← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident

Thread 4158

Thread ID: 4158 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2002-12-23

Wayback Archive

Texas Dissident [OP]

2002-12-23 08:03 | User Profile

ATTACK OF THE NEOS Political correctness as a weapon in the War Party's arsenal

So, you thought the Trent Lott episode had nothing to do with the war and foreign policy, especially all you politically correct antiwar liberals out there, who just hooted and hollered at the downfall of the "racist" Senator. But David Frum begs to differ….

Recently ousted from his perch as the President's speechwriter – for his wife's unseemly boasting about his role in articulating the "axis of evil" phrase that decorated Bush 43's warmongering rhetoric – Frum has taken up literary residence at National Review, where his daily "Diary" records the thoughts and impressions of the Archetypal Neocon as the events of the day pass by. The December 20 entry is devoted to an internal neoconservative brouhaha over the exact meaning of Lott's take-down: Neocon elder Charles Krauthammer's column on how the controversy separated the neoconservative wheat from the paleoconservative chaff provoked a response from junior neocon Jonah Goldberg, and Frum sides with Goldberg:

"Bartender, make mine the same as Jonah Goldberg's. His column yesterday on which conservatives took the Lott affair seriously – and which did not – seemed to me exactly right. I have only one thought to add: I was sorry to see somebody as wise and influential as Charles Krauthammer succumb to the often-repeated but nonetheless inaccurate assertion that there exists something called 'paleoconservatism' that is more directly connected to the conservative tradition than 'neoconservatism.' This claim just won't bear scrutiny."

Goldberg's dubious distinction between the first and second generation of neocons is specious, and not worth going into – often the case with much of Goldberg's writings – but this sets up Frum to make his point. Which is that the anti-war, anti-interventionist paleos are as politically incorrect – i.e. racist – as Lott, Strom Thurmond, and anyone who even suggests that the legal and social impact of the civil rights movement of the 1960s was, at best, a mixed blessing. While a discussion of the libertarian opposition to "civil rights" laws is beyond the scope of this column – which is focused on foreign affairs – the ominous nature of this incident is underscored by the way Frum uses it as a platform to smear the right-wing of the antiwar movement.

There is a short story by Shirley Jackson, "The Lottery," that perfectly anticipated what happened to Lott, even down to its title. In the story, the typical life of a small village is depicted, but with a sinister undertone permeating the prose, until we learn that this particular village has a culturally unique institution – the Lottery. Each year, the residents draw lots – and the one who chooses the black stone out of a pile of white pebbles is stoned to death. The story, rightly famous for its aura of dark foreboding super-imposed over a backdrop of seeming normality, reflected the author's jaundiced view of humanity as a pack of vicious curs, ready to turn on each other at the slightest opportunity. L'affair Lott was a faithful reiteration of Jackson's plot-theme: a victim was chosen, seemingly by the Fates, as the focus of a deadly socio-political ritual – one intended to be performed rather more often than yearly. As John Podhoretz gleefully put it last week: "there will be another one very soon."

Frum didn't waste any time:

"'Paleoconservatism' is actually the newest of all conservatisms. It reminds me of one of those red-brick neo-Gothic churches you find in the older suburbs of English industrial towns: discordant elements hastily thrown together to create a false appearance of tradition in a time of rapid change."

"A time of rapid change" is one way to describe the overthrow of our old republic and the creation of a world- spanning Empire, a new Byzantine Empire of the West, as Frank Chodorov described it. Chodorov is a writer who used to be invoked by William Buckley as a mentor, but no more: he belongs to that generation of rightists that Frum and Buckley have thrown down the Memory Hole, along with Senator Robert A. Taft, John T. Flynn, Chicago Tribune publisher Colonel Robert R. McCormick, Garet Garrett (a novelist and an editor of the Saturday Evening Post), and the America First Committee – all of whom opposed the two great wars of the 20th century, World War II and the Cold War. A "conservative" who wants to export "democracy" to the far corners of the earth is a new kind of creature under the sun, or else FDR and Woodrow Wilson have been mis-classified all these years. The Old Right had a trenchant critique of imperialism and corporatism that Frum would just as soon disappear. According to him, the antiwar anti-interventionist paleocons were born only yesterday:

"As its leading ideologist acknowledges, paleoism came together in the early 1990s as a reaction to the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War. It began as a hope that America could somehow remain aloof from the troubles of the post-Cold War world – and rapidly evolved into a mix of blame-America-firstism and outright anti-patriotism."

