1) Vote early and vote often. In established democracies such as the United States, only 37% of registered voters ever came out to the polls. In our democracy, some citizens exhibit a sense of complacency or perhaps inability to change a broken system. Others feel that voting is not worthwhile or interferes with their life. Yet more do not bother to ever register, essentially ensuring that the system remains broken. You, my Egyptian friends, have turned out in massive numbers — with lines stretching blocks — to vote on your new Constitution. Never give up that enthusiasm. As long as you have a democracy that ensures one person, one vote, then you can prevent some of the ills that are occurring in the United States today.

2) Remain unified. There are those within your elite, within your business community and within your political ranks who would like to turn you against each other in order to further their agenda (whatever it may be). For instance, many new governors in the United States have vowed to break up public employee unions, selling such measures as “protecting the middle class,” while completely ignoring the fact that these public employees ARE middle class. They work hard, have college degrees, provide important services and pay taxes. Yet at the same time, these same governors give tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations, usually to the same amount that would be ‘saved’ by cutting benefits and collective bargaining rights of public employees.

They are able to get away with this because they pit the middle class against each other. You see, private employer jobs have long since lost most of the benefits that public employment jobs enjoy, largely because unions have lost the right to collectively bargain with (or do not exist in) the private sector. So to some employees who suffer from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome of the workplace, the idea that some other middle class person would have the benefits they’ve lost evokes anger, envy and hatred. So the governors are able to get away with their agenda.

3) Keep your faith in the power of collective action. Remember, there are only a few of them and millions of you. Your protests in Tahrir Square emboldened the people of Wisconsin to fight their governor, empowered the people of Michigan to rebuff their governor and inspired people in Ohio, Indiana and other states to take to the streets in protest. If you are quiet, complacent and (as Glenn Beck put it) “stable,” corrupt officials and dirty politicians can have their way. If, on the other hand, you retain the peaceful, non-violent power of popular solidarity you can change the world in ways that amaze and awe. Every Egyptian should march every Friday — your government needs it. Men and women of Egypt, march together — your society needs it. Christian and Muslim, march together — the world needs it.

4) Finally, remember that while you may disagree with each other, there are no ‘enemies’ within Egypt, merely opponents. Just like when Zamalek and Ahly take to the field, there are no “good guys’ and no ‘bad guys’ when you all take to the airwaves, the opinion pages and the radio for political discourse. Believe in the patriotism of your fellow Egyptians unless they unequivocally prove otherwise.

It is through political polarization that Americans began to perceive those on the opposite side as ‘enemies,’ and it is this war-like mentality which prevents real, meaningful dialogue. In our country, corporations are able to make massive profits, keep average wages flat and give each other outrageous bonuses because of this polarization — some voters are convinced that regulations or attempts to prevent multi-million dollar bonuses at banks are ‘socialism’ and so call those who want to ensure fairness and balance in society “enemies” or “socialists.” The corporate-government relationship in Egypt is already in place and could continue under the new Constitution. Don’t let it happen! Remember that your fellow Egyptian is not your enemy just because they disagree on political or religious or economic issues.

In closing, I hope that the people of Egypt are finally able to secure the dignity and freedoms they so richly deserve. I fervently hope, as well, that you heed the warnings of an older Democracy and maintain the ‘demos cratia’ — power of the people — and don’t turn your country into a plutocracy or corporate stooge as we’ve done.

إن شاء الله ، ستكون مصر مجانا إلى الأبد

For example, embattled Libyan ‘leader’ Muamar Qadaffi theorized that the people rebelling against his 41-year-long authoritative rule were “children” who had been slipped hallucinogenic pills — dropped in their milk, their coffee, and their nescafe — by al Qaeda and that the pills themselves were supplied by the United States and distributed through mosques. Furthermore, he rejects the idea that Libyans, inspired by events in Tunisia and Egypt, could ever reject him because they ‘all love him.’

Qadaffi — perhaps without meaning to — provides an eloquent example of  a ‘Conspiracy theory,” the antithesis of the principle of parsimony — also known as Occam’s Razor — which is sometimes stated as “the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation.” A growing number of Americans are convinced that someone, somewhere (and not just in a cave on the Afghan/Pakistan border) is out to get them and will do anything and everything to upset their delicate sensibilities.

Case in point, when the protests were occurring in Egypt — though it should be noted that the media was ignorant of similar, month-long protests occurring in Tunisia before that country’s president’s hasty departure — many politicians, pundits and talking heads were chiming in with their dire predictions and ominous warnings of Islamic Caliphates and anti-Western Theocracies controlling the Middle East’s most populous country.

At the heart of that particular tempest was the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood was ‘closely allied’ with al Qaeda. This despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had 1) renounced violence, 2) distanced itself from Ayman al Zawahiri a long time ago, and 3) really had no tangible influence or control over the protests. To some, the fact that the successful revolt in Tunisia, coupled with a similar incident involving a young Alexandrian named Khaled Said, and spurred on by the use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter had become a catalyst for change among the youth of Egypt was not believable.

Rather than a people tired of poverty, repression, and economic stagnation rising up to demand dignity and Democracy, it must have been the result of vast, unseen forces conspiring in an unlikely plot to upset American interests in the Middle East and North Africa. For example, conspiracy theorists’ go-to televangelist of doom, Glenn beck would have you believe that al Qaeda, Socialists, worker unions in Wisconsin, Communists, Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter, and the liberal media are all conspiring to undermine “stability.”

Similar conspiracies about ‘domestic issues’ also have traction in American politics as well and are often proffered by allegedly serious candidates in order to generate a ‘buzz’ about their candidacy. Case in point; Mike Huckabee’s recent interview on a conservative talk radio program that President Barack Obama ‘grew up in Kenya‘ and has a ‘very different’ view of the British than the average American.

