is great!

“We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.” Congressman Ron Paul, June 27, 2002



After reading most of The Emperor Wears No Clothes, I am becoming more convinced that the federal government’s “War on Terror” is a ploy, with dire consequences for the American people. Like the “War on Drugs,” the “War on Terror” benefits a select few and oppresses many. Both “wars” give the federal government a blank check in exercising its power to win an unwinnable war. Both “wars” increase the initial “problem” in several ways, so that the war increases with time, all the while legislatures spread these misguided goals into almost all aspects of politics.


In order to control the “war” in what ways the federal government deems necessary, massive amounts of misinformation is spread. Back in the 1930s, Hearst’s virtual monopoly on the newspapers and media trained entire generations to hate the cannabis plant, which allowed subsequent prohibition legislation to pass and grow. In modern society, huge corporate conglomerates basically control the predominant “news” outlets: television, newspaper, and radio. The media is incredibly powerful, but who is the media accountable to? As long as the general public is misinformed, there is little hope that these oppressive “wars” will end. Because one cannot eradicate drugs, nor eradicate terrorism, these “wars” go on for an indefinite period.


Congressman Ron Paul, a Libertarian Republican from Texas, said that “the misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an anti-terrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists.” In another speech, he states that the recently passed legislation (HR 10) “broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended ‘to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.’” The definition is clearly written in that broad manner to allow lax interpretation in designating terrorist groups. Who knows how far the federal government plans to implement such laws and power? Current legislation being passed in the name of security threatens our rights, decreases checks and balances in the executive branch and the federal government, and increases secrecy. This course of action cannot possibly lead to any good.

“Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law.” – Congressman Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, June 3, 2003


Flag burning is not a common occurrence, and there is absolutely no need to legislate a commonly held notion – that burning the American flag is disrespectful. Virtually all Americans do not condone burning or defacing the American flag. For many people, especially those in the military establishment, the American flag evokes the deepest of emotions. It commonly represents the values and ideals that this nation was founded upon, as well as represents those who defended these ideals against foreign and domestic tyranny. For some, the flag is the epitome of all that is good and just in the world. Regardless of what the flag may or may not represent to the citizens of this country, most people have enormous respect for the flag. Since a vast majority of Americans despise the defacing of the American flag, there is absolutely no reason to legislate this widely held notion, and therefore limit free speech.


The Citizens Flag Alliance, a lobbying group for the flag “desecration” amendment, states that “public opinion surveys showed three out of four Americans favored protection for the flag, and a similar number believed a constitutional amendment was needed to achieve that goal.” A democracy is majority rule, with or without rights for the minority. Democracy can lead to tyranny if the majority imposes its will on the populace. Although the founding fathers knew the importance of the peoples’ voice over the government and recognized the need for majority rule, they also knew that a true democracy is a vile form of government, because the majority often rules over the minority. “Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson. Since the government of the United States of America is a constitutional republic, the majority does not need to, nor should, impose their values on the rest of society.


The government of the United States of America is not perfect, and there are many instances in American history in which the majority imposes values on the minority. For instance, in contemporary American society, the conservative anti-homosexual/anti-abortion movement seeks to basically impose these values on the American public. This is apparent when Republican leadership endorses a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage as well as endorses strict anti-abortion legislation. This is the very essence of oppression in a free society. These issues are evenly divided among the American people, and one half of the American people should not be able to dictate to the other half anything, much less matters concerning morality. Regarding the issue of defacing the American flag, virtually all Americans despise flag burning. What exactly are we protecting the flag from? From a few miscreants that burn the American flag? The Citizens Flag Alliance reported that in 2004, approximately seven flags were lit on fire. There are roughly eight flag-burning cases a year in the United States of America. In fact, most flag burning is done on foreign soil as a form of protest against this government’s foreign policy. Regarding those done on American soil, local and state laws already deal with defacing the American flag under vandalism clauses, so this legislation is quite unnecessary.


The recent flag desecration legislation in question is H.J. Res. 4 and S.J. Res. 4. Rep. Randy Cunningham and Sen. Orrin Hatch introduced the legislation to the House and the Senate. Although the proponents of this flag desecration amendment may have good intentions, the amendment is fundamentally flawed. This proposed amendment of the Constitution would authorize “Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Although this amendment does not directly violate the First Amendment, it gives Congress the authority to write laws that do violate the First Amendment.


Furthermore, the term “desecrate” is traditionally reserved for religious symbols. According to Webster’s Dictionary, to “desecrate” is defined as violating the sacredness of an object. Congressman Ron Paul stated that “the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon.” James Ostrowski, a libertarian lawyer from New York state, noted that the amendment’s “most obvious flaw is its use of the term ‘desecration’ to limit flag-protective legislation. Ironically, use of this term will be used by lawyers to argue for loopholes for their clients who have destroyed flags. To desecrate means to use a religious object in a manner that would displease God.”


