Category Archives: Paleoconservatism

Sigh. Tucker Bashes Biden For The Two Things He’s Doing Right: Iran And Yemen

Foreign Policy, Iran, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, The Establishment, Uncategorized, War

Tucker Carlson does splendid work from his mainstream perch, but because of his philosophical limitations and many blind-spots—the kind that had him join the neoconerie in killing Iraq, in the first place; the kind that saw him laud the murder of Iranian major general Qassim Soleimani; the kind that has him bash The South; and call on Canadian truckers to prove a negative, namely, that they aren’t racists; the kind that whined, whined, whined non-stop about Harvey Weinstein, in effect talking-up the MeToo fraud—he stumbles all the time. All the time. Without fail.

Thus did I urge ideological caution on a good friend who got carried away in giving too much street cred to Tucker, and, by extension, enthusing about a Tucker-endorsed Iranian warmonger, Sohrab Ahmari, who has reinvented himself and now peddles retread banalities (or stuff the Old Right—myself included—had espoused decades ago). At best, Ahmari, this ex-agitator for war in Iran, is an unoriginal second hander.

Today (4/12/022), Tucker played a piss-poor satirical skit—just plain bad—of Biden and Harris  being lampooned in Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis, explained Tucker, are angry with the awful Biden Administration over Iran and the war in Yemen. I imagine Biden is perceived by the Saudis—and ConOink—to be insufficiently belligerent about destroying Iran, a longtime mission the Saudis share with the neocons. As is Biden considered to be unhelpful to the Saudis in his impetus (albeit weak) to end Saudi Arabia’s protracted war on an impoverished Yemen.

Both these Biden positions, as limp as they are, are better than the positions adopted by ConInc and, yes, Trump. The Saudi war on Yemen is a scandal.

Likewise the unchanging agitation against Iran.

MORE CONTEXT on regional Sunni-Shia squabbles: “Lies About Putin, Syria & The Alawite Alliance

UPDATED (3/23/022): Tucker Carlson’s Producers Rewarding Retread Reformed Neocon Tools Like Sohrab Ahmari

Argument, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Media, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, War

On the one hand, Tucker Carlson and his oft-worthy guests make the case that America’s catastrophic institutional rot (MY EXTENSIVELY DEVELOPED TERM, no theirs) is a consequence of there being no adverse consequences attached to being dead-wrong all the time.

On the other hand, the show has a tendency to reward reformed neocons such as newcomer Sohrab Ahmari, who peddles retread banalities (or stuff the Old Right—myself included—had espoused decades ago, and from the get-go, in the case of the Globe and Mail commentary below: September 19, 2002).

Rewarding conveniently reformed, politically pleasing mediocrities makes the practitioner part of the institutional rot.

PUNDITS, HEAL THYSELVES!” (Ilana Mercer, May 29, 2004) spoke to this repulsive specter:

So why are insightful commentators whose observations have predictive power generally barred from the national discourse, while false neoconservative prophets are called back for encores?

I got to thinking about the neoconservative talking twits. They’ve been wrong all along about the invasion of Iraq. They’ve consistently dished out dollops of ahistoric, unintuitive, and reckless verbiage. Yet they’ve retained their status as philosopher-kings.
Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens (undeniably a writer of considerable flair and originality), George Will and Tucker Carlson (both of whom seem to have conveniently recanted at the eleventh hour), Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Mark Steyn, Max Boot, John Podhoretz, Andrew Sullivan – they all grabbed the administration’s bluff and ran with it. Like the good Trotskyites many of them were, once they tasted blood, they writhed like sharks. Compounding their scent-impaired bloodhound act was their utter ignorance of geopolitical realities – they insisted our soldiers would be greeted with blooms and bonbons and that an Iraqi democracy would rise from the torrid sands of Mesopotamia.
Their innumerable errors and flagrant hubris did not prevent the neoconservatives from managing to marginalize their competitors on the Right: the intrepid Pat Buchanan and his American Conservative; the quixotic Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. of LewRockwell.com, and Antiwar.com. (Plus this column, of course). Unfortunately for America, there hasn’t been a horror in Iraq that these prescients did not foretell well in advance.

….the opportunity costs associated with consumption of toxic punditry are low or non-existent.

If you didn’t have the cerebral wherewithal to be against the war on Iraq in 2002, you don’t have anything original to contribute on foreign policy and anti-war or Just War thinking now.

Younger offenders can be found agitating against Iran, or scribbling inanities for the War Street Journal and other neoconservative outlets such as Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and Foreign Policy, where Sohrab Ahmari would put out irredeemable and unforgivable content such as “The Costs of Containment.”