After throwing this firebomb of a statement in the powder magazine that is the AM talk radio clique, Huckabee continued on with his non-factual premise only to later ‘walk back’ his statements by stating he had “misspoke” (read; chickened out). This, of course, feeds into the ‘birther’ conspiracy in American conservatism which just can NOT get past the fact that a well-educated, politically-savvy black man who had a single mother, lived on welfare, smoked pot, and lived abroad could ever legitimately be president of the United States.

This ‘birther’ movement began as a fringe challenge from the likes of Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi and a handful of hysterical ‘PUMAs’ (hard-core Hillary supporters) but has flowered into a full-fledged ‘white panic’ with upwards of 36% of conservatives polled “doubted Obama’s birth records.” Essentially Huckabee is mining the paranoid fear that the state of Hawai’i, the Clinton campaign (which was fiercely fought, as Huckabee acknowledges), Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard universities all hushed up the president’s “illegal” alien/dual citizenship/Muslim background on the off chance that he would become a community organizer, a senator and eventually president of the United States.

So what explains the American need to see vast, shadowy conspiracies colluding to upset baseball, mom and apple pie? Historically, humans have always looked to the unseen forces of the occult to explain their misery. In Salem, Massachusetts, a combination of increased Native American attacks, food shortages, loss of control over older (widowed) females and a possible fungal blight which caused hallucinations led to the Salem Witch Trials.

During those trials, so-called “Spectral Evidence” was admitted as proof of the guilt of the accused; dreams were the typical medium through which witchcraft was ‘proven.’ It was easier to blame slaves from the Caribbean and old widowed women who were ‘too manly’ than to believe that God couldn’t care less about the success of your “city on a hill.” The trials, and admittance of spectral evidence, only ended when well-respected, pious Puritans such as Increase and Cotton Mather were accused of molesting children as part of a Satanic ritual. Oddly enough, once accused Increase Mather presented a sermon condemning the trials as a sham and an injustice, intoning that “It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned (sic).”

Further back, the Black Plague which ravaged Europe in the 14th century was caused by a combination of diseased fleas, rats, poor sanitation, poor hygiene habits and dense urban populations. But with microbes unseeable and theories of disease rudimentary and superstitious at best, Europeans believed that God had abandoned them and that, in the intervening absence, witches or heretics or Jews were poisoning the wells by turning into black cats (associated with Circe, the goddess of magic) and slinking into pious peoples’ houses — how else to explain the deaths of so many monks, priests and bishops?

But in the modern era, most belief in witches and Satanic magic has been discredited =- except perhaps in Delaware — and thus these scary events which shake the beliefs of simple, ‘real’ Americans must be explained another way: vast governmental conspiracies. It is easier to believe that a complex, convoluted alliance of seemingly-disparate interest are participating in duping you, the American people rather than believe that your assumptions of the world were just plain wrong.

For many conservative Baby Boomers, being wrong doesn’t mean you’re misinformed, racist or prejudiced but instead just feeds into your belief that politicians can’t be trusted and are grabbing power to take something — hell, anything — from you.  As Mark Fenster wrote in Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture,” along with many others on the latter end of the Baby Boom who were too young to experience the political assassinations and Vietnam War protests of the 1960s, I had in me the particular American antipathy to politics and politicians that was instilled by Nixon’s ultimate ignominy. Nixon led me to conclude that you can’t really trust powerful people … “(preface).  It is ironic indeed that the very generation which once rebelled against the government for liberal purposes now cleaves to anti-government slogans and beliefs for conservative — or ultra-conservative — reasons.

What, then, could explain the rise in Baby Boomer angst? Several factors do leap out which offer — when taken as a whole — a possible motivation. First, there is no Soviet Union anymore; oddly enough having the world split into two equally-matched, antagonistic halves seems (in hindsight) relatively stable to some Baby Boomers. With the Soviet Union, the United States had a “Goliath” for its “David,” a “Captain Hook” for its “Peter Pan,” and an Indian for its Cowboy image — some other monumental culture to push against, blame things on and generally define one’s self against.

Secondly, the collapse of the financial markets in 2008 and the subsequent slow recovery. Taken individually, the stock market and the housing market are nearly incomprehensible to the average person but when combined into a malicious, money-making scheme of epic proportions, they approach Voodoo-esque magic. Oddly enough, rather than blaming AIG, Bear-Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, and Wall Street, most baby Boomers fixated on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; an affirmation of Mr. Fenster’s quote, above. Why the government-guided or -run banks are taking the brunt of the ire now considering the massive bailouts given to all banks speaks volumes of the level of contempt the Baby Boomer generation has for its own elected officials and to the naive belief in the PR spin banks have since put on.

Finally, Baby Boomers grew up in an age of relatively low immigration — between the 1950s and 1970s, the majority of Americans were born in America, compared with the ‘Greatest Generation’ who grew up in a time when 25% of Americans were born elsewhere — which leads to a certain level of racial intolerance. Put plainly, brown people make conservative Baby Boomers nervous and angry brown people make them piddle their Depends. When conservative politicans speak of ‘welfare queens’ what image comes to mind? When conservative politicans speak of ‘racial quotas‘ what image comes to mind? When conservative politicians speak of ‘stability‘ in the Middle East what image comes to mind?

Taken as a whole, these three factors leave Baby Boomers feeling helpless and increasingly irrelevant as the world passes them by. It is no wonder, then, that belief in conspiracy theories — from FEMA ‘re-education camps‘ to ‘Obama is the antichrist’ — is up and that Occam’s Razor is left to rust, pit and dull in the corners of the Conservative mind.

“You are with us, or you are against us.” Yin and Yang. Right and Wrong.

It is easy, and seductive, to view the world as a set of binary decisions, ideas, and events each, mutually opposed and antithetical to each other. Such a simplistic view, however, is detrimental to understanding history in general and the unfolding events in the Middle East specifically. To continue to engage in such a world view is dangerous in the extreme, as history has often highlighted. Instead, what needs to occur is an understanding of the precedents to this week’s uprisings and the reactions which could move democracy, social issues, human rights and freedom forward throughout the Middle East.

