NeoNote — The urge to meddle
❝❝And of course, American actions prior to 9-11 had absolutely nothing to do with what happened…NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
And not meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.
Of course, considering the history of the United Fruit Company, Hawaii, Iran, and scores of others, that might just be a little hard to do…
I was thinking more of military intervention and taxpayer funds shifted to other governments.
Most of the highlights I didn't mention.
Muslim countries have every reason to call the U.S. "The Great Satan" when we meddle and don't keep our promises.
I'm not the first to point out the connection, but notice how we became more willing to intervene with the advent of central banking.
Also, prior to the 20th, see how many times we sent the military to intervene on behalf of commercial interests.
Don't care about the reputation or the "balance of good."
The problem is that America sends military to intervene whenever something happens that we don't approve of.
If it's wrong for you to send armed agents to police my refrigerator and pantry for the greater good, then it's wrong for one government to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. It's also wrong for you to pay for my groceries, or for me to insist that you pay.
We wouldn't stand for it if someone tried to do it to America.
Naming a country better than America isn't the issue.
All along in this thread I've had one simple point, our government should not meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.
Reputation has nothing to do with that.
But people (including you) don't believe. You want an out, "just in case." You want an exception to common decency. You want the moral authority to impose your will on others, backed with the might of the American industrial complex. You believe that America should be the world's policeman, the higher authority that all others should answer to.
Can't you see the arrogance?
Within our borders, absolutely we should have Truth, Justice, and the American way.
Outside, no. We should be an inspiration, not a hegemony.
“America has at times acted unjustly, but has never built an empire.”
Says who?
Show me someone I can trust and I'll think about working with them.
*chuckles* Do you really think that I believe I am sitting at a massive desk in a hidden lair orchestrating a secret plan to overthrow the government?
To paraphrase a popular movie, I won't destroy it, but I don't have to save it. The collapse is already underway. Yes, what I know could turn things around and "save America" at least for a while. It's not that hard to figure out. The irony is that anyone capable and in a position to do so won't believe that what I know is truth.
I don't know how you went from working with "with R's to stop the 2020 D's and socialist parasites" to allying with a deceased foreign head of state against Americans, but I don't have to justify it. You do.
Actually I do have a pretty good size desk. It has a hutch full of little drawers and nooks on top of it. It's crammed into my sanctum/den/workroom along with a workbench, a drafting table, two file cabinets, and my main altar. It's cramped and private, but hardly hidden.
And it's not a matter of people being good enough or comprehending, it's a matter of people not believing me. It happens fairly often, I can tell the unvarnished truth and people think I am playing some sort of angle or hiding my true motives and tactics. I know I've linked to it before, but it's Isaiah's Job. Only I'm not doing it for religious reasons and mine isn't the G*D of Abraham.
As for doing something, you're the one who wants to take down the intolerable evils of the left. I've just pointed out that there are intolerable evils of the right. If you were really interested in freedom rather than a temporary advantage, you'd be working against the Patriot Act just as hard as you work against Obamacare.
I don't give free passes for the label. Words matter. Actions matter more. Intentions don't.
You like that and laud my courage when I take a stand against the people you don't like. You're threatened when I hold "your side" to the same standard.
Sadly, you are not alone in that.
I'm criticizing because you are not offering anything but the same mess only with New People (sort of) in charge.
We've seen this same exchange again and again for my entire life. "Our side is better than their side! Their side is made of criminals! Let them win and you will suffer!!!"
You are saying the same things, and neither side delivers on their promise. The only thing different this time around is Trump doing some of the things he said he'd do and not publicly backing down when Democrats attack. Nothing else has changed.
Worse by whose standards?
Do you honestly think that Obama was the first to weaponize the alphabet agencies? That's why those agencies exist, so the President can do an end run while Congress wrings their hands and laments that it is not their responsibility. And by definition, Federal judges are not local. Nor is this the first (or ninth) time a district judge has issued a national subpoena.
Yes, you did laud. Right up until the point where I said that Republicans threatened liberty.
I wasn't bragging, I just pointed the differences between me and the essay's narrator. Funny how you don't want to talk about what the essay says.
I'm criticizing the institution of government and the blind faith Americans place in government when "their guys" are in charge, and you complain that I don't offer a systematic solution? In detail? With footnotes? And illustrated proofs of concept? And no doubt step by step instructions…
Of course I have, but it doesn't put conservatives in charge.
