Geopolitics and the Constitution

Good thoughts FTR. I have been accused of seeing the constitution as sacrosanct. While I would not go that far, I do think that it is to be held above all else in political discussions and dealings.

 

I'd love to hear more thoughts as well. About time for evening Sunday School here.

 

I've been reading Washington's farewell address, read it afew times actually. In paragraphs 21-26(+) he seems to be speaking of foreign policy and gives us an idea of what he considers good policy.

If I'm reading Washington correctly, I think he would disagree with the way we have pursued foreign policy after WW2 and during the cold war.

What do you guys think some of the realities and complexities that we are now and were faced with in the last 60 years would help to change Washington's mind about political connections with foreign countries?

 

Thats the question Ponch. Washington could not have foreseen the globalism we are involved in today. Interaction with foreign powers is inevitable now. Isolation is unfeasible. I think he would have had to say something different if made the speech in 1992 instead of 1792.

 

I think Washington was accutely aware of globalism back in the day C4K. Maybe not with all the subtle complexities or things we see as complexities today. Globalism is nothing more than the usurping of soveriegnty, real wealth and liberty of a nation(s) for the "common good of all" through treaties and ill advised alliances advertized 24/7 as "good things" by those with the will the power and the capital to do so.

The way he scrutinized treaties makes me think he knew that was one of the big dangers involved in them. I don't believe Washington was an "isloationist" at all nor do I believe it would be to the best interests of this country to be so, what I am reading in his words is more of an admonishment to be very careful of those we do decide to be in league with. Supporting a dictator as we have so often done and making alliances with one faction over another causing instability as a tactic is following in the footsteps of say the Empire of Great Britain, Spain, or France of his day. Certainly he was privy to the ways of empire having witnessed them and their methods of expansion and maintenance. We have become Washington's biggest nightmare imho, the empire he dreaded.

Add to this all the treaties of the past and present that has caused instability and insecurity by being alligned with unscrupulous charcters like OBL, Saddam, Chalabi, Noriega, and Karimov to name a few makes me all the more sure we are, our own worst enemy and cause more insecurity and instabilty by following the track we've been on for some 60 years at least and the last thirty or fourty years in particular.

I reckon Wasington saw his share of the empire's divide, usurp, and conquer playbook to understand it's basics and tried to pass that knowledge or at least the inspiration to study it very closely on to us. His speech in 1995 would mean the same thing as it did the day it was written the only difference would be today, Washington would be the subject of propagnada (name calling), ridicule (isolastionist), his sources would scoffed at, (conspiracy theorist(?)) and he would most likely be a third party candidate and I would be voting for him and be accused of being unpatritotic, uncaring and uninformed.

[ September 26, 2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

Originally posted by fromtheright:
C4K,

We can get a glimpse of the time , however, by looking at President Washington's Farewell address.

No we are not governed by President Washington's advice nor are most of us inclined to even figure out what he was warning us about in the first place.

Peace and tranquility does not now nor has it ever benefited the elite in any age be they the King of Europe, the Emperor of Rome, on up to the grand poobahs of PNAC and the barons of the corporate borg of today sitting on and ruling vast empires of wealth and power. Including the very power to influence all our decisions on a global scale in real time.

Divisions and war on the other hand has always held some benefit for the elite at the expense of the population. Washington didn't need the ability to see into the future because he knew how those in power will seek to expand and maintain that power.

A word from Samuel Adams.

I reckon ole Sam had a good schooling in foreign affairs also. They both left the individual issues up to us to decide but, I feel they both knew how craftily constructive those in power were and that a large politically illiterate and divided population would except policy as being "for the common good of all" when in reality it is probably closer to being "for the common good of the few".

[ September 26, 2005, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

Interesting thoughts (thanks for the year correction BTW, don't know where I got 1792). I had not thought of Washington in a global context before. Perhaps he still would have been leery of alliances. I too am pretty sure that is he were running for office today I would be voting for him as a third party candidate. Neither party would accept his policies.

I do think there is wisdom in "looking back" for counsel on our options today.

 

The Constitution can't be living because the Lincoln REvolution killed it. We are governed by presidential executive orders and half of them are secret. In other words, for all we know, there is an executive order which declares Baptists to be domestic terrorists with a future arrest date.

 

I keep trying to enlighten you brother. By the power invested in the state by the Patriot Act(s) George Washington would most likely be investigated as a "person of special interest" and placed under a gag order so he couldn't talk about it. Matter of national security.

Maybe he would be spared crucifiction, but enough doubt would be cast on him to make his message null and void.

Yeah I heard that too. He was also considered an insurgent and terrorist for his acts against the Crown, offenses he would have hung for had he not have won our indepedence from tyranny. Most people think the founders and the patriots were rebeling against King George and British rule only but after reading the founder's and other patriot's thoughts through various forms it seems clear to me they were rebeling against the tyranny of foreign influence and the "artifices of false and designing men" (they must have been with Al Queda!).

Opinions may differ, this is mine.

Depends on which business is most connected to political power I guess. If it's got anything to do with banking, energy, prescription drugs including vaccines, reconstruction, military,
security, intelligence and even the police force they benefit from chaos destruction and desease and strangely they are also the biggest most consolidated and successful businesses and or consumers of tax money through ever greater funding.

Sure does, and those with certain foreknowledge can use put options to reap the quick profits.

They don't have to promote war, all they need do is create and promote divisions in the chosen populations. Our ignorance of how those tensions are actually created and why is usually enough to bring about war between the targeted factions given enough time and false flag attacks carried out by agent provocateurs and blamed on "the opposition".

