← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 13412 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2004-04-28
2004-04-28 07:29 | User Profile
*I'm of the opinion that, in the context of US foreign policy, "naming Israel" is at least as effective as "naming the Jew." Pat really puts the spotlight on Israel with the essay below, so I hope it sees wide readership on the Web.
-- Angler*
URL: [url]http://www.theamericancause.org/[/url]
Going Back to Where They Came From
Patrick J. Buchanan April 21, 2004
"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," William Kristol has told the New York Times.
The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.
Alluding to his father Irving's definition of a neoconservative as a liberal who has been mugged by reality, Kristol describes a neoliberal as a "neoconservative who has been mugged by reality in Iraq."
Ranking his political preferences, Kristol added, "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan ... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."
Yes, it does. But as John Kerry backs partial-birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy, how can Kristol prefer him to other conservatives? Answer: War and Israel.
Like Kristol, Kerry wants more U.S. troops sent to Iraq where they can advance the neocons' project for empire. And at a fund-raiser in Juno Beach, Fla., Kerry declared eternal fealty to Israel: "I have a 100 percent record ââ¬â not a 99, a 100 percent record ââ¬â of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel."
Kristol's warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second and third, conservative principles be damned.
The day after Kristol said he preferred Kerry to conservatives skeptical of committing more troops to Iraq, this item appeared in the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Kristol thinks Mr. Bush should use the revelations [from the Woodward book] to shake up his war cabinet by firing Mr. Powell ... along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has pushed for smaller deployments of U.S. forces than some critics, including Mr. Kristol, think wise."
Set aside the suicidal folly of Bush dynamiting his war cabinet in an election year by firing its most famous members, and consider the ingratitude, the rootlessness and the cynicism on display here.
When it was launched in 1995, the Weekly Standard called on Colin Powell to run for president and offered its endorsement. Purpose: Hook up with the most popular man in the GOP who could restore the neocons and Kristols to pre-eminence and power. Powell rebuffed the offer. Ever since, he has been a target of abuse for having repelled the boarding party.
As for Rumsfeld, he has been a hero of neoconservatives for two decades. He co-signed the neocons' 1998 open letter to Clinton urging war on Iraq. He brought Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith into his Pentagon in the No. 2 and 3 slots. He put Richard Perle in charge of the Defense Review Board. After 9-11, according to Richard Clarke, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were making the case for attacking Iraq immediately, even before Bush had ousted the Taliban enablers of al-Qaida and bin Laden.
Agree or disagree with the defense secretary, Rumsfeld has been a lion in the neocon cause. To see the Weekly Standard snake on him like this brings to mind that wretched crowd in Yankee Stadium that took to booing Joe DiMaggio at the end of his career.
With Iraq turning into the Mesopotamian morass some of us warned it would become, the neo-Jacobins have decided they are not going to be the ones to ride the tumbrels.
In times like this, character comes through. By turning on the men they persuaded to go to war, by fabricating alibis and inventing excuses to absolve themselves of culpability for what they labored to create, they have revealed themselves for what they are: hustlers and opportunists devoid of principle, driven by an ideology of power and a passionate attachment to a nation not their own.
The Old Right curmudgeons who warned us against giving these vagabonds food, shelter and a warm place by the fire were right. We should have put them back out on the street.
President Bush should have listened to his father, who kept the neocons at some remove, and he had best beware, because they have a major card yet to play. That card is escalation.
With the situation in Iraq deteriorating, the neocon agenda is to widen the war into Syria, Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, and convert it into "World War IV," the war of their dreams, a war of civilizations, an Armageddon, with America and Israel on one side and Islam on the other.
Exiting Iraq with honor and avoiding the wider war for which the neocons are even now scheming is the first duty of patriots.
2004-04-28 13:28 | User Profile
Good article by PJB, indeed. He might not go as far as Sam Francis has been lately, but this is still quite pushing the envelope for such a mainstream figure, especially this little gem:
..they have revealed themselves for what they are: hustlers and opportunists devoid of principle, driven by an ideology of power and a passionate attachment to a nation not their own.
The Old Right curmudgeons who warned us against giving these vagabonds food, shelter and a warm place by the fire were right. We should have put them back out on the street.
He leaves it slightly amibiguous as to whether these "vagabonds" are only the necons, or whether they might be a slightly larger group. :wink:
2004-05-11 22:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]... this is still quite pushing the envelope for such a mainstream figure... He leaves it slightly amibiguous as to whether these "vagabonds" are only the necons, or whether they might be a slightly larger group.[/QUOTE] Wow, no kidding there. Enough ambiguity that most citizens would miss the "naming", and just enough ambiguity to avoid a mossad operation. The disconnect falls between "a nation not their own" (the traitors & shabbot goyim) and the "vagabonds" (yidtribe).
Thank you Mr. Buchanan, for a message that needs to be visible in the daylight.
2004-05-12 02:35 | User Profile
Buchanan's choice of the word vagabonds is perfect. The Germans ran the filthy Frankfurt school kikes out of their country on a rail, and we Americans were dumb enough to take them in and let them set up shop here. Big mistake.