Who is this "leading ideologist"? Frum links to an essay by Sam Francis – which is really a stretch. To begin with, the idea that the paleos would have any such office as Leading Ideologist is confusing the ex-leftism of the neocons with the laissez-faire decentralism of the paleos. The whole idea of paleoconservatism is to bring back the traditions of the Old Right of the 1940s and 50s – a time when libertarians could co-exist peaceably with traditionalists on the basis of a common opposition to social engineering "progressives," and both could agree with Randolph Bourne, a classical liberal who made famous the phrase "war is the health of the State." This is the sort of "diversity" the neocons definitely do not subscribe to: ideological diversity. In short, the paleos split off from the neocon-dominated movement precisely because of the neo-Leninist mindset exemplified by Frum's weird word-choice. "Leading ideologist?" Give me a break!

Secondly, Sam is a talented writer, but his views on race are most definitely not shared by Pat Buchanan, Chronicles magazine, or, indeed, any of the paleos I know. He and Buchanan came to a parting of the ways when Pat nominated a black woman, Ezola Foster, as his vice- presidential candidate on the Reform ticket in the 2000 election. (To say nothing of having an openly gay guy – me – give the first of three nominating speeches on his behalf at the infamous Long Beach convention.) The white racialists grouped around the "American Renaissance" organization denounced Buchanan as a traitor and his "betrayal" was the occasion for an article by a former American Renaissance editor, James Lubinskas, proclaiming the "Death of Paleoconservatism" in David Horowitz's Frontpage, the home page for neocons of monosyllabic inclinations.

But Frum is depending on the ignorance of his readers – and that is a safe bet where National Review's remaining readers are concerned. All the most intelligent and informed right-wingers I know have long since let their NR subscriptions lapse, and instead taken up The American Conservative and Chronicles, precisely on account of the uniformly boring party-lining rhetoric that infuses the typical NR article – and the constant smears of their enemies on the Right. The addition of Frum to the NR staff will only add to the general exodus, as the following makes clear::

"Here for example is something that Pat Buchanan said when I debated him on Chris Matthews' show 'Hardball' on September 30 [2002]: '9/11 was a direct consequence of the United States meddling in an area of the world where we do not belong and where we are not wanted. We were attacked because we were on Saudi sacred soil and we are so called repressing the Iraqis and we're supporting Israel and all the rest of it.' That's a sentiment you can well imagine coming from the lips of a George McGovern. It's novel to hear it from someone who claims to be on the right."

It's a sentiment one could imagine coming from old Bob Taft – except he's now an un-person, according to the neocons (say, wasn't he a "segregationist"?) – but never out of the mouth of some blow-dried draft-dodging Republican politician of the neocon dispensation. Pat also said on "Hardball" that "they are over here because we are over there," and one wonders how Frum & Co. could possibly dispute this self-evident truth. But he's too busy smearing Buchanan and the rest of us to confront our actual arguments:

"Read the magazines and websites of the paleos, and you will wonder whether you are on the far left or the far right. Here is a gushing interview with Norman Mailer; there is a link to the latest nutso piece by Robert Fisk or John Pilger; here is a long encomium to Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky."

That a magazine, such as The American Conservative, might want to interview one of the most celebrated American writers of our times is, to Frum, evidence of treason: there is nothing "gushing" about the TAC interview, unless one considers letting one's subject talk evidence of sycophancy.

Frum doesn't provide any links to illustrate his contention that paleos are linking to pieces by Robert Fisk and John Pilger, but Antiwar.com happily pleads guilty. Our catholic editorial policy, and a basic agreement with the tendency if not the particulars of their critique of American power, is the reason. And that's only one reason why Antiwar.com is so much more interesting than National Review Online, even for those who don't agree with our position.

Praising Gore Vidal is, as Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter have made all-to-plain, a heresy second only to praising Senator Thurmond, although where these allged "economiums" to Noam Chomsky appear remains a mystery. (He can't mean this.)

