulsion. For example, the Democrats would rather not hear the testimony of Britain’s Lord Christopher Monckton which would have shredded former Vice President Al Gore’s assertions about man-caused climate change in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and retracted the invitation to Monckton to appear with Gore before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.

This was more than just politicians wishing to save Gore the “climate authority” the humiliation of being trounced in a debate about climate change by a genuine scientist and consequently creating doubt about the efficacy of environmentalist legislation. If they do not hear the truth, then it can’t be real and can be ignored.

Cline noted that James conceded the path to socialism would be to instill a militaristic, self-sacrificing ethic in Americans. “Where is the savage ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ the unconditional duty? Where is the conscription? Where is the blood-tax?”

Be sure to read all the winning entries and join us in the conversation. Congratulations to all of this week’s winning entries.

Council Submissions

Non-Council Submissions

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Right Truth
  2. The Colossus of Rhodey
  3. The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: May 15, 2009
  4. Soccer Dad

Comments are closed.