Since Congress seeks to protect the flag as a symbol of everything the United States of America represents, why not include every other prominent symbol? Should the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence likewise be “protected” under the law? The President of the United States, Congress, and the Supreme Court are all prominent symbols of this country. Why “protect” the flag and not protect these symbols? In addition, the amendment would not prohibit non-physical “desecration” to the flag, such as lewd acts on or around the flag. Nor does the amendment prohibit “desecration” of photographs of the American flag. The amendment would promote confusion and litigation. Since there is no need to amend the constitution over such a trivial matter, why make more of a mess than there is right now? The legislative branch should not amend the constitution in times of non-crisis, especially over a non-issue.


A free society does not require legislation to impose the majority’s opinion. After all, “every human being is a unique individual. Any attempt to replace the personal conscience by a collective conscience does violence to the individual and is the first step toward totalitarianism.” - Hermann Hesse. Authoritarian countries, such as China, Soviet Russia, and Iraq, had or have flag-burning laws. Our State Department documents how often the Chinese government prosecutes citizens for flag burning, and uses this as part of China’s humans’ rights abuses. When Soviet Russia adopted legislation against “discrediting” public officials in 1989, Communist officials defended the legislation in part by the Untied States flag desecration statute. If an overwhelming majority of Americans despise the defacing of a traditional American symbol, what need is there to amend the Constitution? If anything, individual states should reserve the right to ban the defacing of the American flag, not the federal government.

As I read The Prince, I cannot help but notice various parallels in the current Bush administration with Machiavelli’s power politics. It may be hard to notice these consistencies if one’s view of current politics encompasses the black-and-white oversimplification that is the trend today in political discourse. It is really difficult sometimes to have an intellectual discussion about politics without the various “terrorism” mantras and such being repeated on both sides of the political spectrum. Although I do not claim to be as nearly as knowledgeable about power politics and geopolitics as many others are, I am confident in my limited knowledge of such things. Once one understands and considers geopolitics, one finds that geopolitics has little (if anything) to do with any of the commonly held beliefs about politics – particularly foreign relations.


It is fairly obvious that George W. Bush and his administration has close ties with the corporate elite within this country (as most politicians do), but I think that this administration in particular holds a somewhat reckless adherence to the wealthy and to the corporate aristocracy. However, I do not wish to single out the Bush administration in regards to their close ties with corporate power, because modern American politics and money is synonymous. The Bush administration carries out support of the elite consistently and skillfully, because “if it [generosity] is employed virtuously and as one should employ it, it will not be recognized and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite.” So, although Bush has nationwide support from the masses, his true power derives from the wealthy, as he once stated to a group of corporate “bigwigs” – “they say you are the elite. I say you are my base.” Regarding economics, Bush does favor the wealthy, as his tax breaks show, because as Machiavelli wrote, the elite “support one among them and make him [leader] in order to be able, under his protection, to satisfy their appetites.” But because a leader must not only have the support of the elite while holding the masses with contempt, Bush “must have the friendship of the common people; otherwise he will have no support in times of adversity” – perhaps this is why he is portrayed as a Texas cowboy when he is really from an extremely wealthy family in Connecticut.


Furthermore, regarding military adventurism abroad, Bush has chosen wisely his fellow advisors and administration. He has surrounded himself with numerous neo-conservative Machiavellian war-hawks, including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle. This is because a “[leader] must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline,” especially when ensuring and prolonging Pax Americana. So in discussing war, “you must, therefore, know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force.” With the laws, one can conclude these are the means of being able to dictate to foreign powers – such as resolutions, trade embargoes, sanctions, and others. Force is obviously military power and the willingness to enforce the laws.


I would like to mention and elaborate that one’s word in politics (domestic and foreign) is rarely strong, because a “wise [leader] cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage…[thus] a [leader] never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise…but it is necessary to know how to disguise this nature well and to be a great hypocrite and liar.” Deception is a powerful tool when used wisely, simply because “men are so simple-minded and so controlled by their present needs that one who deceives will always find another who will allow himself to be deceived.” As such, Leo Strauss comes to mind (as there are many Straussians in the current Bush administration). Simply put, Strauss (like Machiavelli) stressed that the general public has an inability to understand the truth, so that it is necessary to lie for expedience in order to fulfill one’s (or one’s nations) goals. This is partly because “men in general judge more by their eyes than their hands; for everyone can see but few can feel. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few touch upon what you are, and those who do do not dare to contradict the opinion of the many who have the majesty of the state to defend them…for ordinary people are always deceived by appearance and by the outcome of a thing.” So in discussing the masses, “so long as you do not deprive them [the people] of either their property or their honour, the majority of men live happily; and you have only to deal with the ambition of a few, who can be restrained without difficulty and by many means” – which reminds me of those today that speak out strongly against the Bush administration and its policies, such as the ACLU.
I believe that by deceiving the public and starting a major war within the Middle East, one that cannot easily be disengaged and one that will most likely garner more hatred and enemies towards the United States of America, the Bush administration has further justification for more military spending and more military expenditures abroad. Uniting all enemies of the policies of the United States government under the overly broad “terrorist” term allows the United States government massive increases in power, both domestic and foreign. “Therefore many judge that a wise [leader] must, whenever he has the occasion, foster with cunning some hostility so that in stamping it out his greatness will increase as a result.”

