The Isolationist Myth
The central myth of isolationists.
"People can only liberate themselves, they can’t be liberated by a foreign power.However there has hardly ever been successful liberation movement which was not assisted by foreign powers or benefited from the regime being in direct conflict with a foreign power - Russia/German attacks of WW1, China - Russian support & Japan WW2, America/French assistance. Further in places of minimal international interest tyrannys tend to flourish - Lesotho, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Chad, Burma.
Isolationalists spin out this myth to reinforce a delusional self-image of superiority. Isolationalists need the myth so that they can justify the freedoms and lifestyle they have, as having been achieved by themselves. So that freedom and happiness become merely a choice that isolationalists (or their forebears) have made, but "strangely" the oppressed people of the world refuse to make - and therefore it is not any fault of "isolation" the oppressed are subject to.
Based upon this supposed mythological superiority isolationalists typically take a stance that place higher value on the lives lost in conflicts where interventionists have acted than anywhere else. In the case of us westerners this will mean hitting on Israel, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Never mentioned are the non-interventions including Tibet, Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Burma, Cambodia that have cost approximately 4-6 times as many lives. This apparent callousness needs the myth. If it were a simple choice of the oppressed to be oppressed, then their deaths in the absense of intervention would be their own fault and only the deaths under (western) intervention would be avoidable.
Labels: imperialism
Alt-Imperialists
The
Guardian: Comment is Free site has published this
piece by Neil Clark making the case for keeping Iraqi
civilians who worked for the British occupation out of the UK. Acknowledging that this will mean their deaths, but justifying them in terms of allowing the Iraqi resistance to undertake the 'healing process' of uniting the country through the blood of collaborators.
The real reason Neil Clark is in favour of their deaths is different, it is politically
expedient for his alt-imperialist* ilk to have as many Iraqi die over there as possible. Throughout history empires in retreat advised by such men have sacrificed foreign races
portraying lost lands as not worth having. Natives dying bloody deaths in their far away lands is an object lesson on the dangers of involvement, the necessity of
withdrawl and the utter uncivilised nature of that race. Neil Clark is like all imperialists most comfortable when killing
foreigners in foreign lands - a
neo-imperialist will kill on the advance for his standing in the court and an alt-imperialist will kill on retreat scorching the earth to remind the court of his sage advice on
withdrawl.
Neither
neo-imperialist nor alt-imperialist likes to have the races that they are killing humanised. A
neo-imperialist demonises the
foreign race as
uncivilised requiring attention and will ignore overtures of peace. An alt-imperialist will decry the foreign race as
uncivilisable requiring avoidance and the last thing he needs is any unsightly exiles turning up or news of progress in that foreign land.
Neil Clark alt-imperialistic butcher.
* commonly found working in tandem with a neo-imperialist to rip some foreign Johnny apart by brute force.
Labels: imperialism, iraq
Anti-Imperialism is Chomskyite Bull Shite
Chomsky is an idiot. I go out my way to avoid reading anything of his. However sometimes he is referred to in
places of good standing where I'd least expect. Snarksmithy
critiqued an essay Chomsky wrote, doing the good service of breaking it down into mostly manageable bites. But the stench lingers.
Chomsky is anti-imperialistic, he portrays imperialism as the ultimate in brutality. He figures a spectrum of actions from the export of ideas and systems right through to the invasion and imposition of a system of government as imperialism - in this he is close enough to being right. He considers it neccessary to brutally suppress the indigenous culture to afford the expansion of the imperialistic culture. He is wrong. Brutal repression is not needed to carry out imperialism.
One theory why he reasons thus is because he is a wet behind the ears, dip shit Stalinist (he certainly has supported enough Stalinist causes). Perhaps he studied the requirements of implementing his beloved Stalinism and found it did require brutal repression. Then made a leap of faith, without evidential backing, to assume that capitalism & democracy required the same brutal repression of competing ideas.
On Iraq his reasoning works as follows. Imperalism is occuring - imperialism is brutal - but it is not working well - either not brutal enough or Iraqis are bravely resisting in an unexpected manner - propose must be more brutal or leave. He reasons that the occupation of Iraq is a failure because the Iraqis are bravely resisting the brutal occupation of the American/British forces.
He references the occupations of Europe by the Nazis and Soviets as being successful alluding as he does so to the iron fist of repression inherent in those occupations. He then mentions the failure in Iraq, leaving it to the reader to both see his implicit criticism of American aggression (brutal occupying imperialists) and American weakness (you wouldn't see Uncle Joe letting all those people out of Fallujah).
What he neglects to note in his short history of successful occupations is the occupation/liberation of Western Europe, S. korea and Japan post WWII. This was achieved at the same time as the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviets and was carried out without the brutal repression Chomsky would have us believe is neccessary. It was more successful than Soviet occupation, because it is ongoing.
Brutal repression is not always neccessary to facilitate imperialism. Sometimes the recipients of your imperialism like what you are providing.
The crucial difference between the successful Allied, Soviet and Nazi occupations of WWII and the ongoing Fook Up that is Iraq, is that the WWII occupiers made sure they secured the area. The Soviets and the Western Allies no more liked each other than the Islamofacists like the USA/UK and after WWII each knew the other side would try and screw with their occupations. So they lined up big fooking armies and told each other you cross this line and we go to war.
The borders* have not been secured in Iraq. Syria, Iran & Saudi are screwing with the occupation and no-one in Washington or London is doing anything to stop it. Brutality is irrelevent.
* apparently it is an American thing, borders mean less over there.
Labels: anti-American, imperialism, iraq, stalinism
