Category Archives: NeoCons

More Jack Hunter Thoughts and Reactions

Here is an article at VDARE on the Jack Hunter smear campaign. It’s good because it links to a lot of the sites that picked up the story, but the author, Alexander Hart, pretty much throws Hunter under the bus on account of Rand’s backtracking on the immigration issue.

Here is Hunter’s own statement. It’s pretty much a disaster. Hunter goes into full backpedal and placate mode. This is highly unfortunate. First, the PC Beast can not be placated. Just ask Jason Richwine. Just ask Paula Deen. The PC Beast must be resisted head on. Second, whenever you say some version of “I’m not a racist” you have already lost because you have conceded the other sides terms. Third, as I wrote yesterday, nothing in these revelations is really that damaging. Some of it is rather mundane. Just explain yourself forcefully without backpedalling or dodging.

That said, I do not think that now is the time to attack Jack for backpedalling. Here is what I posted on Facebook:

I am disappointed that Jack Hunter has chosen to backtrack and concede to the PC Rightthink Police rather than fight back, but that said, now is not the time for anti-PC forces to attack Jack. Now is the time for us to attack the PC Beast that is attacking him. We can attempt to drag Jack back to paleodom after we have countered the PC Cultural Marxists Gestapo.
I felt the need to say that because some folks have gone after Jack pretty hard for his backpedalling.
 
 
and Michael Hill (via Hunter Wallace)
 
I’ll explain why I think overly attacking Jack Hunter (as opposed to expressing disappointment), is unhelpful at this point in a separate post.

The PC Thought Police Go After Jack Hunter (a.k.a. the Southern Avenger)

The Cultural Marxist PC Thought Police are frothing at the mouth again. They’ve identified a new thoughtcriminal for their Two Minutes Hate, Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the Southern Avenger.

Here is the Washington Free Beacon fatwa … err … article that got the jihad started. When I first heard rumblings that the PC Gestapo was going after Jack, I suspected the author might be the loathsome PC enforcer Jamie Kirchick, but it wasn’t. It’s some writer I’ve never heard of named Alana Goodman. Here is Goodman’s bio per the Free Beacon:

Alana Goodman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she was assistant online editor at Commentary (neocon alert!). She has written for the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. Goodman graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 2010, and lives in Washington, D.C. Her Twitter handle is @alanagoodman. Her email address is goodman@freebeacon.com.

Jonathan Chait picked up on the story here. Chait isn’t someone I normally associate with this type of PC Thought Enforcement campaign (I could be wrong), but this drive by smear job is inexcusable. He says this:

But his son and progeny Rand Paul also has a close aide who is a huge racist, reports Alana Goodman.

A “huge racist?” Actually Chait, Goodman isn’t even shameless enough to say that in so many words even though her “article” is a transparent PC/neocon rightthink enforcement hitpiece. (I say neocon in addition to PC because she heavily focuses on foreign policy and highlights among other things his belief that the nuking of Japanese civilians was unjustified.)

Salon piles on here.

What’s noteworthy about the Goodman piece is just how lame the allegations are. Anyone who has followed Jack’s career at all knows that he is pro-South and supports the right of secession. As Dave Weigle points out in a semi-snarky pile on of his own, this is not news, but the PC Rightthink Enforcers thinks this is a scandalous revelation. Beyond that she presents a laundry list of statements and policy positions that are supposed to scandalize all decent rightthinkers. I could defend each of Hunter’s statements individually, but I don’t have time for that now. In general, taken together the quotes and positions place Hunter in an identifiable paleocon/paleolibertarian sphere, but there is nothing here that is not routine opinion in those circles and each individual opinion can be found in mainstream conservatism as well.

Looked at as objectively as I can as an interested co-combatant, the thing that might be most shocking to the ears that the Rightthink Enforcers are aiming to prick is his use of the word terrorism to describe the nuking of Japanese civilians and his comparison of that act to 9/11. (FTR, I don’t think terrorism is the right word to describe our use of nukes against the Japanese civilian population. It is needlessly inflamatory and isn’t really an accurate word choice. It is more accurate to describe it as a war crime, but that is for a separate thread.) Beyond that Hunter is accused of saying that there is a double standard against whites. Other races can celebrate their race but whites can’t celebrate theirs. Well no duh! This is a thoroughly mundane and unarguable observation. He’s also acused of saying our foreign policy in the Middle East is influenced by Israel. Is there anyone who seriously denies this? In fact, the interventionist at the Free Beacon celebrate this as right and good. He is excoriated for suggesting that immigration alters the culture. Again, no duh! Does anyone seriously deny this? In fact, immigration boosters celebrate the fact that immigration brings about change in the culture. You know, that whole “Diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.

