South Korea and Japan are financially rich and scientifically advanced nations. So are Germany, Britain, France, and many others in Europe. Despite their current perceived and actual weakness, they can easily use their immense wealth and technological expertise to create extremely powerful militaries with which to defend themselves. There's absolutely no need for America to violate George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's dictum against forming "entangling alliances" with them. There's absolutely no need for America to have military bases in their countries, and to give treaty promises to defend them at a far higher level than they can decently repay. There's absolutely no need to treat them like helpless women in a rainstorm and protectively place them under America's "nuclear umbrella".

These bases and promises embarrass and humiliate them. They make South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, etc. deeply resent, secretly resist, and openly hate America. In 1991 the Philippine Senate condemned the U.S. bases there as "a vestige of colonialism and an affront to Philippine sovereignty". As Cato Institute scholar John Glaser noted in 2016 "such resentment can be extreme" and "can linger for generations".

These insulting military bases and patronizing treaty promises cause these natural Western Civilization friends and allies -- which share so many values and have so many common interests -– to become de facto enemies and traitors to each other. This phenomenon is outrageous and absurd. And so unnecessary. The natural, normal, healthy, happy unity and harmony of the West is being crushed by it.

Moreover these unneeded and counterproductive bases and promises emasculate South Korea, Japan, Germany, et al. They take natural warriors and heroes, and turn them into craven weaklings and submissive sissies. They make them passive and defeatist. But if the inappropriate bases were withdrawn, and the treaties radically rewritten, then these potentially noble and respectable Western powers would almost immediately acquire a backbone. They would almost instantly grow a set of much-needed testicles. No longer would these massively superior nation-states be desperate to surrender to the first disgusting communist country or pitiful Muslim state they could find. All these Western powers would rise up mightily and become a military colossus, with an irresistible will to triumph, which the non-Western savages and barbarians would respect, fear, and fawningly tremble before.

No longer would South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, and the rest be abject and impotent appeasers of evil. No longer would they be and repellant and bizarre "surrender monkeys" eagerly seeking out weak and failed commie and muzzie nations to servilely bow down before and shamefully submit to.

Once these great Western nations became far more equal to America, and far more self-loving and self-respecting, then the personal friendship and military alliance between them would blossom and surge dramatically. The mutually-beneficial partnership between these relatively civilized and heroic nations would become far more stable, trustworthy, formidable, and awesome. But it can't happen until these accursed, one-sided, dependence-creating, feminizing, corrupting, subverting, bases and treaties are terminated. Such a bold act would be a psychological game-changer for the whole world. It's high time America both lets and makes her friends and allies stand on their own two feet!

I agree with Washington and Jefferson's warnings on foriegn entanglement.  But, there might be a value to the American citizen's safety by having a base on this or that foriegn soil - purely for the military advantage it provides and that is the way it should be decided.  Ships move slowly and benefit from forward staging.  Aircraft have limited  range and they to benefit from foriegn staging.

Also, I doubt that the nations of South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, etc. are all feeling patronized, are embarrassed, humiliated, insulted, and emasculated.  I also believe that removing all of these bases would not immediately cause those nations to "instantly grow a set of much-needed testicles".  What goes on in their nations is as much a matter of factions and a clash of opposing opinions as it is in our country.  Ideas in their cultures are driving their issues.  Moving bases out wouldn't provide the change you predict.

Mostly, I think that America's focus must be on effective military defense and not attempt to forecast what would change the foriegn policy and patriotic energy in other countries.  We would both agree that there is no moral need to defend other nations with our military - each nation must defend itself, and only itself and has no right to spend the treasure and lives of its citizens defending others.

I believe that Western powers COULD and SHOULD "...rise up mightily and become a military colossus, with an irresistible will to triumph, which the non-Western savages and barbarians would respect, fear, and fawningly tremble before."  But, I think that would only follow a change in America's political culture where we threw out the Marxist and fundamentalist Islamic ideas and stood firmly, and knowingly behind individualism and a vigorous defense of our individual rights.  Then we become the visible, living proof of what a country, and its government, can and should be.  Then other nations have an example that they can follow (although some will resist even stronger).

