To: Raymond Duray who wrote (5650 ) 3/15/2004 10:05:47 AM From: Michelino Respond to of 20039 "The driving motivation of imperialism is two-fold. One, theft is the main goal. Two, the theft is covered up by a high-falutin' claim to be a superior race who are engaged in an act of noblesse oblige, saving the darkies from their own miserable selves. I don't think Hadrian enters into the calculus<...>Israelis got a hell of a sweet deal on U.S. foreign aid into the deal. " 1) Forgive me, I'm a little slow. Unless I missed a major movement or so in the last two thousand years, I can't connect zionism with "saving" any darkies. The evangelical aspect is what I don't think applies "exactly". I find that there are even parallels between the native "darkies" of the US and zionism. Both groups claim to have historical claims to land taken from them by conquerors. (In the case of the Indians, they even have pictures of their ancestors living on the land in question...in the case of zionist Jews, they, heretofore, have been unwilling to take a casino or two occasionally as a substitute...a serious deviation from stereotype). But neither zionists nor American Indians in their land grabs or restoration of ancient homelands, depending on point of view, seem to want the current inhabitants "saved". 2) My original inference was that it took only a few billion to get Dayan to stray from ranks of true blue, "manifest destiny"-like, imperialism. (A good lesson for today's negotiators? Or at least next year's?). I can't recall a time when the 16th to 21th century American imperialists gave back land after getting a really good palm greasing. Your fundamental claim to "exactness" was therefore called into question by these startling insights. That, because of your own zealotry, some of the theories you expound may collapse like a house of cards "within its own profile" is not actually where I was going although others might try to make the journey. Mine was, in fact, only supposed to be a short trip here but then my mind wandered.