It’s one thing to have made a mistake as Tucker Carlson had done regarding the Iraq war of aggression. Carlson apologized profusely and humbly about his Iraq error. Moreover, Carlson had never been the consummate philosophical neocon; which Sohrab Ahmari is. According to the Militarist Monitor,

“the neocons’ favorite Iranian,” Sohrab Ahmari has been a vocal advocate of U.S.-imposed regime change in his native Iran, which he left as a teenager. Rosenberg likened Ahmari to Ahmed Chalabi, the formerly exiled Iraqi politician who curried favor with U.S. neoconservatives ahead of the Iraq War and lent an Iraqi name to the list of those supporting the U.S. invasion.[3]

I’ve watched the likes of Sohrab Ahmari work their magic in the malfunctioning media for decades. I also understand fully that Tucker Carlson has a producer, for he himself cannot research each such well-promoted phony who is resurrecting a career on the solid anti-war arguments of the dissident Old, paleolibertarian and paleoconservative Right.

* Image: Truth-teller on Twitter.

And in defense of The Tuck against mediocrity Claire Lehmann, who generated the non sequitur below: Tucker Carlson doesn’t support the Russian invasion! From the fact he argues unpopular truths–it doesn’t follow that Tucker is not a populist. Most immutable truth is unpopular. Popularity does not equal populism. This woman can’t even define the terms of debate.

Dreary Vs. Dishy: Rod Dreher’s Still As Dull As Ever And … Jealous Of Eric Metaxas (Dah)

Celebrity, Conservatism, Critique, Europe, Globalism, Iraq, Juvenal Early's Archive, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Populism, Pseudo-intellectualism

By Juvenal Early

Some time back, I did a survey of some particularly ineffective (flaccid, ILANA might say) conservative voices. It’s time to provide an update on one of them: Crunchy superstar Rod Dreher, or Dreary, as I call him, a blogger who needs no introduction—unfortunately. Evidence that there is no justice on this side of the grave: Dreary has one of the most coveted platforms on the right, plus he has a publisher ready to print whatever 90,000 words he can throw together in any given year.

Dreary spent a few months in Budapest earlier this year, and I think he should move there permanently. Or to Paris, which also seems to hold a special place in his heart. No malice or disrespect intended toward either city, holy places of the West, I would say. But Europe does wonders for Dreary’s attitude—and his opinions. He’s actually good writing about Gothic cathedrals and haute cuisine. Europe is right in his wheelhouse.

Plus, a European posting would more or less preclude him from commenting on the local scene. In America, Dreary is the apotheosis of the craven, sniveling, virtue-signaling Conservatism Inc. (Con-Ink) apparatchik.  I think we’d all be a lot happier if we never again had to read his Never-Trumpisms; or his faint and hollow praise of the Founders; or his weaselly approbation of Confederate memorial removal. Or to never again have to see him expound on race and racism in America.

He was doing very well in the land of the Magyars, and near the end of his three-month stay he enthused over Tucker Carlson, who had taken his show to Budapest. Dreary commended Tucker for courage (true) for interviewing Orban and highlighting Hungary’s common sense immigration policy. It was as good as you can expect from the old Crunchy Con.

This was early August. Dreary posted at least one long article in TAC praising Tucker’s efforts. John Derbyshire—of VDARE and “The Talk” fame—praised Dreary’s article, in his own Orban piece. Dreary saw that story reposted in Unz, liked it, and tweeted it out to all his followers, with the message “Good piece by Derb.” Subsequently, he was called out by lite-libertarian Robbie Soave for commending the work of a racist. Dreary, at first disavowed all knowledge of VDARE, claiming that he didn’t know it was a white nationalist site (it’s not, btw). Then he deleted his original tweet.

It brought to mind other times when Dreary virtue-signaled about race. He doesn’t like being associated with anyone on a SPLC list. The trouble is that anyone to the right of Rich Lowry is likely on a SPLC list, and if a conservative wants to stay off the list, he’d better start off conceding about 90% of the playing field (argument) of any given issue to his left-wing opponent.

Back in 2017, Dreary threw a real hissy fit over Pat Buchanan’s post-Charlottesville column. Pugnacious Pat (God bless him) took issue with the Left for labeling enveryone connected with Unite the Right a white supremacist. By present day standards, Pat reminded us, all of the most historically-important Americans were white supremacists. Typical for Pat, he laid out the facts and left it to the reader to decide—although he wasn’t shy about sharing his own conclusions. In this case, the Founders were great men in spite of whatever we think they might have done, and the nation they gifted to their posterity was a generous offering indeed. Read the column and see what you think.