No I don't many of the the native American tribes were warring factions without the guidance of the elite and carried on for a couple thousand years that way. Then the European foreigners showed up and showed them how to really control the territory and turned the savage to peaceful means by broken treaties the musket bayonet scalping iron the gallows, and the reservation in less than 200 years.

No they are all fought for God and country to make the world safe for democracy and in the name of freedom and liberty or because our buddy got himself into a fix and needs our blood and treasure to make it all right again. Hardly ever for monetary gain, yet there are always those that not only gain monetarily but consistantly gain monetarily.

Sure there are conspiracy theories like the embargo of oil and raw materials the Japanese needed to continue their war. Which gave them two choices, admit the defeat of their imperialism early or go to war with America.

Without the entangling treaties of the European countries before world war one and the Versailles treaty afterward...

1. The first world war would have most likely been a local conflict and not escalated to a full grown world war involving many countries.

2. Hitler would have never made it past the rank of corporal.

 

Amen. While somebody else's kids are dying and getting limbs blown off for it.

 

Are you saying I am cynical about power or George Washington? You've read what both of us has to say about power, which one do you reckon is the more cynical?

Was Thomas Jefferson cynical of power also?

I believe Samuel Adams already answered the question of a noble constitution.

The more I read the words of these men the more I see them relying on history as a teacher of how other men were brought into bondage through the misuse of power. Talk about cynicism.

I'll try to give you my opinions on the other questions you asked later on tonight FTR. But now I have a couple questions for you.

The founders of this country, were they rebeling against the oppression of one tyrant dated to the later part of the 1700's or were they rebeling against all tyrants and forms of tyranny past, present, and future?

Was it cynicism that made them try to use the "chains of a constitution" to bind the government because they had a questionable misrtust of government or was it history and experience that drove them?

And if it was history and experience then, what history were they refering too?

 

Tyranny
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock -- Dixon Wecter>
4 : a tyrannical act

Merriam-Webster

TYR'ANNY , n.


1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.

2. Cruel government or discipline; as the tyranny of a master.

3. Unresisted and cruel power.

4. Absolute monarchy cruelly administered.

5. Severity; rigor; inclemency.

The tyranny o' th' open night.

Webter's 1828

 

I see where you are coming from now. This isn't about the constitution and foreign policy this is about me. Ooookay.

I think it is you're trust that is misplaced, though, when used with a broad-brush over all examples, rather than looking to see whether there might be an ulterior motive for an action, even if in violation of the law. It is always easier to convince ones self of the justifications of an action if we have subscriptions to the justifing justifiers justifications weekly than to actually look for signs of tyranny by learning to recognize it for what it is and how it gets sneaked past us by the artifices of false and designing men or by studying their motives and those of the justifing justifiers justifications of a said individual action, and if you do happen to study the justifing justifiers justifications and find there is no justification for an otherwise unjustifiable action the blame can always easily be laid on the shoulders of the opposing party in the end so everything is justifiably fine and on it goes. It is right for the U.S. to use force in defense of the country. Where does defensive means end and offensive means begin? At the door to your own house.

What are the odds a public servant isn't going to try to maintain and/or expand power? What are the odds a public servant can't be compromised? How many ways are there to compromise a public servant? Al Capone had a few interesting ways to compromise a public servant such as buying them outright, when that didn't work blackmail and murder was in order, but those days are long gone, aren't they? Nobody uses those old tactics anymore.

This is no longer about what the founders thought. It's down to you and me now eh? Alrighty. I reckon your brush is every bit as broad as mine, the difference between us imho is that the reasons and justifications for going to war come easier to you than they do to me. I reckon anyone can be intimidated enough by a perceived outside threat to get blindsided by the inside threat. The citizens of the Weimar Republic can testify to that in swastikas. Afterall it was their leaders and their mainstream media telling them someone else was out to get them, why shouldn't they believe them and hand over all the power and control their leaders asked for?

I spend my time reading the words of George Washinton, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison among others in defense of the constitution against tyranny and you spend your time listening to the words of George Bush and read Foreign Affairs to hear the justifcations for the expansion of power abroad and the suppresion of rights at home. They say it's all okie dokie folks "trust us we're the government" the end justifies the means, and overall with a broad brush approach you believe them.

What with all the billions of magically disapearing dollars from the Pentagon alone I would think people would pay closer attention to how their money is spent. But given the time it takes to go through one or two news cycles all is forgotten.

I don't care much for the type of geopolitics the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski draws up and the CFR makes justifications for.

Notice his choice of words here..."the pursuit of power" how much nobler can it get? He admits it's about "the pursuit of power" but the CFR sell it as being a noble and righteous cause for the spread of democracy the march of liberty to the oppresed masses of other lands and the ringing sound of freedom around the world, etc, etc.

On behalf and in defense of your position, I do suppose it's easier to beleive the fantasies than the the realities when faced with an ever more powerful and dasterdly enemy threat from the outside. Especially when the threat is hyped and propagandized on every news channel 24/7 by dare I say the orchestrated information arm of the justifing justifiers? Yeah, I did dare.

Okay so you made up your mind prior to posting this thread that only you can be correct is getting to be quite evident here. I try to explain my opinion on what the founders perception of tyranny was/is by digging into the minds of the men who actually wrote our founding documents then you give me the impression that you would rather make excuses for abuses than to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. But don't worry it's probably just me, I never did understand neopatriotism anyway.

[ September 27, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]