I could go on, but you get the point. Unfortunately, Jack concedes too much in what was I’m sure a damage control interview with the Free Beacon. Those of us who have followed Hunter’s career for a while have recognized that he has become more politically pragmatic over the years, thus his defense of some of Rand Paul’s misguided concessions. But I have always hoped that that old self-described “right-wing radical” still lurked beneath the surface. But this is not the time to criticize Hunter. Now is the time to defend him against the baying PC Rightthink mob. They’ll be time for dragging him fully back into the fold once the PC Enforcers have been called out for their rightthink policing shenanigans.

You love Lincoln, don’t you?

You’d better – or Rich Lowry will tell everyone how “foul” and “rancid” you are. Those are the adjectives Lowry tosses at Thomas DiLorenzo for unmasking the crimes and treason of the 16th president. And Lowry makes it clear he considers anyone who has read DiLorenzo and questions the Lincoln Myth is part of a “small but foul pro-Confederacy strain on the right.”

Reading Lowry’s article, one can just smell the fear emanating from Lowry, a pundit who’s notorious for his tendency to run away from a fight while goading others to fight for him. Cowards often compensate by talking tough, and Lowry not only supported the invasion of Iraq, but the nuclear bombing of Mecca since the 9/11 conspirators were all Muslim. I can just see Richie Rich giggling in anticipation of thousands of innocent lives being snuffed out in the name of American Power.

I suspect what’s got Lowry so worked up is the steady progress folks like DiLorenzo have made in exposing Lincoln and the regime he founded. The ever-prescient Ed Sebesta hits the bull’s eye in his blog post when he says

What is interesting is that Lowry decided that this article needed writing. The anti-Lincoln campaign of the neo-Confederates has been going on for some time. I think this might be a sign that the anti-Lincoln campaign is going somewhere and the leadership of conservatism in America is beginning to get concerned.

Amen, Brother Sebesta! The concern is real because Lowry knows that exposing Lincoln exposes the Empire. The Lincoln Myth of the Great Liberator is the founding myth of the rogue global empire headquartered in DC today. That myth justifies the ruling elite’s power and privilege in the name of spreading freedom and democracy, terms we heard ad nauseum in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Lincoln’s role as the founder and model of today’s authoritarian American Empire isn’t just my idea. Here’s what Lowry himself wrote recently in an article entitled, “Lincoln Can Teach Us Today“:

The National Security Agency telephone and Internet surveillance program is similar to Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War act of suspending habeas corpus, National Review editor Rich Lowry tells Newsmax.

“When he did it initially, any reasonable person would think it was an appropriate measure because troops were coming down from the North at the beginning of the war when Washington was isolated and not protected, and they were stopped in Baltimore by mobs.”

However, many in Lincoln’s day believed the suspension went too far when it became almost a matter of routine, Lowry said.

The Empire’s War on Freedom

As outrage grows at the news that the Obama regime has expanded citizen surveillance beyond even George W. Bush’s wildest dreams, the Empire’s toadies are doing their best to quell the rebellion.

Naturally, Max Boot, the toadiest of them all, is trying to assure the peasants that yes, it’s true your government is spying on you, but hey, it’s a good thing. Is it legal? You betcha – the USA Patriot Act, he writes, gives the government sweeping authority to snoop on anyone it deems suspicious. That settles that!

Is there anything we should be angry about here? There sure is, says Boot: “The only outrage here is that the Guardian has disclosed such a highly classified program.”

That’s because REAL AMERICANS – you know, the ones that spit bile whenever the government decrees an official Two Minute Hate – should demand the firing squad for anyone who reveals embarrassing truths about their government. If that’s not patriotism, then what is? And who better to instruct Americans about the true meaning of patriotism than a Russian immigrant who openly endorses American Empire?

The Evil of Humanitarian Interventionism (at home AND abroad!)

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has a new article that nicely rips up the pro-war talking point that says the US must invade other countries to stop dictators from killing innocent people. That argument overlooks the obvious fact that the “liberating” forces will necessarily take out even more innocent folks to get to the dictator.