Poor befuddled Frum: he cannot really tell the truth, which is that we are anti-imperialists of the Right, the scions of a rich legacy that can be traced all the way back to the origins of modern American conservative thought – an intellectual tendency that dominated the thoughts and writings of the Founders. So, instead, he resorts to character assassination, hoping that we'll be the next victims of The Lottery:

"This is all new. New too is the weird anti-capitalism of the paleos. New finally is the inescapable racialism and the obsessive anti-semitism that one finds among the paleos."

The link Frum provides to "prove" his charge of "anti- semitism" is a column by Charlie Reese, "The Price of Israel," that discusses a recent article in that well-known racialist and anti-Semitic periodical, the Christian Science Monitor, which calculates the cost of U.S. aid to Israel as "$1.6 trillion, or twice the cost of the Vietnam War." The word "Jew" does not appear once in Reese's piece – an odd omission for a supposed example of "anti-semitic" sentiment. The word "Israel" does appear, however, and that is quite enough for Frum, who wants us to believe that all criticism of Israel, however trenchant and divorced from ethnic enmity, is evidence of bigotry. On second thought, Reese does commit what might be thought of as a hate- crime, at least in certain circles, in that he praises France:

"If we are going to be forced to subsidize a foreign country, I would rather it be France. We can at least get a decent meal in France and enjoy the art treasures collected there. Furthermore, France would not involve us in its quarrels."

Hatred of France is de rigueur in neocon circles; the stubborn independence of the French is a burr under their saddle as the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-neocon cabal goes riding off on their twin hobbyhorses of "benevolent world hegemony" and unconditional U.S. support to Israel. But if mock Francophilia is Reese's real sin, the evidence of it is not in Frum's smear piece: indeed, there is no evidence of any kind. Did the victim in Ms. Jackson's "The Lottery" stand convicted on the basis of any evidence? Was there any evidence, other than a mis-statement, that Lott is really a closet segregationist – other than representing the state of Mississippi in the U.S. Senate? Not as far as the National Review crowd was concerned. The magazine, which took the lead against Lott, declared in an online editorial that "Lott must go," even though they believed the accusations of "racism" directed at Lott were basically "unfair" and untrue.

But the truth doesn't matter, and this sentiment was openly expressed by Jonah Goldberg ("Sure, Lott's resignation as Majority Leader might seem or actually be unfair – but that's how politics works"), David Horowitz ("getting rid of Lott is not caving in") and a raft of conservative apologists for the Purge. Only Krauthammer seemed to suggest that Lott, in his remarks praising Thurmond's 1948 candidacy, really meant to endorse racial segregation rather than a more generalized Southern pride: "Better to lose the Senate than to lose your soul," Krauthammer inveighed. But to Frum, Goldberg, Horowitz, and their crypto-quasi-"libertarian" amen corner, truth is irrelevant. A lie spread far and wide is better than an unknown truth, and far more useful for their purposes….

Which brings us back to Frum, who excoriates Lott's heresy as a living nightmare, "rotten but undead," a ghost of the horrible past that today's conservatives know better than to remember with anything but hate. Ah, but those paleos are a conservative horse of a different color altogether:

"But over in the paleo corner, the prejudices of the past have not only survived – they have taken on an importance they have not previously published; they have become organizing principles, the glue that holds an otherwise not very coherent set of attitudes and beliefs together. This too is novel.

"I'm told the paleos prefer the term 'Judaeo-critical' to 'anti-semitic' when talking among themselves. In public, they use either transparent euphemisms like "the Israel lobby" or rather more opaque ones like 'neoconservative.' Whatever the terminology, their dislike and fear of what they perceive as Jewish influence and Jewish conspiracies is the foundation of their politics and in some cases the whole of it."

Whomever is telling Frum these stories had better put down the crack pipe. Or is this an indirect way of telling us that John Pointdexter's infamous "Total Information Awareness" is already springing leaks? I've been hanging around paleo circles since the beginning, and I have heard no such reference to "Judeo-critical" or any other ridiculous euphemism for ordinary bigotry. This is an out-and-out lie, and Frum had better name his sources -- or else retract it.

It is not surprising that Frum considers any criticism of Israel or its very active lobby in the U.S. to be evidence of alleged "anti-semitism," but is any and all discussion of neoconservatism – the subject of countless scholarly books, articles, and documentaries – now considered a "hate crime"?