Doug, I don't understand why you would have to ask that.  Really.  Think about it.  Reason is abandoned for fairy tales, for astrology, for Christianity, and for many other irrational pursuits.  But right now, at this point in history, only Marxist thinking, and the political pursuits of fundamental Islam are serious threats to freedom.  You seem to have a real blind spot for your enemy.   You attacks are on people, like me, who are pointing out that there are other people who are trying to kill us - based upon their Islamic beliefs.  I imagine that you are someone who holds a particular kind of political correctness - faithfully - above critical thinking in this area.

...in the U.S.A., Christianity is the biggest enemy of reason, human life, and America....

Doug, if you believe that, you have no perspective. 

How many Americans have been killed in recent years by Christians in the name of Christianity?  

Do you seriously believe that American Christians advocate the destruction of our liberties more than the far-left Marxist progressives? 

How can you call Christianity a greater enemy of reason here in the States than progressivism's political correctness which is actively destroying freedom of speech and the teaching of anything on any American campus that isn't politically correct?

Here is today's American Christianity re politics in a nutshell: 

1. It will NEVER be a sound basis for capitalism because of its foundation of faith and altruism

2. In today's political context, where the overwhelming danger is the advance of political correctness/progressivism, only a tiny number of Objectivists, a tiny number classical small-government liberals, a tiny number of non-religious conservatives, and a large number of the religious right have shown themselves to be immune to political correctness.

3. If it weren't for the strong opposition to progressivism that is coming from the religious right, we would have Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders as the president and be replacing ObamaCare with socialized medicine, and instead of tax breaks we would be getting "soak-the-rich" tax increases, instead of reduced regulations we would be getting a massive increase in regulations.  The constitution would no longer be relevant to individual rights given a Hillary/Bernie nomination to the bench.  Progressivism's long, long march towards a democratically installed socialism would be a done deal.

In politics, strange as it sounds, the religious right is less altruistic than the progressives.  The contradiction that is held by the right is that they think that they can blend political freedom with altruism.  The vast majority of the Christians don't believe in forcing their altruism on others.  Contrast that with the foundational beliefs of the left: that altruism and collectivism are a natural match (they just have to get rid of any traditional religion so they can implement their 'religion').

Wake up, Doug.  Until you get past your politically correct emotional reactions and those canned talking points, you won't see where the real battle is being fought.  You know you favor reason over faith and individualism over collectivism, but those will only be like floating abstractions in your mind since in today's crazy reality, Objectivism's traditional enemy, religious faith, is doing battle with Objectivism's greater enemy: Marxism, disguised as progressivism and fighting to be the new religion where political correctness is the faith-based revealed truth - a joining of faith and force that is deeply hidden in a series of lies.

6 facts about faith and the inauguration

3 . Trump will be sworn in with two Bibles – one that Abraham Lincoln used at his 1861 inauguration, and a personal one given to him by his mother. Obama also used two Bibles – the Lincoln Bible chosen by Trump and one owned by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Four presidents, most recently George H.W. Bush, were sworn in on the King James Bible used by George Washington in 1789.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/19/6-facts-about-faith-and-the-inauguration/

Majority of states have all-Christian congressional delegations

BY ALEKSANDRA SANDSTROM

The share of U.S. adults who describe themselves as Christians has been declining for decades, but the U.S. Congress is about as Christian today as it was in the early 1960s, according to a new analysis by Pew Research Center.1 Indeed, among members of the new, 115th Congress, 91% describe themselves as Christians. This is nearly the same percentage as in the 87th Congress (1961 to 1962, the earliest years for which comparable data are available), when 95% of members were Christian. --- http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/03/faith-on-the-hill-115/

More than 80 countries favor a specific religion, either as an official, government-endorsed religion or by affording one religion preferential treatment over other faiths, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data covering 199 countries and territories around the world. 

Islam is the most common government-endorsed faith, with 27 countries ... By comparison, just 13 countries (including nine European nations) designate Christianity or a particular Christian denomination as their state religion.

But an additional 40 governments around the globe unofficially favor a particular religion, and in most cases the preferred faith is a branch of Christianity. Indeed, Christian churches receive preferential treatment in more countries – 28 – than any other unofficial but favored faith.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/10/03/many-countries-favor-specific-religions-officially-or-unofficially/

Doug wrote:

When I called Christianity the biggest enemy, I was measuring size by the number of people in the movement.