So far, so good. But then Hornberger tosses in a jarring speed bump:

“Under what authority did FDR refuse German Jews’ entry into the United States? By this time, the United States had abandoned the concept of open immigration on which our country was founded…”

Mr. Hornberger and I have corresponded before about the desirability of open borders, and I do not intend to re-open that debate. But the passage he wrote above is simply wrong.

The Founders did not intend to create a multicultural proposition nation. Instead, they sought to protect and preserve their traditional English rights.

The Founders viewed themselves as the inheritors of traditional British institutions, which they intended to keep. That’s why, rather than allowing any and all into their communities, the Founders restricted immigration. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalized citizenship to “free white persons” of “good moral character.”

That act, by the way, was the first order of business of the new Congress. So to assert the US was founded on open immigration is a factual error.

I admire Hornberger’s anti-imperial articles, and agree with most of what he writes. But it’s a puzzle how such an obviously intelligent man does not wonder why the evil regime in DC should be supported in its efforts to impose demographic revolution at home. DC’s “liberation” projects abroad dovetail with its “liberation” projects at home – both are intended to boost the power of the central government and its cronies. Just think – after all these wars of liberation and all the civil rights mandates, are we any more secure, or more free? No – but DC is clearly in control of more of our property and lives.

That’s why we should judge government by its deeds, rather than by its press releases.

Quote of the day

“I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America, that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni, or the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of fundamentalist regime.” Bill Kristol, arguing that Jeffersonian democracy would prevail in Iraq after the US overthrew its former flunky, Saddam Hussein.

Neanwhile,here in the real world, sectarian bloodshed is escalating in Iraq now that US forces have withdrawn. The majority Shia, now in power, have ruled with a heavy hand, precipitating a Sunni backlash that has many fearing that civil war in inevitable.

Neocons Heart Chechnya

American Committee for Peace in Chechnya was founded in 2004–it’s gone now– by the usual suspects, Right and Left–Frank Gaffney, Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen–we have done this drill so often it gets boring, that same old cast of those who contrived a case for Republicans to support invading Iraq, as Saddam done 9/11 dontchaknow?

At the time, the Guardian’s John Laughland noted that the war on terror stopped in Chechnya for this crowd of the usual suspects.  The purpose, as always, was to use a force to destabilize Russia, just as they had used radical Islamists in Afghanistan against the then Soviet Russia many years prior.

It goes hand in hand with CIA or Pentagon intervention abroad, that the United States receives a boat load of refugees from said country, be it Hmong, Somalian, Iraqi, or…Chechnya.

There are certainly more angles to pursue, especially, on-going, bipartisan support (e.g. Obama/Clinton/Kerry, McCain, Graham, Rubio) from the usual suspects, to work with jihadists in Syria (including those from Chechnya as reported March 6).

Lone-wolf street theater, or some actor in the Black Arts will be the subject of speculation for the while, but  in the coming days of analysis, let it sink in that the members of the ACPC will sleep uninterrupted tonight.

For additional reading: Sibel Edmonds on the Neocons & Chechnya.

 

“Neocon” is now a synonym for “Delusional”

Check out this bizarre post from American Power entitled “Just and Noble War in Iraq”:

It’s the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq war and the left is using this as a chance to (hypocritically) delegitimize the use of force in national security policy. … Iraq was popular at the beginning, but Americans rejected the prolonged deployment. … The Democrats: the party of defeat and treason.


As astounding that anyone could defend the Bush regime’s rush to war in Iraq, it’s just stupefying that the war could be praised as a project “conservatives” must defend against “leftists.” So I had to drop a comment:

Many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, including the Clintons, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman.

The reason the majority of Americans turned against the war was because they eventually realized the Bush regime had LIED about WMD and Iraq’s ties to 9/11.

The blog author responded with this incredible assertion: “Bush didn’t lie. It’s a lie to say he lied.”

Now let me get this straight: I’m lying when I say Bush lied? In fact, we now know that both British and American intelligence knew before the war “that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.”

The head of Britain’s spy service at the time, Richard Dearlove, has admitted, “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

The reason Americans initially supported the Iraq War was because they had been led to believe Saddam had assisted the 9/11 terrorists. A congressional investigation identified “237 misleading statements” about Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell.