Poor Dreary couldn’t deal with the nuance of it all. His takeaway? “Buchanan is defending white supremacy, straight up.” When I saw that “straight up,” I couldn’t help being reminded of that cutting edge mediocrity Janeane Garofalo on Keith Olbermann’s late, unlamented MSNBC show. That’s not a bad role model for Dreary to emulate, come to think of it.

Dreary, of course, like the rest of the craven horde that is Con-Ink, was quick to point and splutter when it came to Charlottesville. Whereas, Buchanan gathers facts, analyzes, and decides based on firmly-held principles, Dreary is the type to see how the wind’s blowing, then jump on the bandwagon as close to the front as he can. Thus, you had a man of principle being smeared by a drone of the hive mind.

This, of course, was wrong on so many levels. Back in 2003, when Dreary was writing for pro-war National Review, Buchanan was putting his considerable reputation on the line to co-found the American Conservative, a magazine explicitly started to provide a home for anti-war right wingers (with the assiduous exclusion of Mercer, so even that attempt wasn’t an honest reflection of the reality on the right). One of Dreary’s associates at the time, David Frum, wrote a famous article in NR condemning the likes of Buchanan as “unpatriotic conservatives.”

Later, when the Iraq war was exposed for the deceitful quagmire it was, Dreary was able to slink his way over to TAC. By then, Buchanan had left (as had Moneybags Taki), but, let’s face it, there would’ve been no TAC without Pat. Thus, I think Rod Dreher is not only a mediocre dolt, but an ingrate too.

He’s also an ad hominem hit-and-run bandit.

In October, in a particularly egregious case of the pot calling the kettle black, Dreary called out a couple of fellow religious conservatives, John Zmirak and Eric Metaxas, as Beta males, when they backed Donald Trump’s call for a Boycott of the GOP in 2022, should they nominate a lot of RINOs and Never-Trumpers. The tack Dreary took was rather odd, sort of a variation on a theme I first took notice of in a classic Seinfeld episode, “The Outing.” Seinfeld fans will remember the repeated line from that show; “I’m not gay!!!….Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Dreary took issue with a conversation between the two men on Metaxas’s radio show. Both voiced strident opinions about Never-Trump conservatives, like the truly awful David French. I have no problem with strongly-voiced opinion, especially those I agree with. I’m sure you don’t either, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. But Dreary didn’t think they had a right to attack French, because French had been a soldier (Ooooooooo!), “a manly thing to do.”

Of the Catholic Zmirak, Dreary—in his oft-confusing style, writes:

He is a short middle-aged man with a belly as big and as soft as a beanbag. Hey, I’m not short, but I’m only two years younger than Zmirak, and I have the same belly he does. We are men who make our living writing. Unless you’re Ernest Hemingway, Norman Mailer, … it’s not especially the occupation of badasses.”

Of the objectively handsome Metaxas (author, by the way, of the definitive Dietrich Bonhoeffer biography), Dreary writes:

“Eric is an expensively groomed dandy who lives on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. This is not a criticism; I like his style! But the idea that Eric Metaxas, of all people, was urging people to give their lives for Donald Trump, is risible.”

Notice what he did there? Dreary basically says, Zmirak is a fat-ass (not that there’s anything wrong with that), so he doesn’t have the right to attack manly-man David French. Metaxas is a fop (though Dreary aspires to that as well), so he should be proscribed from talking tough too.

Incidentally, that “dandy” unkind cut seems particularly misplaced with regard to the urbane Metaxas, who most 58-year-old men wouldn’t mind resembling. Could it be envy on the part of the bedraggled, shirt-out and wispy-goateed Dreary, he of the Mies van der Rohe spectacles? Eric dresses in the stylish manner that at one time was a requirement for grown-up American men, especially those who lived in New York.

In the Who/Whom Era in which we now live, Dreary’s only going to attack the people and ideas he doesn’t like (or can’t understand). If he likes who you are and what you’re peddling, you can conjure up the whiniest hissy-fit in the universe to proclaim it, and he’ll gladly blog it to all the minions who come to his trough for their daily quota of slop.

*******************************

This is “Juvenal Early’s” second piece for Barely A Blog. His first was “The Dissident Right Has An Idiocracy Problem.” He now has a BAB archive.