2004-05-12 03:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]And the worst part of it is that these Frankfurt Schoolers not only set up shop, they did so under the false pretense of being THE authoritative voice of the American Right. Where else but in America can disciples to Trotsky and Adorno adopt a fancy (and completely misleading) label of "neoconservatives?" Even the most naive European politico would be able to recognize a hybrid of Trotsky and Jabotinski for what he is.[/QUOTE]
In retrospect, knowing what we know now, it really is staggering that we fell for it.
It's also quite distressing that that generation missed an opportunity to eradicate the cancer early on.
On the other hand, then as now, Jews did have the benefit of operating pretty much unopposed thanks to a corrupt and craven White Gentile establishment.
The isolationist American First committee and the other people who may have known better back then were pretty thoroughly demonized by FDR and his lackeys, as well as by a New York-based press that was openly sympathetic to Communism.
2004-05-12 09:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Buchanan's choice of the word vagabonds is perfect. The Germans ran the filthy Frankfurt school kikes out of their country on a rail, and we Americans were dumb enough to take them in and let them set up shop here. Big mistake.[/QUOTE]
One really wishes that the Nazis had sent these people to Dachau instead. What a difference a small, little noted action like that, would have made in the big picture of things.
2004-05-12 14:06 | User Profile
Buchanan will always hedge. This is from TAC, March 2003:
"...The Israeli people are Americaââ¬â¢s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment."
2004-05-12 16:17 | User Profile
It's PJB himself, from the lengthy cover article "Whose War?"
2004-05-12 19:46 | User Profile
Say...you guys aren't taking a shot at Pat, are you?
(Can we get an IP check, please?)
Ok, sorry: I couldn't resist. Hey, this is Pat at his most feral (without calling Them by their true name) and regardless of whether it passes the VNN litmus test I sure like it. Y'gotta love this one:
"...consider the ingratitude, the rootlessness and the cynicism on display here..."
OH yeah! - "rootlessness"! That was one for us up here in the cheap seats, the equivalent of doing a public-relations photo-op in a yarmulke and winking at the camera.
[I]When it was launched in 1995, the Weekly Standard called on Colin Powell to run for president and offered its endorsement. Purpose: Hook up with the most popular man in the GOP who could restore the neocons and Kristols to pre-eminence and power. Powell rebuffed the offer. Ever since, he has been a target of abuse for having repelled the boarding party.[/I]
I've always been a little loath to skewer Colin Powell the way I would a Charles Moose. Nice to know there's something I can point to to justify my restraint.
2004-05-12 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE]One really wishes that the Nazis had sent these people to Dachau instead. What a difference a small, little noted action like that, would have made in the big picture of things.[/QUOTE]
In that case they'd've [I]still [/I] ended up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, like everybody else that got "sent there". I mean, let's face it.....
2004-05-12 21:34 | User Profile
As Ive said before and Ill say it again, Buchanan is the man. We waste too much time in quests for ideological purity. In the real world, effectiveness demands restraint and good timing. Restraint in attacks, choosing words carefully, moderating one's tone to appeal to a larger audience and going on the attack when the time is right.
Going all guns blazing right from the beginning (no pun intended), has the effect of attracting the same motley crew that knows and talks about these things all the time anyway. Not much point in doing that.
2004-05-13 00:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]As Ive said before and Ill say it again, Buchanan is the man. We waste too much time in quests for ideological purity. In the real world, effectiveness demands restraint and good timing. Restraint in attacks, choosing words carefully, moderating one's tone to appeal to a larger audience and going on the attack when the time is right.
Going all guns blazing right from the beginning (no pun intended), has the effect of attracting the same motley crew that knows and talks about these things all the time anyway. Not much point in doing that.[/QUOTE]
The strategy, if it is one, hasn't done much for Buchanan, unless his goal is to keep enough bucks rolling in to pay his rent.
2004-05-14 02:51 | User Profile
Ruffin,
That is true. It hasn't helped Buchanan for a minute. At the same time is does piss our mutual enemies off. I heard Michael Medved bitching about Pat yesterday over his "dislike for Israel."
As a quote of Hitler's that you posted a while back noted that if someone gets the Jews complaining about him, then he must be doing something right.
2004-05-14 06:54 | User Profile
Sert, Unlce Adolf lived in a simpler time, when Jewish outrage didn't automatically send white men running for cover. But your point is taken.
I don't like Pat because he reminds me of Nixon. After a while you get the feeling he'll say anything to appeal to an unlocked bloc of voters. As dry as we are for representation, any bone he pitches is relished, even by me.
2004-05-14 07:18 | User Profile
Ruffin,
One pines for the good old days when our people didn't have a problem telling the Jews to go to hell and make it stick. I understand what you are saying about Pat. If anything good comes out of the present mess it will be a return to those days. I have a feeling that the Jews may have overreached themselves again. They always do and I hope this is the case.