This solves the mystery of why National Review, pushed by the neocons, was the first to go after Lott's scalp, rather than, say, The Nation, or the New York Times. Ethnic victimology has its uses, and the defense of Israel certainly counts as one of the most important. It is fascinating to see that, in the above cited quote, Frum accuses paleos of positing "Jewish conspiracies" – with the word "conspiracies" linked to a special section of Antiwar.com that features news items about the Israeli "art students" detained by American authorities in the days leading up to 9/ 11.

The problem for Frum, however, is that his readers might actually follow the link, and find that this evidence of our "anti-semitism" is in reality a collection of articles culled from such sources as Salon, ABC News, Fox News, Le Monde, the Washington Post, and The Forward, along with my collected columns on the subject.

What all these news organizations were reporting on, however, was not a "Jewish conspiracy" but a spy operation carried out by the government of Israel against the United States. Is Frum saying that these sources are "anti-semitic"? If, by Frum's draconian standards, Charlie Reese is practically a Nazi for pointing out that Israel costs us a pretty penny, then so is anyone who so much as mentions Jonathan Pollard – or who reminds us that the U.S. and Israel are, after all, separate countries, with different and often conflicting interests.

I won't bother with Frum's ignorant attack on Robert Novak – long a target of the neocon crowd for daring to speak out against the crazed war plans of this administration, and refusing to kowtow to foreign lobbyists. Any analysis of conservatism that mistakes Novak for a "newcomer" is just not referring to reality. Suffice to say it's an outrage that midgets of Frum's stature feel free to sling mud at such old conservative warhorses as Novak and Reese. Particularly in regard to the latter, who has not been well lately, Frum should be made to eat his words – and apologize. The irony is that the kind of behavior these alleged "conservatives" deplore in Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – who use their ethnicity to deflect criticism of their crackbrained politics – is routinely practiced by them.

Which brings us back to the Trent Lott connection. The oddness of seeing these neocons turn left, and not only join but lead the mob of Jacobins demanding the Senator's head, is explained by Frum's smears directed at Buchanan, Antiwar.com, Reese, Novak, and the loosely-defined group of paleo-conservatives, i.e. anyone who won't dance to the neocons' tune. The same methods are now being used against a different target.

What's interesting to watch is that the neocons, first catapulted into the center of the political debate by coming out against "political correctness" and ethnic hyper- sensitivity, have now gone full-circle and become the enforcers of a new political correctness. One that is not all that much different from the old, left-wing sort, as many on the Right are discovering to their surprise and dismay.

The War Party has been smearing the antiwar movement since Day One of our endless "war on terrorism." Now that a precedent has been set, and a Shirley Jackson-ish media ritual of demonization – a kind of Orwellian "Hate Week" – has been established, it's on to the next target of neocon hatred. Frum leaves little doubt as to whom or what he has in mind as a likely candidate.

The idea that this war is a "Jewish conspiracy" is nothing but a canard, a view Frum gives credence to by falsely attributing it to paleoconservatives. Even a cursory examination of such a charge is enough to dismiss it as a crankish excrescence based on enmity and not fact. Numerically and politically speaking, Jews have almost no influence inside the Republican party, which is now the War Party, although voting patterns may be slowly changing, they have traditionally been a reliably Democratic constituency. It is the Christian fundamentalists, particularly those of the dispensationalist persuasion, who have been the most powerful voice raised on behalf of the Likud government in Israel. This is the real "Israel lobby" that counts with Bush 43 and his administration, as Frum well knows.

Read the rest [url=http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j122302.html]HERE[/url]

Texas Dissident

2002-12-23 18:18 | User Profile

Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but does anybody else get the strange feeling that all these guys are reading these pages and talking around us, yet just won't openly admit it in print?

Couple this Raimondo piece with the latest from Gottfried and it's almost eerie.

Okiereddust

2002-12-23 18:22 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 23 2002, 18:18 **Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but does anybody else get the strange feeling that all these guys are reading these pages and talking around us, yet just won't openly admit it in print?

