Category Archives: Neoconservatism

From Purges At #NationalReview To #Duggar Pedophilia

Celebrity, Conservatism, English, Ilana Mercer, Neoconservatism, Republicans

“From Purges At National Review To Duggar Pedophilia” is the latest column, and one “of the few chatty columns I’m likely to write.” On The Unz Review. An excerpt:

Fellow Canadian Kathy Shaidle sends her latest Taki’s Magazine column, “Beta Male Suckiness at National Review.” In it I learn that Kathy’s benevolence approaches the saintly; only recently has she terminated her subscription to National Review (NR). I did so about 15 years ago. The Alberta Report, a Canadian paleoconservative publication with libertarian leanings, soon became the subscription of choice in the home of this budget-conscious, coupon-clipping, immigrant. (Scientific American was another guilty pleasure.) …

… from whom I learn that a National Review editor has terminated Mark Steyn’s print-magazine column. I still recall searching frantically for Florence King’s back-page “Misanthrope’s Corner,” which was retired in 2002. That’s how long ago I bid “adios” to NR’s print version (I access Kevin D. Williamson online, as do I appreciate Josh Gelernter’s mention of my work on South Africa).

But why retire the Steyn byline? Steyn is a star. He also supports wars and is extremely talented. To wit, he managed to both defend and diss columnist John Derbyshire, who himself was dismissed from NR (where he freelanced), for writing “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” published, too, at Taki’s.

By the time the “girlie boys” of NR came for Ann Coulter, I was unaware the magazine still appeared in print. Ann’s column was expunged from National Review after 9/11. The reason? Most real people had a 9/11 moment. Miss Coulter’s cri de coeur was particularly memorable. For exhorting, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” she was given the boot. This was a puzzling purge, considering neoconservatives promptly adopted her recommendations, invaded Muslim countries and killed their leaders.

In fact, the neoconservatives at NR supported all Coulter’s recommendations save the peaceful one (Christian conversion). Still do. Clicking through the ENORMOUS icons on the new NR website reveals that Lindsey Graham, John McCain’s evil ideological twin, is touted alongside the Patriot Act, whose “expiration” is mourned. (Fear not, fearless ones, your metadata remains unsafe. The USA Freedom Act, to replace Section 215 of the Patriot Act, is a mere mutation. It privatizes the Patriot Act, by co-opting corporations into the service of the Surveillance State.) …

… Read the rest.“From Purges At National Review To Duggar Pedophilia” is the latest column, now on The Unz Review.

Ask #Bush Why The #IraqiMilitary Won’t Fight

Federalism, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Pseudo-history

“Ask Bush Why The Iraqi Military Won’t Fight” is the current column, now on Praag.org. An excerpt:

… The ineptness of the reconstituted Iraqi Army is nothing new. In 2006, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton demanded to know when the “Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army would step up to the task.” “I have heard over and over again, that the government must do this, the Iraqi Army must do that,” griped Clinton to Gen. John P. Abizaid, then top American military commander in the Middle East. “Can you offer us more than the hope that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army will step up to the task?”

Indeed, the War Party is in the habit of thrashing about in an ahistorical void—or creating its own reality, as warbot Karl Rove, George Bush’s muse, is notorious for saying. The neoconservative creed as disgorged by Rove deserves repeating:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

The lowly “you” Rove reserved for “the reality-based community” (guilty).

Curiously, a military that has done nothing but flee before the opposition ever since the Americans commandeered Iraq, had fought and won a protracted war against Iran, under Saddam Hussein. The thing we currently call the Iraqi military has been unable and unwilling to fight the wars America commands it to fight.

Why?

For one, Bush’s envoy to Iraq, Paul Bremer, made the decision to dissolve the Iraqi Army and civil service, early in 2003, with the blessing of Bush at whose pleasure Bremer served. Bush’s minions viewed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army as part of the “De-Ba’thification” process. …

… Another dynamic is at play in the region besides the Sunni-Shia divide. It is that between the forces of centralization and the forces of decentralization. …

Read the rest. “Ask Bush Why The Iraqi Military Won’t Fight” is now on Praag.org

UPDATE II: Rotten #Rubio (Rubio Has Stiff Competition: #MitchMcConnell)

Constitution, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Just War, Neoconservatism, Republicans

When he is not marshaling “Jeffersonian” lines from crap movies like “Taken” with Liam Neeson, presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio is demonstrating that only if shamed and embarrassed will he and his Republican rivals shy away from wars that are immoral from the inception, unjust, cost trillions in treasure and tens of thousands of precious lives, and flout American national interests.

CHRIS WALLACE TO SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA: This brings us back to Iraq and the question of the week, which is, given what we know now, would you have invaded Iraq back in 2003?
As we all know, Jeb Bush had a tough time answering that this week. Here’s what you’ve had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

RUBIO: Oh, I don’t believe it was — the world is a better place because Saddam Hussein doesn’t run Iraq.

MODERATOR: After finding that there were no weapons of mass destruction, would you, if you knew that, have been in favor of the Iraqi invasion?

RUBIO: Well, not only would I have not been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it. And he said so.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

WALLACE: Senator, isn’t that a flip? Six weeks ago, it made sense to invade Iraq in 2003. Now you say it was a mistake.

