Category Archives: Neoconservatism

Zionist Reciprocity = Recognizing There’s No ‘Global Right Of Return’ To The US For The World’s Citizens

Foreign Policy, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism

Steve Sailer seconds Mercer on the “path to mutual respect” between the neoconservative and Zionist faction, on the one hand, and the American conservative (and paleolibertarian) faction, on the other hand. As Steve puts it:

The path to mutual respect is to insist upon reciprocity. The most reasonable bargain would be for conservatives to demand of neoconservatives that in return for American support for Zionism, Zionists must publicly support America deploying the same immigration policies as Israel currently enjoys.

The Mercer version (April 29, 2011) urged Israelis to recognize Americans’ right to deny a “global right of return to the US for the citizens of the world”:

“… Ask any left-liberal American Jew if he supports a ‘Right of Return’ to Israel proper for every self-styled Palestinian refugee, and he’ll recoil: ‘Are you mad? Never. That’s a euphemism for Israel’s demise.’ The very thing he opposes for Israel, the leftist Jew is inclined to champion for America: a global right of return to the US for the citizens of the world. When it comes to ‘returning’ to America only (but not Israel), humankind is said to possess a positive, manufactured right to venture wherever, whenever. (This view is common among American liberals of all religious persuasions.)
Israelis want the support of Americans in standing up for their national sovereignty. Fine. But they should respond in kind. … when liberty deprived peoples the world over support patriots stateside, I’ll return the favor. The same goes for Israel. …”

MORE Mercer.

MORE Sailer.

Israel: Why So Safe

Crime, Israel, Neoconservatism, South-Africa

The positions advanced by the “American” Israel Firster, neoconservative fifth column are riddled with contradictions. On his Facebook Timeline, Jack Kerwick points to one of many such gaping inconsistencies.

Jack Kerwick: I don’t speak much of Israel. It’s just not one of my interests. But to hear some movement “conservatives” in the so-called “conservative” media speak, you’d swear that Israel is infallible, for never, ever, do they utter a so much as a peep’s worth of criticism of it. And any criticism aimed at it is abruptly dismissed as a function of “anti-Semitism.” Israel, we are incessantly told, faces an “existential threat” to its existence. But then such ardent Israel supporters as Dennis Prager and Mike Gallagher, while encouraging listeners to sign up for the trip to Israel that they will be hosting later in the year, swear that Israel is among the safest places on Earth, and certainly far safer than many AMERICAN cities. But I thought that it faces an “existential threat?” Can someone please tell me: What’s really going on here?

My reply:

The Israeli state protects its own, unlike the US. I suspect it’s because even politicians can’t emigrate with ease; and their kids must serve in the army as well. No exemptions. Israel, in fairness, is not like the US, where elites and dynastic families, as opposed to the natural aristocracy, run the show to their advantage. Moreover, crime rates are very low. Last I checked, for my book, death-by-murder rates in Israel were 3.7 per 100,000 for civilians only; 4.3 when soldiers were included. That is dazzlingly low—read “Exodus from SA to Israel”—a function, in part, of population composition; its homogeneity, etc., although this too is changing.

UPDATED: CPUKE 2015 (Ann Coulter Joins Libertarians, Gets Off Warpath)

Conservatism, Constitution, Foreign Policy, libertarianism, Military, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Regulation, Republicans

Well, well, like the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference, CPUKE 2015 is lighter on the bimbo factor of yesteryear—CPUKE usually showcases retards like S. E. Cupp and assorted twits—but heavier with the weight of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are as close as it gets to constitutional conservatism. When quizzed by Fox News’ Sean Hannity about their positions on The Issues, both left drugs and marriage to the states. It would appear that the two are the only candidates standing for the Republican Party who reject centralized federal control over drugs and marriage. Libertarians want the state, local and national, out of marriage and drug use—the last must be legalized. So while the Cruz/Paul position is a compromise, it’s better than the rest. Cruz is far more intelligent and personable than Paul, so observing his intellectual virtuosity is more enjoyable.

Building up the largest military in the world, ours, it the focus of the megalomaniacal Donald Trump, who needs to go away for once and for all. “The business mogul is motivated by the sense that the nimbus of great power that surrounds the US is dissipating. It hasn’t occurred to him to search closer to home for the causes of America’s economic anemia—at Fanny, Freddie, and the Fed, for a start. Since Trump has no idea what’s potting, and is not eager to look in his own plate — he blames OPEC, China and Mexico for the burdens of doing business in the US.” More from “Sinophobia Trumps Common Sense”:

The Trump plan to reclaim global greatness and glory includes a strategy America has yet to try: the use of force, of course. Strutting around on the world stage, showing those Russians, Saudis, Chinese amd Mexicans who is boss: this may serve as a perfect panacea for the deficiencies in Trump’s persona, but is hardly a solution to US woes, at home or abroad.

Sadly, most other Republicans will echo these themes and the mob will cheer them. The WSJ summed up the overall lukewarm reaction to a libertarian foreign policy:

Many among [Paul followers] seemed receptive to his more restrained view of the use of military might, but the audience throughout the conference has responded enthusiastically to hawkish messages from the podium. Some of the best-received applause lines throughout the conference have been bellicose language and criticism of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy.