An illuminative example of this dichotomous thinking, and the opportunity nuanced thinking presents, is being played out in Egypt in what we could term the “January 25th Effect.”

First, let us lay the groundwork. In 1952 the Free Officers revolution swept an unpopular king from his throne and set into motion a potential republic initially helmed by Muhammad Naguib, a military general who stepped in to fill the executive branch. Though Naguib was a short-lived character on the Egyptian stage, and one of four dictators to rule Egypt, his elevation — as well as the elevation of his successor Gamal Nasser — was bolstered by economic, political and electoral reform.

Much like 2011, Egypt of the 1950s was mired in poverty, corruption and unequal wealth distribution. Correcting at least some of these imbalances made Nasser incredibly popular in Egypt despite his moves to socialize many industries, which hurt Egypt economically in the long run.

With Nasser’s death in 1970, two ‘presidents’ have presided over Egypt: Anwar Sadat, who was assassinated in 1981, and Mubarak, who declared a ‘state of emergency’ after Sadat’s death and has yet to institute any real change to that ‘emergency’ since, essentially miring the country in a near-thirty year martial law state.

In the 1960s and 70s, a radical, Islamist group — the Muslim Brotherhood — challenged authoritarian rule, often with violence. Indeed, it was the Brotherhood which was held responsible for Sadat’s death. Since then, the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced violence and has worked to attract professionals — doctors, lawyers, professors, and other Western-educated and trained professionals — in an effort to shed its “Islamist” past.

This has worked to a small degree, but perhaps not in the way that the Brotherhood may have wanted: Mubarak at once allowed politicians with links to the Brotherhood to stand for office (in limited numbers) and yet continued to demonize the Brotherhood as radicals, a ruse enhanced by the fact the Al Qaeda’s #2 man, Ayman al Zawahiri, was once a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who was jailed in the police sweep following Sadat’s assassination. What has resulted is a built-in, yet relatively toothless, ‘evil’ opposition which Mubarak uses to the outside world as justification for his secret police’s (as well as regular police’s) use of violence, intimidation and torture. Many in Egypt see the Muslim Brotherhood as complicit, or perhaps jealously guarding their gains, while the rest of Egypt suffers.

Yet outside Egypt certain news outlets, such as most commentators and pundits at Fox news as well as CNN’s Kyra Phillips, still use the fear of an “Islamist” revolution to draw viewers and to steer the conversation into a more dichotomous, and destructive, direction.

Having lived in Egypt and even recently visited it (I was standing in Tahrir Square a mere three weeks ago), as well as having studied it throughout graduate school, I can unequivocally state that such “tyrant or Al Qaeda” dichotomies are woefully mistaken and will only harm the United States. Egypt is a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional country which enjoys (and has long enjoyed) close ties to other Mediterranean and Western countries. Christians in fact make up about 18% of Egypt’s population and occupy seats in the Shura (Parliamentary) council as well as local and district-level elected office. About half the people of Egypt don’t even consider themselves truly ‘Arab’ but rather uniquely ‘Egyptian.’

Egyptian people, by and large, are able to separate the policies of a government from the will of a people — perhaps because of their own experiences under a police state — and thus are willing to reconcile or work with governments who change their attitudes or leadership. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Egypt is dependent upon tourism for the majority of its income — it lacks the natural resources of Iran, Iraq or Saudi Arabia — and therefore would be irreparably harmed by an Islamic country that is hostile to outsiders, especially Westerners. Imagine how long the Supreme Clerics of Iran would stay in power if they shut all oil exports off to ‘infidels’ and one can get a sense of how long a tourism-dependent Egypt would tolerate xenophobic Islamic extremists.

Finally, it is important to understand some facts and their implications. Over 2/3 of the 80 million Egyptians are under 30. This demographic makes up 90% of the unemployed in the country. Those who do work live on about $2 a day (or less). They face a regime where nepotism (Mubarak is grooming his son to replace him as president, for example), corruption and police brutality (including the aforementioned torture) is a routine occurrence. If the people of Egypt are denied the moral support of the world’s oldest democracy to effect change — even somewhat violent change — to their country, to whom will they turn?

Of course, it is important to remember that Americans — despite being very proud of their ‘revolutionary’ heritage — are suspicious of other peoples’ revolutions. The French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the prime ministership of Mohammad Mossadeq and even the Free Officers Revolution itself, to name a few, drew condemnation and derision from Americans of all periods. It is therefore critical to change this wrong-headed, harmful “this or that” point of view, lest our position and influence in the Middle East be fatally diminished and replaced by the influence of other countries’ influence — some of whom have very different ideas as to the direction of the world — Iran, China and Russia for example.

We as a people must realize that our example inspires other people to rise up, take charge of their government and their future. We must remember that it is our Founding Fathers who said

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Are we to truly argue that only we Americans are considered “men” or that only we Americans should enjoy these rights? If so, then what use is it to fight against human rights abuses in China, or to counter the rhetoric of Al Qaeda, or to promote Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan? From where do we derive our moral authority if not from the principles — if not the subsequent actions — upon which our government was founded?

To be fair, it seems the Obama administration in general — and Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric specifically — have taken the outrage of the people into account and are publicly striking a balance between support for a long time ally and the will of his country’s people. Still, we could do better as a nation and as a world leader.

Despite what seems like a losing battle, we continue to call out Rush Limbaugh, Sarah “Blood Libel” Palin, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and others like them for their words Why? – because there was time not too long ago when the same kind of hate, fear, anger and intolerance currently preached by the above crowd ultimately led to a destruction that still remains hard to comprehend.
Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Historical Perspective

After their defeats in the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk in 1942-43, the great offensive machine of the dreaded Nazi Wehrmacht was forever halted. Hitler’s dream of a German victory over the much-hated Communists in the Soviet Union was crushed. Slowly the Red Army began an offensive against the Nazis, forcing the Germans to draw back towards Germany.