i didnt include this, but michael ledeen is highly influenced by machiavelli and he even wrote a book about machiavellian concepts in modern times. the bush admin is highly influenced by this "total war" neoconservative. check out this: [link]

anyway, heres something i wrote about machiavelli and the bush admin for my english class. not the best essay, but whatever


Machiavelli And Power Politics


Fairly recently, I became interested in politics – and more specifically power politics and what drives our nation’s leaders in foreign relations - as well as some of our nation’s domestic policies. I am naturally mistrusting of authority, and I have a deep mistrust of most politicians in this country – not because I feel they are bad people, but because their job requires a form of governance (however mild or extreme) over the populace. Some politicians take joy in controlling others lives, whereas others merely try to please their constituents as best as possible. Others think of me as liberal, but my belief system leans more towards the libertarian ideology. I believe the government has no right in regulating anything, much less has the right to order citizens in what they can and cannot do. I tend not to become too immersed in the issues of today (especially with the polarization within the past few years), unless I feel a particular issue has special relevance to me or unless I feel a side of an issue is inherently unjust.


I do not think many people really understand the scope of the actions that the United States government condones and employs across the globe, many of which are deplorable. Machiavelli was successful in justifying acts of evil during the 15th and 16th century, by way of his reasoning. Machiavellian political ideals are just as prevalent (and the barbarity as well) today as they were then. Regarding the United State’s actions abroad, these actions can be thought of as necessary, and even just – if it means prolonging and enforcing American supremacy. However, in a more ethical sense, these actions – spanning decades and encompassing far too many things to merely state a few examples – are unmerited and crooked.


A very recent example is the Iraq War. I see the Iraq War as unnecessary and unjust (as I feel very few wars are necessary and even fewer are just). From a governernmental standpoint, many members of the current Bush administration were ardent supporters of regime change in Iraq (for roughly a decade and a half) “because they knew that war cannot be avoided but can only be put off to the advantage of others.” I believe the Iraq war was not for any of the reasons stated by government officials. Although I know it sounds cliché, I believe the war was and is being fought for control of resources in that region (namely oil and natural gas, as my understanding of geopolitics supports) - partly because “the desire to acquire is truly a very natural and normal thing; and when men who are able to do so, they will be praised and not condemned; but when they cannot and wish to do so at any cost, herein lies the error and the blame,” but mostly because strategic energy policy requires such a course of action. As I read The Prince, I notice various consistencies in what he wrote in regards to current United States policy in Iraq and the greater Middle East region. In some aspects – such as the necessity of a leader to live in newly acquired foreign territories - one must take into consideration the massive advancements in communication and military technologies. Such things considered, the Machiavellian fundamentals are seemingly forever true. Sending and creating colonies in Iraq would be unnecessary and simply unneeded in contemporary warfare – and as such a large contingent of ground forces are needed to occupy the land. This costs enormous amounts of money, as well as embitters the citizens of Iraq – because “everyone resents this inconvenience, and everyone becomes an enemy; and these are enemies that can be harmful, since they remain, although conquered, in their own home.” Furthermore, a province that is not similar in “language, customs, and laws,…it is here that difficulties arise…and one needs…much diligence to hold on to them.” I think that the Bush administration knew and anticipated the dangers of attacking and occupying Iraq – as testament to Colin Powell’s and Dick Cheney’s own words – but the geopolitical significance of controlling that region superseded such logic. The nearly unanimous support for insurgents in Iraq by neighboring Iran and Syria lends itself to the fact that once another foreigner (in this case one that shares many or some of the same cultural/political beliefs) enters the region, “all who are less powerful cling…moved by the envy they have for the one who has ruled over them…so that [the new foreign power] has no trouble whatsoever in winning them over.” Although the Iraq war and the ensuing support for Iraqi insurgents by neighboring Arab countries is slightly different in what Machiavelli discussed, the previous passage rings true. Many may find the Iraq war to be spiraling out of control, but I think all or most of the past and present situations in Iraq were foreseen or calculated. I do not believe the Bush administration to be foolhardy in their actions in Iraq, because they certainly understand that “there is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer than to introduce a new order of things,” for the reasons that all those who profit from the old system no longer profit and all those standing to profit from the new profit are naturally disinclined to new things as well as the fear of those who really hold power and control over the new order. I believe that the situation in the Middle East will continue to become destabilized. George W. Bush stated that things in the Middle East are “very likely to get worse before they get better.” I mention this because I know the Bush administration knows this, and because I believe they want this and in a sense need this to happen. I believe this because crisis precipitates change, and one has to “disturb the order of things and cause turmoil among these states in order securely [and also justify in terms the American populace] to make…master of a part of them.” I think greater crisis will allow the Bush administration to justify other military intervention in other countries (if need be). Although I cannot foresee where current policy towards Iraq and the Middle East will take this country and it’s people, I am not too optimistic that the Bush administration can handle such a challenge.



edit: i take back that politician part, i hate pretty much all of them, minus a few good ones.