Couple this Raimondo piece with the latest from Gottfried and it's almost eerie.**

You do get that feeling occasionally. More likely though its just coincidence, and the fact of course that we pretty all pretty much read each other's magazines and websites in general. Great minds think alike. ;)

This article does have some interesting conspiracy theories and the machinations of internal neo conservative politics etc. It is particularly interesting that how Frum ties the Lott affair in with the differences between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives. Raimondo seems to be hinting at some sort of intrigue directed against the paleoconservatives, and somehow related to the Lott affair.

Its interesting. Do you think "domestic racism and anti-semitism" might be targeted in not too distant a time as the fourth leg of the "axis of evil" , as revenge for the paleo's defection from the war party? I wouldn't put it past these guys at all. If there's one thing we've learned over the years, its that they play hardball.

Texas Dissident

2002-12-23 18:49 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 23 2002, 12:22 You do get that feeling occasionally.  More likely though its just coincidence, and the fact of course that we pretty all pretty much read each other's magazines and websites in general.  Great minds think alike. ;)

So what are your thoughts on the seemingly new neo-con tactic describing paleos as not a continuation of traditional conservative thought and practice, but rather a new school of thought with its roots in the aftermath of the Reagan years as Raimondo outlines here?

Okiereddust

2002-12-23 19:09 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 23 2002, 18:49 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 23 2002, 12:22 You do get that feeling occasionally.  More likely though its just coincidence, and the fact of course that we pretty all pretty much read each other's magazines and websites in general.  Great minds think alike. ;)**

So what are your thoughts on the seemingly new neo-con tactic describing paleos as not a continuation of traditional conservative thought and practice, but rather a new school of thought with its roots in the aftermath of the Reagan years as Raimondo outlines here?**

Maybe the tactic consists more of just reading, studying, commenting on, and attacking paleoism openly, rather than just ignoring it. At least in this instance the neo's seem to have done their homework on us. Scotchie says the same thing in his last book.

[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=4485&hl=scotchie]The Struggle for an Authentic Conservatism[/url]

**A marked difference between this work and The Paleoconservatives is Scotchie's current view that paleoconservatives are not an updated version of an older right, whether Southern Agrarian, Taft Republican, or post-World War II National Review-ism. Paleos, that is, are not just the Old Right (although Scotchie persists in applying this term to them) but a movement forged out of the conservative wars of the 1980's, which became a frequent journalistic topic by the early 90's........

In my view, paleoconservatism starts with those conservative intellectuals who would not go along with the neocon takeover in the early 80's and who continued to resist that process. One way or another, those who resisted paid a heavy professional and social price that has not yet been fully assessed.**

Texas Dissident

2002-12-23 19:17 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 23 2002, 13:09 ** Maybe the tactic consists more of just reading, studying, commenting on, and attacking paleoism openly, rather than just ignoring it. **

Well, I'm viewing this as a positive sign, even though these types of battles only seem to be waged on-line with the limited exposure that entails. We must be hitting some hot buttons somewhere. Hard to know exactly where when the more prominent, establishment paleos seemingly refuse to acknowledge the grassroots, which is definitely us here at OD.

Okiereddust

2002-12-23 19:39 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 23 2002, 19:17 Well, I'm viewing this as a positive sign, even though these types of battles only seem to be waged on-line with the limited exposure that entails.  We must be hitting some hot buttons somewhere.  Hard to know exactly where when the more prominent, establishment paleos seemingly refuse to acknowledge the grassroots, which is definitely us here at OD.

Since this a NR piece, it would be interesting to checkout the other Townhall forums. As to the ourselves, the rightwing of Liberty forum, and other paleo nests, if the establishment paleo's don't acknowledge us, we have the neo's to thank. The Lott affair, as this article almost comes right out and says, was managed by the neo's in part to make it perfectly clear what willl happen to an establishment figure of any sort who publically acknowledges his debt to the "Strom Thurmond" wing of conservatism, which certainly includes us.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-12-23 20:23 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 23 2002, 14:49 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 23 2002, 12:22 You do get that feeling occasionally.  More likely though its just coincidence, and the fact of course that we pretty all pretty much read each other's magazines and websites in general.  Great minds think alike. ;)**

So what are your thoughts on the seemingly new neo-con tactic describing paleos as not a continuation of traditional conservative thought and practice, but rather a new school of thought with its roots in the aftermath of the Reagan years as Raimondo outlines here?**