After Hitler invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the conquered lands between Germany and Russia were chosen to serve as the “home base” for the Nazi war against the Jews. Inside Poland, the Nazis under the direction of Hitler’s henchmen (led by Henrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich), built six major centers that would serve as “relocation camps” for the Jews being rounded up and deported from all over Europe. In reality, these six camps – Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, Chelmno, Belzec and Auschwitz were not transit stops to the east – they were factories of mass murder.

After 1943, the Red Army began to push westward toward Poland and Third Reich. As the Soviets advanced and the Germans retreated, the leadership in Berlin realized they had to eliminate (dismantle, blow-up or hide) any and all evidence of these death camps disguised as concentration camps – and they had to do it quickly. The Nazis quickly realized their implacable thirst for genocide made cover-up of these monstrous crimes nearly impossible.

The first camp reached by the Soviets was Majdanek on July 23, 1944. The rapidly advancing Red Army caught the SS guards at the camp by surprise. They set fire to the crematoria, but the Nazis had to flee the encroaching Soviets before they could destroy the gas chambers. A few weeks later the Soviets entered what remained of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka (an estimated 800,000 Jews were murdered at Treblinka, the second largest death camp). All three of those concentration camps were closed and dismantled in 1943. The fifth death camp reached by the Soviets was Chelmno on January 17, 1945. While the final killings at Chelmno occurred in July 1944, groups of Jewish prisoners arrived in the fall of 1944 to dispose of the evidence – by exhuming the buried corpses and cremating the remains before the Russians arrived.

The largest of the Nazi extermination camps was the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex outside of Krakow. From March 1942 until October 1944 the mass killing of Jews, Slavs, Roma, homosexuals, Soviet prisoners and other ‘undesirables’ went on relentlessly. After the final “selections for de-lousing” on October 30, Himmler ordered the camp to be obliterated before the Red Army reached the complex. The crematoria were removed in November. The gas chambers were destroyed in January 1945. On January 17, the SS ordered the prison guards to kill all the remaining prisoners – but as Nazi Germany was imploding from all sides, these orders never were carried out. The SS guards took 60,000 prisoners out of the camp and marched them to the Loslau camp, 40 miles away. Over 15,000 died or were shot on this infamous “death march.” According to Otto Frank (father of Anne Frank who was in Auschwitz that time), the prisoners were actually given a choice of whether to stay and take their chances with the Red Army or march.

On January 27, 1945, the Red Army rolled into Auschwitz and found 7,500 prisoners who were left behind, including 611 children. Also remaining in Auschwitz were the VIP prisoners – scientists and intellects. Otto Frank chose to stay and was liberated.  What the Germans did not do was destroy all the evidence.

Russian poet, Yuri Ilinsky was a Red Army lieutenant in 1945 when his unit marched into Auschwitz. He wrote that none of his war experience could compare to the horror he witnessed the moment he walked into Auschwitz. Under the thin snow covering the grounds, Ilinsky saw stacks of twisted bodies piled outside the barracks. He then saw 2 and 3-year old emaciated children in rags standing behind the barbed wire.

The camps liberated by the Americans and British (e.g. Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen) permitted the former prisoners to remain in the camps as Displaced Persons, cared for by the Allied troops. The former inmates at Auschwitz – from 29 countries – were not so lucky (using the term lucky very loosely). They were now free, but they were on their own. As many began their treks home, they were mistreated and abused by people in the neighboring towns and villages. Italian author Primo Levi wrote about his harrowing journey and how he went from one prison to another kind of jail. Some of the remaining prisoners went further to state that the camp really wasn’t liberated by the Soviets, but “it was happened upon by the Red Army.”

In their haste to flee the approaching Soviets, the Nazis left abundance evidence of their crimes. The Soviets expected to find gas chambers as they had at Majdanek – but all they saw were the ruins of the infamous “showers.” The SS set fire to clothing warehouses, to camp records and many of the barracks. When the Red Army entered the camp, some of the buildings were still burning or smoldering. In the warehouses that were not destroyed – there were over 800,000 pieces of women’s clothing, 43,000 pairs of shoes and 14,000 pounds of human hair.

The commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess initially evaded capture by the Allies, He ultimately was caught, tried at Nuremberg and hanged in April 1947.

How many people actually died at Auschwitz will never be known. Adolf Eichmann, in charge of deportations, put the number at 2.5 million. Hoess first stated the figure was 4 million, mostly Jews. During his trial he changed the total to 1.1 million Jews. He said “during my tenure at Auschwitz, millions of people died, whose exact number I cannot determine.” Franciszek Piper, Director of the Auschwitz Museum wrote in 1980:

When the Soviet Army entered the camp on January 27, 1945, they did not find any German documents giving the number of victims or any that could be used for calculating the total. Such documents had been destroyed….

Any number is just unimaginable. Just before his hanging, Hoess signed a statement admitting his shame for committing Crimes Against Humanity. Part of it reads:

… For my responsibility, I am now paying with my life. Oh, that God would forgive me my deeds! People of Poland, I beg you to forgive me! Just now in the Polish prisons have I recognized what humanity really is …

Mr. Hoess, you are not forgiven, but you are remembered.

As for the aforementioned crowd, don’t think that this country is immune from further steps into the gutter and don’t think your hate speech doesn’t contribute to a climate of fear, anger, hate and intolerance.  In 1932, the Germans thought the were the land of Goethe, Schiller and Beethoven, not Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich.

This post originally appeared at distributorcap NY.

Granted, Assange may be of a mind that damaging the United States’ image is a good thing, with the United States being roundly criticized for a variety of abuses ranging from extraordinary rendition to globalization to the evils of Coca-Cola and McDonald’s. But in reality, Assange and Wikileaks have struck a blow AGAINST transparency within the world’s oldest democracy, and there is historical evidence to prove this assertion.

