Polls find only 36% of Americans are willing to say they oppose B.H. “Peace-Prize” Obama’s war against Libya.
What can explain this “intervention enthusiasm”, and our post-Cold-War acquiescence to interventionism generally? An anonymous commenter at Steve Sailer proposes an answer:
The Appeal of Interventionism Among (Post)Modern Westerners
By Anonymous Commenter at Steve Sailer
Part of the appeal of attacking a weaker country is the catharsis of releasing all the pent-up anger and frustration, especially in democratic nations, from being impotent to take strong measures at home. [...]
[Western] PC elites are too busy being anti-‘racist’ and spreading sensitivity training. So, the people in those nations, especially white conservatives, are pent-up with anger. They see their societies being taken over by non-whites, by hostile elites; they see wimpy leaders on their side, making apologies and compromises all the time. “Compassionate Conservatism”.
Since white people must respect and honor all minorities, no matter how hostile or problematic, in their own countries, their silent rage keeps building up. The only outlet is to take out their rage on weaker countries, especially Muslim ones (not least because Zionist-controlled Media and Government wants to crush them for the interests of Israel). It’s like an employee who has to bow down before the boss at work goes home to kick his dog. Or a kid who’s insulted by a nasty teacher day in and day out takes out his anger on a weaker kid.
This could be the appeal of supporting Israel among many white conservatives. They can’t kick ass at home, and so they take vicarious pleasure in watching ‘westernized’ Jews kick dark ‘Muzzie’ ass. [...] We can’t do anything about illegal immigrants, but we can blow up entire areas of Libya.
This is the real danger of our foreign intervention. It offers us false catharsis. It solves no problem at home as we go on a wild sheep chase abroad.