Were Bush regime officials lying, or were they merely mistaken? In 2002, Dick Cheney made this assertion: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

A claim to certain knowledge can be verified or disproven by subsequent events. I’d say that what’s transpired between the run-up to the war and now has thoroughly disproven the Bush regime’s statements.

Maybe you don’t think this affects you. “So what if a million Iraqis died, and three million lost their homes? Why do I care?” For one thing, we’re going to suffer for this colossal blunder for decades. Some of the direct results of the Neocon Wars include the Department of Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act, surveillance drones, and indefinite detention.

Then there’s the expanded Muslim influence here at home directly attributable to the Iraq War. Some 62,000 Iraqis have settled in the US since the war. The town of El Cajon, California, is now called “Little Baghdad” because of the 20,000 Iraqis who now live there. Have these Iraqis assimilated? Check it out:

Stores sell pickled turnips and cucumbers. Restaurants sell kebobs and Halal meat. … There are Kurds from the country’s northern region, Sunnis from central areas, and Shiite from the south. There are Chaldean Christians as well.

Is this good for Americans? Think the old rivalries between those groups will continue? Who knows?

And who cares?

More Rand Paul Reax

Because the Rand Paul dead horse still needs more beating:

Daniel Laison comments on “Movement Conservative Reactions…”

Larison’s comments are in response to this article by Jim Antle.

Aaron Wolfe on the reaction of National Review. Aaron, quoting Sam Francis, makes an important point here. Neocons (and mainstream conservatives in general) have always taken a dim view of extremism qua extremism?

James Kirkpatrick at VDARE takes a more critical view of Rand.

Pat Buchanan asks “Who Now Speaks for the GOP?…

Justin Raimondo appears to have climbed aboard the Rand train. See here and here. Before he was highly critical of Rand.

Policy Review Ceases Publication

Sorry, this story is a little bit late. I missed the announcement at TAC because the title of the posts wasAn Inconvenient Truth: The Bush Administration Was a Disaster.” I just assumed it was more TAC style Bush bashing so I didn’t bother to read it. This post, about Human Events shutting down their print edition, directed my attention to it.

Policy Review, a publication of the Hoover Institute, was not exactly paleo friendly, but I do think the demise of a “conservative” scholarly publication is worth noting. There are already very few identifiably “conservative” journals compared to many leftist journals that fill every conceivable niche. (Note, I am using conservative here in the sense that it is generally understood today. I recognize that neoconservatism is not really conservative, hence my use of quotation marks.) I’m afraid this does not boded well for conservatism from a meta standpoint, apart from the fact that Policy Review itself was a source of modern “conservative” orthodoxy and wasn’t a paleo friendly publication.

Completing Lincoln’s Revolution

“I’m from the Federal Government, and I’m here to protect you”

In the latest National Review Online, Charles Krauthammer, that anti-gun, pro-amnesty, pro-global democratic revolution, big-government “conservative,” defends Obama’s drone program:

Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms.

Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) — killed without due process.

The operative idea in Krauthammer’s argument is that the commander-in-chief is all-powerful. If he chooses to ignore the right of self-determination, or the Bill of Rights, or whatever, then those who oppose him deserve to be in the crosshairs.

Of course, that attitude effectively negates the very principle of the American Revolution:

Legal scholar Ryan Alford observes that the 13th century marks “the last time when the executive branch of any country governed by the common law had asserted that it was legal to kill a citizen on the basis of an executive order.” Obama’s “executive death warrant” is more than a breach of the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, he argues, it’s an affront to the entire Anglo-American constitutional order.

Problem is, overthrowing the “entire Anglo-American constitutional order” is just part of the process of overthrowing the rest of our Anglo-American culture, which DC is actively implementing as official policy. It’s what they call “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” I call it “a death spiral into a Third-World banana republic,” but then, I’m a hopeless conservative.

Shocker! David Frum Supports Gun Control

I’m shocked! Professional neo”conservative” turned moderate David Frum supports gun control and for good measure makes sure he polishes his PC bona fides while doing it. The article takes issue with Rod Dreher. Rod replies here. Jordon Bloom replies here. Both say Frum took Dreher out of context, which he did, but it was all in the service of Frum making his PC point. Who has time for accuracy when you’re stumbling all over yourself to prove how PC you are? And to think that at one time most people considered this guy a conservative.

Rand’s choice

The confirmation of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense maybe the toughest vote Rand Paul will have taken so far as a U.S. Senator.