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln had many personal issues which were fairly well known amongst his closest advisers and even newspaper reporters. Lincoln himself dealt with depression, constant joint and back pain, was of a fragile state of mind when his son died of fever and his wife locked herself in her apartments for weeks – perhaps months.

Additionally, foreign diplomats sent briefs regarding important agreements with Britain, France and other trading partners which helped ensure the Confederate States of America would lack the financial wherewithal to withstand a sustained war with the North. Imagine, then, had Julian Assange and Wikileaks conspirator Pfc. Bradley Manning existed then. Their efforts at “freedom and transparency” might have derailed the Union’s war effort as well as ensured slavery continued to exist.

During the Great Depression, it was an unspoken rule amongst the press corp that they would never photograph Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his wheel chair or with his leg braces on, for fear that physical signs of weakness in the president would rattle confidence in the New Deal. Similarly, during WWII (and in the years before American involvement) private State Department documents critically assessed the situation in Europe and in the Pacific. Though many are still classified, we could speculate that those document also contained frank assessments of Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle and Joseph Stalin as well as frank, open communiques regarding efforts to derail the Axis.

Had WikiLeaks been around, it might have leaked sensitive documents which would have derailed the Allies’ relationship and set the war effort back immeasurably. It is not hard to imagine that if every paper in America contained “revelations” that Churchill was in inveterate womanizer and a chronic alcoholic that Congress would have quashed the Lend-Lease program, prevented billions in loans and have been more intractable in their opposition toward entering WWII – it might not even be far-fetched to peculate that the United Statesbmight have come to the negotiation table after Pearl Harbor as the Japanese hoped.

But setting aside the diplomatic fallout, the unintended consequence is to make American intelligence communities MORE reactionary and MORE territorial over information they have gathered.

Case in point: Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, one of the main criticisms was that agencies were not sharing information across departmental lines. Indeed in some instances, information gathered by the FBI, CIA or other agencies – if shared properly – might have prevented the attacks. In response to such criticisms, the Department of Homeland Security and the military set up an intelligence intranet over which information could be shared quickly and securely.

It is precisely this intranet which Manning used to leak literally millions of documents – many of which are completely unrelated to his anxiety and upset over “collateral murder” in Afghanistan and Iraq – to WikiLeaks and other agencies. The upshot of this is this decision by Manning and Assange is two-fold.

First, the relatively free-flow of information will be shut off, returning the United States intelligence community to pre-9/11 levels of secrecy and territorialism. With the ending of this information sharing, agencies will lack critical resources needed to shut down terror operations in the future. This may also lead to more “paper only” memos which will be redacted, shredded, and destroyed — meaning that future so-called “whistle blowers” will find it harder to request information via the FOIA or other, legitimate means.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the “cover” given to America’s anti-terror efforts, particularly in areas where direct American involvement would either be unwelcome or would lead to riots and political instability: places like Yemen and Pakistan. Indeed many of the documents which detail close co-operation between the officials of these countries have already created backlash which – it is no stretch to say – will essentially lead to de facto safe havens for al Qaeda and affiliates.

In essence, in an effort to “prompt clear, open discussions” about governmental policy, by not exercising restraint on their part, WikiLeaks may have killed the goose that lays the golden egg and made the world more chaotic and dangerous.

True, many in the “hacker” community might applaud this “outing” of state secrets, and many so-called Liberals laud the “courage” of Assange et. al., and while many neo-Anarchists may cheer the blow to the United States and its diplomatic efforts, the results could cost the lives of innocent Muslims and Westerners.

But lets look at the issue in a more personal light Would these hackers allow the U.S. government to leak sensitive information on them including their sexual habits, sessions with therapists or confessions to friends? Certainly not. They would decry it as an invasion of privacy and an abuse of power and certainly it is.

In this case, however, it is Assange, Manning and WikiLeaks that had the power and chose to abuse it, chose to put diplomatic relations back, chose to undo some of the cooperation on the War on Terror, chose to feed information to those groups which might use these strained relationships to harm the United States and its citizens.

And, without sounding too hyperbolic, it will be WikiLeaks’ fault if American soldiers or diplomats are harmed by al Qaeda, Iranian or North Korean agents because Asange failed to exercise the discretion of his historical predecessors.

What sticks out in the film are some of the truths behind the attitudes of the gangs, such as in an exchange between Neeson (representing Irish immigrant thugs) and Day-Lewis (representing non-immigrant low lifes):

Day-Lewis: “On my challenge, by the ancient laws of combat, we are met at this chosen ground to settle for good and all who holds sway over the Five Points. Us natives, born right-wise to this good land, or the foreign hordes defiling it!”

Though a film that takes serious liberties with history, it did get right the anti-foreign sentiment which occasionally reaches fever pitch in our country. Just like in the 19th century and the early 20th century, America is now in the grips of nativist hysteria — the unreasoning, feral fear of foreigners.

You may be tempted to think that the idea of “foreign” is limited to immigrants, but the truth is far more profound. In a limited sense, “anti-immigration” and “anti-foreigner” sentiment is about people born outside of the country applying for residence inside these borders. But using a broadened scope of understanding nationalism and its extremist cousins jingoism and nativism, one begins to see that arguments about “immigration” are not about jobs, lost tax revenue or law-breaking but about those who do not fit a certain mold in our society.

This idea, which historians term “otherness,” is in a way both the necessary component of the establishment of a national consciousness but also a potentially divisive and destructive element within that same society. Several cases-in-point have recently surfaced which highlight that immigration and “otherness” are clearly tied together in the nativist zeitgeist of the past decade or so. First, let us examine the claims of some elements of our society which, initially, were thought to be “fringe” or minority elements: the “birthers.”