Mr. Paul linked his call for foreign policy limits to the kind of anti-government rhetoric that is popular with conservatives.

“We should not succumb to the notion that a government inept at home will somehow become successful abroad, that a government that is unable to deliver the mail will somehow be able to build nations’ abroad,” he said.

Later.

UPDATE I (2/28): It doesn’t take much to obliterate the lessons of history and political philosophy. CPUKE followers are on the warpath. From the Facebook thread:

Craig Smith: Many things to comment on here, and variously agree/disagree with. That event could have been much better orchestrated. But your comments which belittle the clamor for a militarily-revitalized are puzzling, especially against the backdrop of both an ever-increasingly dangerous world and Obama’s gutting, emasculating, and purging of the American military. I know that you are aware of all of this as well as anyone. I don’t have exactly the same opinion of all the parties that you criticize here. But I am wondering if you blurred the distinction of criticizing these individuals as individuals with the policy or policies they advocate.
13 hrs · Like

Ilana Mercer: Come again, Craig Smith!!!! I was under the impression you were aware that this was a libertarian Timeline of a libertarian writer. You appear to have strong, simmering neoconservative leanings. Time to start reading the good stuff again, Craig Smith…See More
Articles: Advanced search page
13 hrs · Like · 4 · Remove Preview

Craig Smith: I never forget that you are a strict libertarian. I like the novelty, but not all strict libertarianism seems viable to me. Nor, in the context even of all your works, does all of it always seem internally consistent. In any case, I urge an inventory-taking on what I brought up above.

Ilana Mercer: Craig Smith, you urge that I change on the basis of nothing but your drinking of the CPUKE Kool-Aid. I urge that you do the reading over the next few days of stuff that is as predictive as it was when first written. Why must I change when all I have predicted has panned out? All my predictions and analyses since 2002 have stood the test of time, so why must I change my philosophy? Here’s a better idea: do the reading. In “PUNDITS, HEAL THYSELVES!” (2004) I give some analogies to the advice of the pundits you urge me to follow. Some good lines.

UPDATE II: Ann Coulter Joins Libertarians, Gets Off Warpath. Doff of the hat to Kerry Crowel for the alert. He writes:

Have you read Ann Coulter’s latest column? … I think she’s been reading from the Mercer backlog. Especially the bit about “politicians obsessed with cleaning up the rest of the world.”

Huckabee, ‘Forrest Gump’ Of The GOP

Conservatism, Constitution, Elections, Neoconservatism, Republicans

A “confidence trickster worthy of a P.T. Barnum circus” was how this column captured Mike Huckabee’s appeal. It must be conceded that Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review captures even better the forced and contrived, “cornpone” appeal of the man who will be vying to stand as the Republican’s nominee for the presidency. While I reject the writer’s crass, almost bereft of principle pragmatism; and although unable to tell whether Cooke prefers Mark Levin’s worldview to that of Calvin Coolidge—perhaps our only libertarian president—I liked his depiction of The Huckster:

Among the panoply of rightward-leaning politicians who are currently flirting with running for the presidency is one Mike Huckabee, a former pastor, governor, television host, and author who has of late been preparing for office by converting himself into Larry the Cable Guy. Huckabee is touring the breadth and width of the country in support of his new book — the alliteratively titled God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy — the purpose of which seems to be to establish its author as the unparalleled down-home candidate within the 2016 primary. Unlike so many in Washington, Huckabee claims, he is firmly on the side of “Bubbaville” rather than “Bubbleville”; of the “catfish and cornbread crowd” rather than “the crepes and caviar set”; and of those who “come home tired at the end of the day” rather than those who “burn tires in the street.” Are you tired of the incumbent set? he seems to ask. Then you know what to do.

By taking this approach, Huckabee is essentially attempting to become to the Right what the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson have become to the Left: namely, a proxy figure who can be used as shorthand by the lazy and the lost to signify their allegiance to a set of cherished cultural values. “We like the simple life,” Huckabee announces in his book. “Status is a Ford 150 truck; luxury is crawfish étouffée and slaw on your pulled-pork sandwich; and privilege is front-row seats at a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert.” And unlike those “misfortunate” souls in “Manhattan, the Washington Beltway, or in Beverly Hills,” we know the joy that one can get from wading “in chest-deep water to hunt mallards.” Insofar as it goes, there is nothing wrong with this. Indeed, I like many of these things too. But the self-conscious spinning of local tradition into a national political aesthetic is invariably irritating, and, typically, electorally counterproductive. There are many wonderful things about the world Huckabee is attempting to represent. But surely, just surely, it is possible for a southerner to run for high office without dressing up as Forrest Gump? …

… Whatever cultural renaissance Mike Huckabee might believe is necessary in the United States, it will be up to civil society and not to the political classes to bring it about. Unless conservatives wish to join the Left in its Wilsonian quest to glue politics to absolutely everything, our would-be emissaries really need to make up their minds …

MORE.