Raimondo is right: Frum is overlooking the fact that paleoconservatives today are a revival/continuation of the pre-WW2 Old Right. Of course, Frum is counting on most of his audience not being very knowledgeable of the history of American political ideologies, and on their not looking into these subjects on their own. It is an interesting tactic, though, sort of a "look who the real neo-conservatives are. He's trying to say that the Buchanan crowd of the early 1990s beats out the Kristol crowd of the early 1970s for the title. Too bad there's the inconvenient 1940s, 30s, 20s, etc. in Frum's way. :lol:

Of course, there's a lot more to Truth than mere temporal positioning, and I'm not surprised that a true neocon like Frum would debate at such a superficial level.

Frum's comparison of paleoconservatism to "red-brick neo-Gothic churches" is laughable, given that Russell Kirk's essay about the destruction of America's architectural heritage appears in Joseph Scotchie's The Paleoconservatives. Kirk's essay captures the spirit of paleoconservatism and its role as a guardian of tradition, and for Frum to usurp that role and twist it around for use as a weapon against paleoconservatism is just surreal.

il ragno

2002-12-23 21:13 | User Profile

Nothing 'new' about this tactic at all; this is the inevitable; the only; direction for neoconservatism once you take off the let's-play-nice blinders and begin noticing who the braintrust and prime movers for neoconservatism are.

When they inhabited the host body of American liberalism they began the project of dismantling the American republic by untethering our past from our present; now that they've begun infesting American conservatism, they intend to finish the job once and for all.

But no one will say it. Bad form, doncha know. 'Sperfectly fine and well to read off the roll call: Frum, Goldberg, John Podhoretz, Krauthammer. But no one will speak The Name that Forbids Its Own Mention. Not even Raimondo, who, after a lot of puffed-up chest-beating, meekly cries uncle and takes great pains to characterize Sam Francis as a racist representing a Cabal of Yokels which Frum & Co have been denouncing to begin with. Raimondo's tack here is to conclude his sound & fury with a squeaky-voiced, "No, no, you mean them, over there - not me and Pat over here!"

As always - once the Print Mockies like Frum & Krauthammer plant the seed, the heavy lifting (of repeating it over and over to a mass audience until it's perceived as "the truth") is turned over to Gentile Toadies like Limbaugh, O'Reilly & Hannity.

End result? Jew bastards uber alles!

Sometimes I get the feeling guys like Raimondo and Buchanan are kidding themselves. They daydream that an awakened (but racially egalitarian) American public will ride in like the cavalry at the last minute, and wrest the Old Republic back from the cliff's edge of WW3 and Open Borders, and all without a river of blood in the streets, or anybody saying any of the Really Bad Words like they use on VNN. As if years from now, they'll be looked on as patriots and saviours who can pride themselves on having sounded the alarm and preserved the republic, without ever descending to sullying their Good Intentions with Sordid Methods.

I got news for them: the Old Republic is dead. Done. Kaput. There are Mexicans in Walla Walla and Somalis in Lewiston, with more arriving daily, everywhere; we're at permanent war with whatever enemy a small cabal of men in Washington decides upon that day, while engaged in a coordinated, high-tech domestic spying operation on our own people; the Treasury's leaking money so fast it's all we can do to keep our tidal wave of illegal mestizos in vaccines and school lunches; and by Election Day 2004 the tax burden of the Caucasian-American will be so usurious that about the only clubs either party can and will use to quiet the rabble will be 'treason', 'racism', 'the task before us is not yet done', etc, garnished with the usual pink-and-white bunny-rabbit fairy tales about 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy'. Forget about states' rights or the right of free association; those battles were lost a half-century ago.

The last thing we need is "moderation", a la "Sure I disagree with Israeli policy but, my God, I'm not a racist nut like Sam Francis and his redneck followers!" because it plays into the Jews' hands. (Interesting how every ZioCon on Earth has rushed forward to lynch Trent Lott, and only two months after the Cynthia McKinney debacle drove a deep wedge in the Jew/black axis, eh?) No more CNN show or WND column for Buchanan if he steps past the line, after all.....well, someone had better.