For those unfamiliar with the “birther” ideology, their assertion is that President Obama is not a native-born American. Several sub-strains hold slightly divergent, yet inter-related ideas about the legitimacy of the 44th president’s birthright. Such strains include assertions that British law bequeaths British citizenship upon the children of British subjects, the “loss” of official records of Obama’s birth and the time Obama’s family lived in Indonesia (and thus must be Muslim). In recent polls, up to 1/5th of the Americans who responded believed that Obama is not what he seemed — either a secret Muslim or a non-citizen.

What much of the reportage has ignored however, is that the “birther” phenomenon also included allegations that Republican candidate John McCain was likewise not a U.S. citizen because of his birth at a military hospital in Panama. Given that both candidates were tarred with the same brush, one must wonder why it is that McCain’s birth has been accepted as legitimately American while Obama’s was not. Several possible theories — including race, political leaning and the source of his name are often proffered as explanations — yet taken alone, these elements are inadequate to explain the tenacity and longevity of these assertions. Instead, we must examine Obama’s being wholistically — his name, his skin color, his background and his political leanings together — as the hydra-like source of these questions.

During the campaign, Obama stressed his religious background — which paradoxically was not helped by his membership in Rev. Wright’s church — yet the rumors persisted. The “stop the smears” website then moved on to his birthplace, with little effect, and so they moved on to the Anglification of his Muslim name. Yet even this failed to quell the rumors of “otherness.”

Essentially, the dwindling white, evangelical, protestant, socially conservative shard of this country’s society had myriad evidence of his “otherness” which fueled belief in these outrageous allegations and took all of them as a compilation of evidence of his “otherness,” thus rendering targeted rebuttals ineffective.

But political opposition and pernicious rumors are not uncommon in our society. Bill Clinton’s Whitewater affair, George W. Bush’s “inside job” 9/11 conspiracy and George H.W. Bush’s “greenlighting” of the Gulf War all were persistent untruths which refused to die because of a cadre of hard-core adherents. Therefore, it is important to look beyond the confines of the beltway for Bill “The Butcher”-like nativism in America today. Perhaps the most poignant, and tragic, evidence is the recent attention paid to schools and bullying and its almost sociopathic manifestations.

Take for instance the case of Phoebe Prince. An Irish immigrant to the United States, ms. Prince was harassed, bullied, harangued and taunted — not because of her skin color or her name (which is Anglo-Saxon sounding) but because she was an “other,” an immigrant, with a funny accent. Prince eventually killed herself, but the tragedy does not stop there. The alleged bullies continued to taunt her family and friends about Prince’s death even while charges were being filed against these bullies.

This schadenfreude is not just an isolated case either. Take, for example, the case of Sladjana Vidovic in Cleveland, Ohio. After months of taunting, slurs and physical abuse, the Serbian-born girl killed herself to get away from her tormentors. Yet even her death did not shock the alleged bullies into introspection or guilt. Instead, a girl at Vidovic’s funeral laughed at her while she lay in the coffin.

As in the Prince case, the attitude was of satisfaction and glee at seeing the “other” reduced to non-humanity — a trophy of latent vicious nativism that our society is reinforcing constantly. Further cases of bully-related suicide serve to illustrate the point further. Three other of Vidovic’s classmates also committed suicide — one with a learning disability, one a boy who liked pink and another who was gay.

Indeed, gay men and lesbians — though far more accepted into society than at any other time in the nation’s history — are increasingly the target of this anti-”other” nativism. Homosexual persecution is perhaps the most telling case of this anti-”otherness,” which is only fueled by the TV ‘chattering class’ (as Jon Stewart coined them) and Tea Party extremists.

The suicide of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi serves an interesting example in particular. Both of the accused bullies in this case were from minority families and were considered “tolerant” of homosexuality prior to the incident. So, then, what singled out Clementi for surreptitious taping and lewd comments on a social network? His homosexuality made him an outsider, an “other,” which was an appropriate target of ridicule, curiosity, and taunting even within a relatively liberal setting such as a college campus.

It is important, however, to not dismiss the nativist element at work here; homophobia is but one aspect of anti-”otherness.” For example, while Jeheem Herrera, (11 years old), 13-year-old Seth Walsh and Asher Brown killed themselves for anti-gay bullying and harassment, dozens of other children have killed themselves this year alone because of the toxic, intolerant, insensitive atmosphere we — as a society — cultivate and reward.

This neo-nativism has not only gained in popularity, but has become mainstream. Tea Party advocates and their candidates target the least powerful in our society, just as child bullies do — immigrants (both legal and illegal), the poor, the uninsured and (with the recent assault by Rand Paul and Marco Rubio upon Social Security) the elderly. So-called “social conservatives,” likewise, target the “weird” the “different” and the “outsider” such as gays or Muslims [1] [2] [3].

In essence, “otherness” is equal to weakness and weakness is intolerable in a nativist society. Though we have advanced technologically and use more sophisticated verbiage than Day-Lewis’ character, the truth is American society is looking for scapegoats to solve social and economic problems. In truth, many of us have become “The Butcher,” and the nation has been made lesser for it.

Cliches aside, there is truth in the cyclical nature of human experience. As Siddhartha Gautama sat beneath the Bodhi tree and contemplated existence, he came to that same realization. While he sought to free humanity from the chains of eternal suffering and pain, we true historians seek to end human ignorance, hate and fear.

“Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.” ~Buddha

The power of words canot be understated, especially when dealing with politics. In the closing decades of the 19th century, the so-called “Gilded Age,” newspaper owners such as W.R. Hearst and industrialists like J.D. Rockefeller dominated the dialogue over immigration, naturalization, politics, and the economy. In the minds of many Gilded Age American Middle Class readers, illegal immigration led to social upheaval, economic disruption and moral decay. Irish, Italian, Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, Japanese and Chinese immigrants represented a threat the the very fabric of American society. Indeed, immigrants were characterized as “hordes” or “vermin” and any attempt at social integration, justice, or compassion was derided as “Socialism” which would cost America its place in the sun of the world economy.