Paul has made no secret of his Presidential ambitions and in case there was any doubt his recent trip to Israel with several Christian Zionists in tow. He’s also been having private, unpublicized meeting with prominent neocons like Dan Senor. The reason for this is transparently political. Paul wants to, at the very least, reduce the intensity of opposition to him, such groups showed his father Ron Paul when he ran for President in 2008 and 2012.

But will Rand’s new friends influence the way he will ultimately vote on Hagel? Someone who his father probably would not have had trouble voting for if he was a Senator given the similarity of their foreign policy views and their views on the defense budget. Indeed, Rand himself has called for similar reductions in the Pentagon budget,

Some necons are calling this vote a “litmus test”. It will be interesting to see if Rand Paul feels the same way as far as 2016 is concern.

The Forever Wars of Frederick & Kimberly Kagan

Kim Kagan

Philip Giraldi dissects the Kagan’s latest interventionist screed:

The Kagans are classic neocon entrepreneurs who rely on nepotism and cronyism to work their way through the system. Kimberly studied ancient history at Yale under Donald Kagan and then married his son. She is now billed as a “military expert” by the neocon media in spite of her lack of any actual military experience. Kimberly and Fred have together attached themselves firmly to the COIN counterinsurgency strategy and to the surge tactics as well as to two of its leading proponents, General Stanley McChrystal and General David Petraeus.

Just as DC’s left-leaning domestic policy assumes that a strong central government must impose order and justice on an otherwise benighted population, DC’s foreign policy assumes it is uniquely qualified to impose order on the rest of the world – whether the world likes it or not.

Giraldi notes that even though the Kagans got everything wrong in their arguments for W’s invasion of Iraq, that hasn’t stopped them from cheering on other interventions. As Giraldi points out, war is their business, and there are many others who profit from war.

Similarly, leftists have been proven wrong about just about everything, from forced busing to welfare, but that hasn’t stopped them from promoting their agenda. Yes, they’re THAT convinced they’re right. It’s the world that’s wrong.

Things Said or Done Long Years Ago

Things said or done long years ago,
Or things I did not do or say
But thought that I might say or do,
Weigh me down, and not a day
But something is recalled,
My conscience or my vanity appalled.

Yeats, William Butler. “Vacillation“.

This must surely be how David Frum (author of 2003 “Unpatriotic Conservatives” article tarring paleocon war critics) and the rest of the Neocons feel after their repeated foreign policy bungles (Oops, no WMD?).

Cost:
Iraqi Refugees Admitted into USA: 64,174
Iraqi Refugees Total: Millions
Total Americans Wounded in Iraq: 33184
Total American Deaths in Iraq: 4488
Iraqi Deaths Due to US Invasion: 1455590
Money Spent on Iraq War: Over 808 Billion

Achievement: Replace secular Sunni leader and former US-ally who poses no threat to the US with, one of the most corrupt states in the world. Transparency International ranks its corruption at #175 out of 183 countries. Shia Muslims in Iraq are now dominant: Iran is also Shia Muslim.
Continue reading

Going forward

When I argued that an Obama win would be better for conservatives than a Romney win, I got a lot of angry emails and comments from readers. “Worse IS NOT better!” they yelled.

Of course not. But that’s not what I was saying. I was making two points: Romney’s embarrassing kowtowing before Netanyahu and the predominance of Neocons from the George W. Bush regime in his campaign all but guaranteed a “pre-emptive” war on Iran. And what have the Neocon Wars given us so far? The Department of Homeland Security, citizen surveillance, torture enhanced interrogation, indefinite detention, as well as increased Muslim immigration.

Bottom line: Another war would do even more permanent damage. Continue reading

Trotskyites for Romney

Robert E. Lee foresaw the consequences of Lincoln’s victory in a letter to Lord Acton: “the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

General Lee was right. The centralized regime that arose during the WBTS has indeed brought ruin, not just to the victims of DC’s wars, but to Americans as well, in the form of crushing debt and assaults on basic liberty. The government justifies its acts at home and abroad with the same assurances Lincoln used: it’s promoting democracy and equality, a scam we have exposed before. But even though the Empire puts a benevolent face on its acts, those acts are still those of a rogue, predatory force that is the world’s greatest threat to peace and liberty. Its campaigns in remote battlefields have rebounded to diminish liberty at home – the news that the government plans to use drones to patrol American skies is just the latest grim proof. Continue reading