Once upon a time, the epistolary fluff ensconced at The American Conservative was detonated daily by the “pugnacious” Lawrence Auster. When Auster died, a void opened up. The “typically shapeless pieces” coming out of paleoconservative quarters, at once “weird and solipsistic”—Auster’s delicious descriptions—have escaped scrutiny. Going by the pen name “Juvenal Early,” a disillusioned former donor to Chronicles has stepped forward. I’m more than delighted to have launched and to continue to unleashing Juvenal.
Enjoy.
ilana

 

 

UPDATED (7/5/021): Citing Sources: Jewish Morality (‘Mussar & Middot’) Demands Acknowledging Those Who Went Before, Intellectually

Argument, Communism, Conservatism, Critical Race Theory, Ethics, Ilana Mercer, Judaism & Jews, Morality, Paleoconservatism, Socialism

Genesis: It all began with a tweet from a Mercer reader, who was politely ticked off that this writer was not credited for thinking she has developed, and has been hammering home in widely published essays, on large conservative hangouts: WND.COM, American Greatness, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, Quarterly Review out of Britain, and often American Renaissance. The reader’s tweets are pictured above.

In a nutshell: When every other American commentator was kibitzing about Critical Race Theory as Marxism—including the voluble writers on Darren Beattie’s site, Revolver News—this writer, as is her wont, had dug in her heels since 2019, insisting that this was ALL anti-whiteness, not Marxism, and nothing more.

Not Identity Politics, Anti-white Politics” (02/28/2019)
Why Conservatives Ignore White-Hating Politics” (September 19, 2019)
Ethnocidal ‘Critical Race Theory’ Is Upon Us Like White On Rice” (September 10, 2020)
Earth To Conservatives: The Problem Is ‘Systemic Anti-Whiteness,’ Not Marxism, Not ID Politics” (May 10, 2021)
And MORE, in writing and video.

The reader was honest. So he wrote:

… I saw this evolving the other day when Beattie gave credit to CJ Pearson for calling #CRT anti-white. That’s how it works on Twitter, the big accounts pick up so much from others but never give credit. I knew revolverdotnews was going to run with it but wouldn’t give you credit. It was obvious to me he was aware you were one of the few people on Twitter speaking about this. …
…I know you give credit to others, it’s because you’re an ethical person, something in short supply these days. …

It’s worse than that. Again: throughout, Revolver News has penned elaborate tracts about Critical Race Theory as Marxism, a position this writer has always rejected as bogus; was first to reject, and against which she has developed and targeted analytical thinking.

That tack is summed up by this tract of May 5, 2021:

Earth To Conservatives: The Problem Is Systemic Anti-Whiteness, Not Marxism, Not ID Politics.” One publisher, American Greatness, excerpted the gist of my lengthy argument:

If quibbling about Communism and identity politics becomes an obstacle to facing the reality of systemic anti-whiteness—then these theoretical crutches are an affront to reality

AND:

Theoretical Escapism Retards Action: … anti-white ideology is not to be conflated, as conservatives habitually do, with Marxist ideology. Very plainly, communism did not revolve around the exclusive blackening of whites. Stripped of bafflegab, this is critical race theory’s central project.

I followed up with a Twitter reference to Jewish sages, sent to me by my “little” brother, Rabbi Y. Isaacson. I copied my reader and Mr.  Darren J. Beattie, editor at Revolver News—where a piece, I am told, was published aping my own thinking, developed and written over months.

Jewish sages were strict about the ethics of crediting those who went before. “Whoever repeats a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. (Avot 6:6)

In response came this contempt-oozing snark of a tweet from Mr. Beattie:

I am all for giving credit for groundbreaking concepts and even coinages where appropriate. But this lady making a proprietary claim over the term “anti-white” or the idea that CRT is anti-white but not marxist is absurd. Marvel comic tier “paleo-lolbertarian” autism on display

Oodles of contempt, I have noticed over the decades, are not unusual among paleoconservative men—not the Republican young men and women, mind you, whom I find delightfully polite and respectful. This venom-spitting cobra is confined to a very specific segment of the Old Right, young and old.

My original reader responded:

…I just read the nasty Beattie tweet, … he’s reduced to calling names. What a jerk. The hilarious thing is Revolver just wrote an entire article about anti-white CRT. [The reader means following the publication of my many tracts.)

Were my original thinking emanating from a LARGE TWITTER account, or any well-known media whore (fat chance)—our own large media whores would have credited me.  This is why they’re so ugly: These Little Men “borrow” sans credit only from smaller, truly marginalized, independent thinker.

Which is why I mentioned the non-man essence of this conduct. “Valiant strong men are not afraid to give credit.”

Witness the fact that, as my reader pointed out, Beattie had rushed to give credit to one CJ Pearson for calling CRT anti-white in a typical cyber-ejaculate tweet format. I know not who CJ Pearson is. All I know is that, when our media whores give credit—the account must be large. And indeed it is. Puke. My essays, as mentioned, have been detailed and analytical as is my wont—and published on leading conservative outlets (G-d bless them).  