Catholics were seen as “papists” beholden to the Pope in Rome; allowing them into the country would open the flood gates of Christian heresy and signal the end of the Protestant success story that America was becoming. Jews, similarly, were forced to the margins of cities; their synagogues and cemeteries were often relegated to the outskirts of cities. The idea being that to allow a synagogue or cemetery would be tantamount to sanctifying the ground of American cities to “the Jews” who ‘killed’ Christ.

“Anger will never disappear so long as thoughts of resentment are cherished in the mind. Anger will disappear just as soon as thoughts of resentment are forgotten.” ~Buddha

But not all Americans were swayed by fear-mongering, hatred and demagoguery and instead tried to alleviate the suffering of the poor and unrepresented. Jane Addams founded Hull House in 1898, giving up a privileged lifestyle in an upper-Middle Class home and a life of comfort, in order to establish an enclave of hope in a mire of misery in downtown Chicago. Hope, it seemed, needed more human agency and less abstract thinking. Her position as a Middle Class woman living surrounded by abject poverty helped embarrass the corrupt Chicago political machine into offering basic amenities that Middle Class families had long enjoyed; trash collection, police patrols and fire station coverage. Many pundits today would have you believe that Addams and hundreds of women like her across the country who founded Settlement Houses in poor neighborhoods lived in a time that was “safer” or “more polite.” The truth is that living in the poorest sections of Chicago, New York, Cincinnati, Atlanta or Denver was as life-threatening (perhaps MORE so) than it is today — the Gangs of new York were a reality, not just a Leo DiCaprio film — and violence was literally rampant.

But what Addams proved was that marginalized people who were given at least some level of respect and dignity and were encouraged to participate in the American experience were more than capable of contributing positively to the American way of life. Indeed, those very same people — Catholics, Jews, non-Christians — who dwelt in the slums became an important part of America’s later defenses of liberty, freedom and Democracy in World War One and World War Two. Why? Because they were not marginalized because a few of their members were Anarchists or Communist terrorists like Leon Czologosz, Fernando Nicola Sacco, Bartolemeo Vanzetti and Mikhail Bakunin.

“An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind.” ~Buddha

Nativism emerged in the late 19th century as a violent, reactionary, fear-based response to immigration, economic uncertainty, a changing world and social ills. In contrast to compassionate responses such as Jane Addams’, Nativists rallied to isolate immigrants and (ideally) to drive them back where “they belong.” Nativist groups launched attacks on immigrant communities both physically and through legislation; in Takao Ozawa v. United States, the Supreme Court (in deference to the Nativist movements of the time) ruled that Asians were incapable of becoming U.S. citizens because they were not white. Anti-immigration rhetoric from public figures and pundits who played on the fears of the American people inspired lynchings, vigilante mobs and arson directed at immigrants and their “heathen ways.”

And though we look back on those years as shameful, wasteful, intolerant, and mean-spirited, we still live with the same issues; qur’an burnings in Florida, violent anti-Muslim protests in New York city, arson and vandalism in California and Tennessee.

When, one must wonder, will the voices of reason and tolerance finally win out over those of hate and intolerance? When will those who love America for its principles, its potential, its ideals win out over those who hate America by fantasizing about a past that never was and dreaming of a future which is closed, restrictive, oppressive and reactionary? Will our greatSgrandchildren look back and say “see? Here is where fear killed liberty. And here is where tolerance was destroyed by hysteria”?

Not if THIS historian has anything to say about it.

Sure, he did it after the construction of the mosque near Ground Zero was essentially a fait accompli and the issue was safely put to bed, but better late than never, right?

Then he “walked back” his support of the First Amendment. And like many of my progressive kin, I was crushed by his disappointing hedging. Why? Why would you equivocate on such a fundamental issue, Mr. Obama? Where is the fire and energy of the campaign? When other candidates were pandering to the public regarding the “gasoline tax” repeal, you said it was a gimmick and didn’t bite. When others were losing their head over “America First” slogans, you hammered away at “It’s the economy, stupid” issues.

If I may, Mr. President, offer you some advice? No president EVER pleased everyone.

During his tenure in office, Abraham Lincoln was hated by Democrats and assassins like John Wilkes Boothe plotted his death.

FDR found himself filibustered, vilified and critiqued by conservatives throughout the almost 16 years of his office terms DESPITE the success of programs like the WPA and AAA.

Woodrow Wilson’s inspiring 14 points dreamed of a world where Democracy and freedom ruled in place of colonialism and despotism, but was lambasted by his critics at home, dooming the League of Nations.

Hell, Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

So, with this in mind, I want you to understand one stunning fact:

The vast majority of Americans are ignorant and should NOT be listened to. Yes, they all think they’re well-informed and reasonable people, but they aren’t. Seriously! Some of these people think you are a MUSLIM or weren’t born in Hawai’i or “pal around with terrorists” or any number of cockamaimie ideas. So instead of testing the wind and “walking back” statements, do what you think is right and fuck the rest and their opinions; they’re not going to vote for you or a candidate you’re backing, and they DEFINITELY will not understand the subtlety of your position. And that’s okay!

Allow me to warn you, your equivocation comes on the heels of several other flip-flops which erode our support for you and any candidate you back (“Don’t ask, don’t tell” looms large in my mind as another example of your pandering to the ignorant). Progressives were fired up over the idea that “Yes we can!” change the world. “Yes we can” make healthcare affordable. “Yes we can” ensure equality for our GLBT brothers and sisters, especially those serving in the military. “Yes we can” make our society more tolerant toward Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and other non-Euro centric religions.

But your inability to take a stand and face the venom of the Becks, Limbaughs, Palins, and Gingriches of the world is making us think that WE may be able to, but YOU definitely can’t.

Others, like John Boehner, R-Ohio, would consider preventing the 14th Amendment from coming into law.

On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Boehner said, after being pressed for comment about the Tea Party-led sentiment to revise or repeal the 14th Amendment, that the idea was “worth considering.”