We're going to have to do and say and become things that we might be ashamed of, in other, pleasanter circumstances....something we'd flattered ourselves into believing we would never lower ourselves into descending to. Because if we don't....today's white man, who can't say "Jew" without flinching, is destined to be tomorrow's Palestinian, watching brown men in body armor bulldozing his home while a hundred different media hairdos call him a "terrorist" who left the authorities "no choice".

It's no longer about "dignity", "decency", "Judeo-Christian values" or "good intentions". It's simply a struggle for a homeland, for food and resources, for security and community and mainly, for a future. And it's coming sooner than you think to YOUR neighborhood.

mwdallas

2002-12-23 21:20 | User Profile

It is an interesting tactic, though, sort of a "look who the real neo-conservatives are."

Just one more reason why "neoconservative" is the wrong word to use for the Podhoretzim. "Pseudoconservative" is much more apt.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-12-23 22:37 | User Profile

Very true, IR, Whites will be the next Palestinians. All the methods and parallels are in place for that outcome. As it says in my latest sig line, which I change when I'm in the mood:

Whites are told that they don't really exist as a people. Palestinians are told that they don't really exist as a people. See a pattern?

martel

2002-12-24 01:48 | User Profile

With Roger McGrath and Paul Gottfried going to American Renaissance confrences I don't think Sam Francis is so alone in his racial views as Raimondo would like to think. I haven't forgotten that November 2000 Antiwar article where he slandered Jared Taylor and company with every left wing slur he could get his hands on. Raimondo is very good on foreign policy questions but on domestic ones he's more often part of the problem rather than the solution.

oldrightlibertarian

2002-12-24 04:24 | User Profile

McGrath spoke about Reconquesta and Gottfried spoke on WASP guilt. While both of these issues may be of interest to white nationalists, they by no means make either of Gottfried or McGrath white nationalists. I don't think either of them have made explicitly racialist arguments, and gottfried has expressed differences with Taylor on race in America.

That isn't to say that white nationalism and paleoconservatives cross paths and have some connection, but they clearly aren't one in the same.

Howard Campbell, Jr.

2002-12-24 18:23 | User Profile

"Hatred of France is de rigeur in neo-con circles..."

Given the imbalance of our debts to Lafayette and to Boas, it's not difficult to see why...

Faust

2002-12-24 20:40 | User Profile

Now why does Justin Raimondo have to attack Sam Francis? And "American Renaissance" and James Lubinskas?

I fear I can not forget this article and what he said on Free Republic. He sound like Jonah Goldberg or David Frum Neocon! This is Frankfurt School stuff! Yuck!

Justin Raimondo sick Article:

"NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE"

Article: url: [url=http://128.121.216.19/justin/j120400.html]http://128.121.216.19/justin/j120400.html[/url]

FR thread: [url=http://www.amren.com/raimondo.htm]http://www.amren.com/raimondo.htm[/url]

Irmin Post:

109 Posted on 12/09/2000 13:36:17 PST by Irmin

Justin Raimondo's Post To: Irmin

110 Posted on 12/09/2000 15:12:16 PST by Justin Raimondo

Also see:

The Decline of National Review [url=http://www.amren.com/natlreview.htm]http://www.amren.com/natlreview.htm[/url]

Okiereddust

2002-12-24 23:53 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 23 2002, 21:20 > It is an interesting tactic, though, sort of a "look who the real neo-conservatives are."**

Just one more reason why "neoconservative" is the wrong word to use for the Podhoretzim. "Pseudoconservative" is much more apt.**

Speaking of the Pod, did you catch that little blurb of his chortling how neo's control cyberchat too?

These "blogs" have been leading the charge against Trent Lott and his appalling praise of segregationist 1948 presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. If Lott is forced to resign as Senate majority leader, which is devoutly to be wished, credit must go to the blogosphere.

[url=http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/51499.htm]The Internet's First Scalp[/url]

Faust

2002-12-25 05:39 | User Profile

Okiereddust,

The Internet's First Scalp :o
That is one of the sickist "Neocon" Articles I have ever read!

mwdallas is Right: Just one more reason why "neoconservative" is the wrong word to use for the Podhoretzim. "Pseudoconservative" is much more apt.

"Neocon" are Marxist that is all you can say.