Of course I know how to shrink government. Your problem is that my way won't put the conservatives in charge.
So we've shifted from illegal and immoral to debasing the culture. Well, you don't get to decide what is and is not acceptable to culture, what will become a part of it and what won't. No person and no group does.
Offhand, I can think of a few instances where conservatives and Republicans debased culture. A certain Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice comes to mind just for starters.
I don't care about the label, although I've said I MARGINALLY prefer conservatives over liberals. What I do care about is character and honor. Republicans aren't virtuous because they are Republicans, any more than New York Times readers are more enlightened because they read the "newspaper of record."
The problem with your proposal (as I've told you before) is that you assume that government control is a good thing. You end up supporting more government for the sake of controlling government.
Yes, you do want someone in charge. A Republican, because they are naturally so much better than the evil Democrats.
It was more than posting the Decalogue, more than sneaking in a massive monument under the cover of night and against the orders of a Federal court. It was openly proclaiming over decades that "God's law" trumps "man's law," and when there was a conflict "God's law" as defined by one judge must triumph. I'm not going to get into the possible sexual activities with underage ladies, although it is certainly debasing the culture.
I already told you. It's in most of my writings about government.
I may sometimes be mistaken, I may not tell all I know, but I don't lie.
Don't tell me what to do or what to say.
Okay, let's take it back more than a step or two.
Do you remember months ago when I told you not to give opponents your passion?
Partisan politics, as opposed to politics, has a secondary function that most people never think about. It distracts and burns off extra passion.
Taking the example of Obamacare, it was mostly written by technocrats. It had been in the works since the failure of Hillarycare. It was operationally flawed, but understand, the technocrats weren't trying to convince a political base. They were delivering a fait accompli, a finished package that would not be altered by Congress. They knew that a certain percentage of citizens would blame the Democrats no matter what, and that a certain percentage would blame the Republicans for it's failure.
Assume it's around 30% in both cases. That means that before the bill hit the floor and before anyone had actually read it, sixty percent of the American people were ready to blame the "other guy" no matter what the law would or would not do. It wouldn't be government's fault, it would be the nasty "other guys." Meanwhile, government would have more power even if it never accomplished what the goals supposedly were.
Passion burned off. People distracted and blaming politicos instead of technocrats. The Deep State gets bigger and deeper and less accountable. Partisan politics did exactly what it was supposed to do.
And the more you blame Democrats, the more Democrats blame you, the more passion gets burned and the more people are distracted from the technocrats and the Deep State.
So the first effective step has to be to stop letting the labels blind you to who is pulling the strings.
Again, until you're willing to do that, you're not ready for the rest.
I took the green pill.
Part of that means taking a hard look and asking if the system is viable.
Are you familiar with Asimov's Foundation series?
I wasn't writing about psychohistory.
I was writing about minimizing the interval.
You tell me.
What are the benefits of propping up a failing system when I know that delay will only make the collapse worse?
Yep, institutions fail. People do too, but that doesn't apply here. As for the rest, yes it is an estimate. About a three in five chance in the next twenty-five years, which rises to four in five over the next century. That changes significantly if certain things happen with North Dakota and the California succession. But it is still an estimate.
And I believe that people are mostly good until they are screwed by politics.
Most of it comes from my definition of politics. It differs from the usual.
Politics is controlling the other.
Eliminate politics and you eliminate many, many problems. Unfortunately, people clutch their politics because they've been abused and see no other working defense.
No, culture is among what we share, not how we relate. You can't ignore the internal in favor of external factors.
People aren't ruled by their rationality, they are ruled by their passions. Specifically they seek an emotional intensity that matches or exceeds what they have experienced before. It doesn't matter if it is a "positive" or "negative," it it the energy they want. Not the benefit or cost. Almost everything that follows is a justification.
So if they get a bigger thrill by cheating and exploiting, that is what the individual chooses.
Now in aggregate and over time, cooperation is the winning strategy. But it may not deliver the peak experience that an individual craves.
That's where wisdom comes in. Wisdom makes knowledge work for a society or culture. Wisdom are the basic working rulesets that we pass on. But wisdom benefits the culture and not necessarily the individual.
In case you hadn't noticed, we've been dealing with unintended consequences again and again and again since 1929.
Our mistake is believing that the experts know what they are talking about without holding them accountable.❞❞
blog comments powered by Disqus