For those of you unfamiliar with the Constitution — including any stray Conservatives or Tea Party members who have a rolled-up copy of the Constitution sitting unread in their purse or wallet — the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 as part of the Reconstruction and essentially granted African Americans the rights and privileges of full U.S. citizens due solely upon their being born in the United States. The Republican party even touts the accomplishment on their website. But what some members of the super-far right would like to see is a repeal of that Amendment.

For a few political points, Boehner would tie his star to the rhetoric surrounding the repeal or modification of the 14th Amendment in the hopes of becoming the next Speaker of the House. But what he — and perhaps many other politicians of his stripe — fail to understand is the deep implications of such a position. This is no “you can take my gun from my cold, dead hand” safe pander speech. Nor is it the “jobs are good for the economy” kind of harmless no-brainer for American votes. This could, potentially, undo the very fabric of our society in a way the loss of guns or the loss of jobs never could. History points the way down that path and it is not pretty.

Citizenship was a privilege given to a select few in the Roman Empire — those who were “in” reaped the benefits of fair trials, extra protection by the law, freedom of movement across the empire and freedom of education. Those who were “out” were subject to harassment, summary execution, high penalties for legal infringement and worse.

In the fading Ottoman Empire, the cosmopolitan atmosphere of Suleiman the Magnificent (late 15th Century) gave way to “Turks first” movements int he late 19th century and early 20th. Instead of enjoying equal protection under the law, Christians — especially Armenians — were deprived of basic human rights such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and, ultimately, their lives. During WWI, in order to “purge” the outsiders from the Ottoman Empire, about 1 to 1.5 million Armenians were marched into the Syrian deserts where Kurdish and Turkish bandits raped, robbed and murdered the vulnerable.

And finally, though I hesitate to dredge up this trope again, the situation warrants it; Jews, Catholics, Bolsheviks, gays, Gypsies and other “dissidents” in Fascist Italy and Germany were deprived of their rights largely based upon the belief that these “elements” were sapping the jobs held by a “purer” race. The result was 8 million Jews slaughtered, 1 million Catholics, and another 1 – 2 million “others” who died to make Lebenstraum (“Living room”) for the Germans and Italians.

On our own shores, “nativist” elements ranging from the John Birch society, the White Citizens Leagues, the Know Nothing Party and the Ku Klux Klan have often foretold doom and gloom, a watering-down of the American “race” and the erosion of “American values” as immigrants from all over the world came to these shores — many of them unwillingly. Their fear-mongering and hatred allowed for the spread of anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant violence including lynchings, beatings, voter intimidation and corruption of the justice system.

If Boehner and others are serious about tackling the issue of illegal immigration, they should target the employers who hire illegal immigrants — meat packing plants run by Tyson and Smithfield, construction companies turning farmland into useless ‘burbs, agricultural producers who hire berry, fruit and vegetable pickers for mere dollars a day and so on — rather than target the basic right to become an American. These folks should step cautiously around the subject of eliminating such protections, especially given that Caucasian people in America are becoming a dwindling majority.

If we took our time machine forward, would the descendants of the Tea Partiers, conservatives and Boehner find themselves on the fringes of “American” society? Would they also be frozen out of their right to a fair trial, protection from illegal search and seizure and enjoyment of the right to free speech? Would they have to take their children before a vetting tribunal to plead their case to include their progeny in the “American Dream?” Would one of them want to borrow our time machine to go back in time and prevent their forebearer from making this horrible mistake? Would one consider doing to Boehner what many would consider doing to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and others?

Lets hope we never have to find out.

The story Kennedy tells, which repeats itself in various individual permutations from the Habsburg Empire to the USSR, is one in which states rise to prominence on the backs of strong financial and productive apparatuses, which they are then able to convert into military power, and fall from such lofty heights through overextending their resources, running up insurmountable debts and (sometimes) fighting counterproductive wars.

I thought about Kennedy’s book while reading this piece by James Rogers on whether or not Britain should go ahead with its plans to build two new supercarriers over the course of the next decade. Without commenting on the specifics of that question — I’ll leave the specific disposition of the Royal Navy to those who both know and care more about it — I think there are some larger points to be made about balancing out (and correctly timing) defense expenditures, national budgets, and international ambitions.

The first is that having a defense establishment that is either too small or too large carries with it serious costs. Even for a state that possesses the latent economic capacity to “ramp up” defense expenditures in an emergency (think of the United States just before World War II, or perhaps Japan today), such massive infusions of resources inevitably create bottlenecks and inefficiencies in institutions conditioned to operating on a much smaller scale. There’s something to be said, then, for keeping up a respectable military even during periods when it’s unlikely to be used. Having too large of a military, though, also carries long-term costs, particularly in an age of rapid technological development. Kennedy notes that France and Italy, for example, were among the first nations to begin seriously arming themselves during the 1930s, but that these early expansions merely left both forces technologically and operationally deficient when war actually came in the 1940s. In this context, Richard Betts‘ argument for an American military that is “strategically solvent” – in other words, that is calibrated to meet existing threats while husbanding resources for a more serious expansion should one become necessary – strikes me as especially important.

More generally, I often feel as though debates over defense expenditures end up being proxies for larger debates over foreign policy. This isn’t inappropriate – the two issues are inextricably linked – but it can lead to arguments flying past one another. On the one hand, there’s the neoconservative crowd that still actively pushes for global American hegemony, supported by an unassailable American military, as self-evidently necessary. Thus one hears complaints that “defense budgeting is a zero-sum game” as though the defense budget ought to be somehow free from economic constraints. On the other hand, there are progressives who are uncomfortable with American imperialism for a whole host of other ethical and practical reasons, who see America’s oversized defense establishment as a threat to the proper functioning of the Republic, and who wish it were possible to come up with some money to send people to schools and hospitals as well as to war, and so want the defense budget reduced considerably.

Read the rest of this post and join the conversation at Foreign Policy Watch.