|
|||||||||
Posted August 6, 2001
Warmongers & Militarists
Back in 1914 when Word War 1 was getting underway, Allied propaganda made much of the fact that the then German foreign minister called his country's nonaggression pact with Belgium nothing but a "scrap of paper." He did this to help justify the German invasion of that unhappy country. This was taken to be a sign of how barbaric and uncivilized the Germans were.
But what goes around comes around and look who considers treaties mere "scraps of paper" now. That seems to be the US attitude towards the 1972 treaty with Russia restricting ACBM testing and deployment.
Pointing out the similarities between the attitude of World War 1 Germany and 2001 America to treaties which suddenly become inconvenient would be an effective propaganda weapon against the warmongers and militarists who continue to dominate both major political parties.
Reparations
Justin Raimondo's August 8th column "Is Zionism Racism?" makes the claim that, with regard to reparations concerning stolen property, "the same principle applies to Palestinians – and to American blacks, whose very liberty was stolen from them." This, however, implies that liberty is property of an individual. The problem with Raimondo's argument – which lends support for the idea of paying reparations to black Americans for slavery – is that the property in question is liberty while the reparations movement is asking for taxpayers' money.
If Raimondo's claim that liberty = property is held as the basis for this argument, then the elimination of slavery as an institution of labor and the "freedom" granted to slaves at the end of the Civil War, restored their stolen liberty and made them US citizens. Although Plessy v. Ferguson opened the floodgate to "legally" strip black Americans of their citizenship, equal protection under the law – in essence their liberty – that stolen "property" was restored when Brown vs. Board of Education struck down oppressive segregation laws. In both cases, the "property" was returned and there would be no argument for further reparations for black Americans – according to Raimondo's analogy.
Recompense
[Regarding "Is Zionism Racism?":
Justin Raimondo wrote that:] "a truly libertarian movement in Israel would be concerned, above all, with the protection and restoration of just titles to land and other property: once in power, Israeli libertarians would not only denationalize but also restore stolen property to its rightful owners or their heirs. For the defense of private property, the prerequisite for human civilization, does not exist only in the present, but must extend back in time and there is no cutoff point, nor can there be. For what is the difference, in terms of justice as an absolute principle, if my stolen property is recovered and I or my heirs are recompensed inside of five minutes, five hours, five weeks, or five centuries? While the original victims of a theft may be long dead, their heirs and legatees are still being ripped off, continually, so long as restitution is not made."
Well, that being the case, all Arabs should pack their bags and vacate – not forgetting to to recompense on their way out the door – the Jews had the land long before Arafat and his terrorist gangs. Look back in time to 68 AD [As Justin Raimondo wrote:] "For what is the difference, in terms of justice as an absolute principle, if my stolen property is recovered and I or my heirs are recompensed inside of five minutes, five hours, five weeks, or five centuries?"
Conquered Asia
In his reply to [Fred] Godinez's letter [of July 17, "Japan & the US,"], Raimondo writes, "I wrote 'merely' in regard to Japan's overseas conquests in order to contrast the reality with Conklin's contention that Japan had 'conquered Asia' – not to downplay their aggression, but only to correct Mr. Conklin's impression that they had annexed everything from the Bosporus to the Pacific."
I
would like to set one fact straight. I never contended that Japan "conquered
Asia" and I am not under any such impression. The closest I can
find in my letter comes from this sentence: "Japan was only 'backed
up against a wall' after choosing to conquer Asia, and, thus, challenging
the established Western empires."
"After choosing to conquer Asia" does not mean "conquered Asia."
As
for my peccadillo of using the word Asia instead of Eastasia,or something
– I assumed that erudite readers ... would know which geographic region
was involved.
I agree with Raimondo's goal of getting America out of the empire building business. And I understand that defaming the Japanese was a tool used to justify America's actions in the Pacific. I do, however, believe that we can come to clear and rational opinions about other empires (past and present) without feeling the need to go and bomb them for their faults. We can point out the gross evils and injustices of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, China, the Soviet Union, and, yes, even Imperial America, and still be committed to a noninterventionist policy.
~ M. Conklin