There are a tiny majority of Christians who would force their religious views into law and are actively pursuing just that.  Those deserve to be called "enemy", but the vast majority of Christians are just people who hold mistaken beliefs.  Beliefs that have little to do with their day to day lives.
-------------------

Christianity is the main source of altruistic thinking in this country.  Christianity is the main upholder of religious faith in this country.  On both counts, it is the main source of the fundamental ideas that are destroying us. 

Christianity is one implementation of altruism.  Islam, Marxism, progressivism and almost every single organized set of either religious or political beliefs are also implementations of altruism.  Altruism only harms those who hold it as a belief - UNTIL it is forced on others.  The enemy to focus on is any and all attempts to force beliefs on others or control their behaviors... for the sake of God, for the sake of one's fellow human, for the sake of some common good, or for the sake of society.  Altruism is the end and force is the means.  Without force, altruism only screws up the lives of those who believe in it.

Faith is just one form of the irrational.  Emotionalism is another.  Psuedo-science and political correctness are other forms of irrationality.   Today in America, psuedo-science, emotional rants and personal attacks, with political correctness as the form of thought-control combine to create a form of 'faith' that is much more dangerous than religious faith.
---------------------

Also, while many Christians oppose political correctness, many others, including many that are considered "mainstream" Christians, support it. 

When you say that you are mixing up that very small number of orthodox Christians who are totally committed to that orthodoxy and the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians, but may only go to church now and then and don't make the practice of their religion a significant part of their life.  That is a huge difference. 

In the minds of the orthodox Christians, their deeply held beliefs make it impossible for political correctness to take root (which doesn't mean they don't agree with this or that progressive position).  Please note that I didn't say they "oppose political correctness" - I said that they are immune to political correctness.   They have already estabished a foundational set of beliefs that occupy the 'mental' space that political correctness would need to occupy.  I haven't the room in a forum post to give this "immunity" and the reasoning behind it the explanation it deserves.

---------------------

I consider political correctness, taken in as a fundamental way of thinking, when engaged with sufficient intensity, and for long enough, to cause a serious mental/emotional disorder in a person.  I mean that quite literally.  Political correctness can be viewed as a mechanism that "intends" to transform our political and cultural environments.  That could be called its goal, but its psycho-epistemology carries psychological consequences.  It has the effect of cutting a person off from grasping reality.  Progressivism, in this sense, is a steady progress towards a mental disorder.

There are no Christians as a floating abstract... only as a collection of individuals. with beliefs in common.

------------------

Political correctness is one of these fruits of altruism. 

No, political correctness is way of controlling thought - changing how people think - as the means of transforming the culture and our political system.  It is so effective that it actually transforms people.  It is the single most powerful tool for building a collective.  It the main tool under progressivism.  Progressivism uses altruism - USES, not believes in.  None of the leading Progressives want to make sacrifices, they want to force you to make sacrifices.

Doug, when I said "floating abstraction" it was to point out that the variety of Christians is so great that it doesn't make much sense to refer to "Christians" unless you have a commonality in mind that contrasts them with all non-Christians.  Think if I said, "All women..." or "All Americans..." - there are logical contexts where thoughts begun like that could  make sense, but there are also many, many ways to predicate those subjects that amount to treating them like a floating abstraction - unconnected to reality.

You were talking about altruism and faith.  Both of which we are opposed to as Objectivists.  But there are Christians who may hold, in some foggy, distant, distracted way the idea that one is supposed to take Christian teachings on faith and to make sacrifices.... and they would be sincere in saying so, but those things aren't remotely related to their day to day lives.  It makes no sense to see them as a driving force in the philosophical realm.  They have compartmentalized their religion to a tiny corner of their mind.

To be opposed to "Christianity" is to look at the issues to shallowly.  Ayn Rand once pointed out that Objectivists and Christians have these tenets in common: That there are moral values that are absolute and universal, that man must discern the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, and that man has choice in those issues, and that imposes a responsibility for each individual.  Notice how that places Objectivism and Christianity opposite of progressivism which claims that moral values are subjective and relative, that man has no choice (determinism) and therefore can't be held responsible.

Like you, I'm opposed to altruism and to faith.  But in today's context, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that our number one enemy is progressivism and political correctness (aka thought control) and on the international political front: Islamic fundamentalism.

Doug,

We don't appear to have any fundamental differences.  But, it doesn't seem like you appreciated what I've already written.  And I really don't have anything more to add. 

Mark,

If there are absurdities in the official story, does this mean it is totally false, or could it mean that it has been tweaked?