“Do yr. research!,” I shot back. “You have not given credit where it’s due. “This lady,” old enough to be your mom, is indeed first to methodically develop the Marxism vs. Antiwhiteness distinction when u were penning treatises on CRT as Marxism, mere weeks back. Ugly. Dishonest @DarrenJBeattie.”

Some young people have related to me that, “We grew up politically reading Mercer on WND.” What a gift—and a responsibility. It was thus important to serve up an example of what intellectual honestly and integrity look like in crediting others. To that end, I posted my report about Beattie’s analysis–and application—of US-instigated color revolutions: “Here is an example of my reporting of Darren J Beattie’s very recent work (mine goes back 21 years). I will never-ever stiff people out of credit for their work. It’s loathsome. Tis about character (also, why borrow what I can best? I’ve never been at a loss for original thinking in 21 years of work):

Truth is non-partisan. However, in line with partisan social media’s celebrity tagging ditto-head proclivities—the warm smell of the herd that inoculates against impartial thinking—reality, in the form of mounds of essays, mine, was not considered the ultimate adjudicator of truth.

A select group of serious readers, my own, however, responded, thus:

David Sullivan: “You were first, for sure, way back with THE book, ‘Into the Cannibal’s Pot.'”

“Ilana Mercer has been explaining for years why the problem is anti-white politics, not identity politics. Given that conservatives have failed repeatedly and the problem has gotten worse, perhaps it’s time they start listening. This column is from 2019,” tweeted Matt Ray, a paleolibertarian presence on the Internet and social media:

Matt took the time to excerpt from “It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics” (February 28, 2019): Whatever is convulsing the country, it’s not identity politics. For, blacks are not being pitted against Hispanics. Hispanics are not being sicced on Asians, and Ameri-Indians aren’t being urged to attack the groups just mentioned. Rather, they’re all piling on honky.”

And I thank Matt Ray. Over the course of 21 years, I have replied to almost every reader who has taken the time to share with me his or her thoughts about my work. It’s called decency, humility. And if I get an idea from a twitter account, no matter how small, I hyperlink it, in credit (an example is the hyperlink on the quip, “That was a scary scene in ‘Deliverance,’” someone quipped  on Twitter, in “The Barbarians Are In Charge: Scenes From The Sacking of America“).

Anti-White HateWatch made excuses for the more powerful not crediting those whose work went before—and not because their work doesn’t speak for itself, but becasue their Twitter accounts aren’t as large as The Idiocracy’s.

In a war, we aren’t required to shout out “Thank you, Lockheed Martin” before we fire our missiles!

Me: If honestly crediting originators of serious argument and strategy in the battle over years is not important–why does @DarrenJBeatie try to “cancel” me and my work in developing this thinking first? You, too, are bereft of ethics, sir. Credit is a moral imperative, as per Jewish sages

And so it went.

Even when I excerpted my surmise, in “A White-Out Of Whites: Ignoring The Albino, Dhimmi Elephant In The Room,” drawn from a Critical Race Theorist who openly departs from Marxism—my own words were attributed to another. One not only loses IQ points on the illiterate social media, but one is faced with studied intellectual depravity.

A tweet, always limited by the number of allowable characters, was then compiled of my many pioneering essays explaining why, contra conservatism’s consensus before me, Critical Race Theory needed to be addressed purely and exclusively as anti-white agitprop and bafflegab combined. I wrote:

Fair minds know you can’t change the reality of creation.

Colin Flaherty, one the few fair, valiant men, retweeted with a comment:

Everyone wants to deflect from that essential truth.”

Finally, heed we must what the sages of Judaism say about a morally simple matter: Crediting those who went before.

Text
“Whoever repeats a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world.” (Avot 6:6)

Commentary
The sages deemed it so imperative that credit should be given for another’s ideas that they identified the act as a cause for redemption, both communal and personal.

I thank my brother, Rabbi Y. Isaacson, for sending me the words of our Avot (fathers).

And I ask that you teach your children to ethically and honestly credit their sources in conversation. This is what scholarly minds do.

As Jack Kerwick has explained :

it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to explore, revise, and expand the ideas of others, to explore their nuances, their contours, and utilize them for the purposes of illuminating new circumstances.

To Do
Make a concerted effort to share what you learn from someone else with the others around your Shabbat table, but be sure to quote your source and do so in the name of the person from whom you learned it.

UPDATE (7/5/021): I had mentioned in the blog post you are reading the imperative, as taught by our Jewish sages, to cite those who went before in one’s work, if one uses ideas developed by others. I’m pleased to report that “Mussar Center” liked the lesson on Twitter. @MussarCenter