RUBIO: No, they’re two different questions. It was not a mistake. The president, based on — this is the way the real world works. The president, based on the information that was provided to him —

[SNIP]

“We will look for you. We will find you. And we will kill you” is the atavistic line from “Taken,” repeated by Rubio in his many interviews.

UPDATE I (5/18): In The Rotten Department, Rubio Has Stiff Competition: Mitch McConnell. Via ABC:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell underscored his support today for the controversial NSA program for bulk collection of domestic phone records, arguing it is essential to protecting the homeland.

“This has been a very important part of our effort to defend the homeland since 9/11,” McConnell said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s ‘This Week.’ “We know that the terrorists overseas are trying to recruit people in our country to commit atrocities in our country.”

“Thank You For Your Service, Mr. Snowden.” F-ck Rubio, McConnell & Twitterers who unFollow me for loving liberty.

UPDATE II: Don’t let any Republican present you with this false choice. Republicans always say, “But what would you have done about Iraq?” That’s something of a non sequitur, an assertion intended to make you ASSUME something had to be done about Iraq. “The burden of proof is on he who proposes the existence of something, not on he who claims that it does not exist.” That was written 12 years ago.

UPDATE III: Liberty Vs. Conspiracy: The #Left Hates #PamelaGeller, But Why Do Some #Libertarians?

Conspiracy, Free Speech, Islam, libertarianism, Liberty, Neoconservatism

“The Charlie Hebdo Hypocrites” floated the idea that “the double standard toward what is perceived as rightist speech (Pam Geller’s) and left-wing freedom of expression (Charlie Hebdo’s) is a holdover construct of communism,” during which right-wingers were demonized and targeted for destruction. There is no other difference “between Charlie Hebdo’s defiance of Islamic blasphemy laws and Geller’s defiance of the same laws.”

For his part, Jack Kerwick also pinpointed leftist favoritism as the reason “legions of people from around the Western world were clamoring to ‘stand with Charlie,’ while Geller and her organization have been condemned …”

Look, Pamela Geller is a consummate neoconservative; Israel über alles. These things can annoy libertarians; myself included. (About her person, moreover, I can say only this: She has dabbled briefly in writing about South Africa. In the process, Geller made sweeping errors, but has never cited my work on the topic. And when I asked her to reciprocate a “Follow” on Twitter, and tweet out my “Charlie Hebdo Hypocrites,” written in her defense, she failed to reply. She continues to send me fundraisers.)

In any case, what, pray tell, is the reason behind the long-standing, obsequious and convoluted stand, adopted by some libertarian leaders against what is a quintessential part of living freely and unafraid? About one of the defining libertarian issue of our times—speaking and publishing under the threat of injury or death—some of my libertarian friends are acting weirdly, have been for some time. (Geller’s event was on private property.)

As Jack put it, “You don’t need to agree with her, or even like her, in order to recoil at the utter hypocrisy of Pamela Geller’s [leftist] critics.”

What about her libertarian detractors?

What do I mean? See “Those Cartoons: A Reply To Walter Block” and Lew Rockwell’s May 4 Facebook post.

LEW:

Lew Rockwell
May 4 at 10:50am :

Just because ISIS is a propaganda dream come true for the US empire and its Middle Eastern satraps does not mean it was funded, like other convenient Arab groups, by the CIA, Al Mukahbarat, Mossad, MI6, or DGSE. And now ISIS–after the shootings in Texas–will be used to promote further not only US world dominion, but a full-scale federal police state.

Were the shooters patsies in classic agent provocateur fashion? I’m only sure of one thing: it is not a good idea to seek to offend someone’s religion. Apparently the Texas cartoon show was not, like Charlie Hebdo, mainly aimed at Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, but it’s still a vile notion. Nor, note, would free speech be used to defend a show of anti-Semitic, anti-black, or anti-gay cartoons. But if haters are promoting the state’s foreign and domestic tyranny, why anything is OK.

UPDATE I: As I’ve often stated, some libertarians are social reductionists. All problems they reduce to “The State Made Me Do It.” More accurately, the US State made me do it. It’s of a piece with the Left’s denial of individual responsibility. Thus, the acting out by Muslims is not the fault of the individual and his muse, the Islamic faith, to these libertarians; rather, it’s due to US imperial overreach.

I prefer to say that American aggression is likely a necessary condition for the hatred of America, but it is insufficient a condition. As for a person like Pam or Wielders who wants to depict the truth about Mo: We’re Americans! We speak our minds. Pam’s eff you attitude is 100% fabulous. It’s actually very Israeli/Jewish. We call it Dufka in Hebrew: In other words, tell me I can’t do something benign and righteous, and by golly, I’ll do it. Way to roll! If libertarains persist in being such effetes, they won’t get dates and will go extinct.

UPDATE II (5/6): LIBERTY VS. CONSPIRACY.

Libertarianism is predicated on the non-aggression axiom. It’s quite clear which party is the bully and aggressor here, and which party wishes to force the other to live within its own byzantine boundaries. Geller is right.

UPDATE III (5/19):

Jack Kerwick writes: “From what I’ve been able to gather, the only evil many of these libertarians recognize is that of “the State,” more specifically, the US government. PG is to be despised b/c she is a prop of the State, a neocon, Israeli-Firster, etc. Muslims, however, like all people of color, are simply responding to American imperial aggression, and so forth. There is an air of unreality about it all, the shade of the same PC fantasy for which the left is known.”