← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 4307 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2003-01-04
2003-01-04 05:43 | User Profile
Take a Neocon Litmus Test by Gary North
In the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal (December 30, 2002), there appeared an article, "What the Heck Is a Neocon?" It was written by (I am not making this up) Max Boot. This is unquestionably the most unfortunate name in the history of the conservative movement.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ââ¬â for ever." ~ George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
"How much boot?" "Max!" You can see the man's problem.
Mr. Boot insists that the word "conservatism" applies to whatever Pat Buchanan isn't and whatever Charles Coughlin wasn't. (Coughlin was an anti-Semitic radio preacher in the 1930's, a defender of fiat money ââ¬â "greenbackism.")
Boot is very upset that he gets tagged with the identification, "neoconservative." Anyway, he says he is. That's his official reason for writing his article. I say, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. But why not take him at his word? He writes: "There's no 'neo' in my conservatism."
So why do I, and others of my ilk, get tagged as "neocons"? Some of the labelers have obvious ulterior motives. Patrick Buchanan, for one, claims that his views represent the true faith of the American right. He wants to drive the neocon infidels from the temple (or, more accurately, from the church). Unfortunately for Mr. Buchanan, his version of conservatism ââ¬â nativist, protectionist, isolationist ââ¬â attracts few followers, as evidenced by his poor showings in Republican presidential primaries and the scant influence of his inaptly named magazine, the American Conservative. Buchananism isn't American conservatism as we understand it today. It's paleoconservatism, a poisonous brew that was last popular when Father Charles Coughlin, not Rush Limbaugh, was the leading conservative broadcaster in America.
Mr. Boot says he grew up in the 1980's, "when conservatism was cool." He should have been there when it wasn't cool. He never found solace as well as ammunition by watching or listening to Dan Smoot, who was a strict constructionist of the Constitution, the first conservative to make it into syndicated television in the 1950's and 1960's, though usually on independent local TV channels. He probably has never heard of Smoot, whose book, The Invisible Government, sold a million copies in 1961. He never listened to Rev. James Fifield's broadcasts from the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles. He never subscribed to The Freeman when there was almost nothing else like it to subscribe to.
For Mr. Boot and his "ilk," as he calls them, political life began with Reagan, not Taft. For them, economic theory began with Laffer, not Hazlitt. He grew up believing that the government needs to lower marginal tax rates in order to maximize tax revenues. It never occurs to him and his "ilk" that what we need, all over the world, are tax cuts that drastically reduce government revenues.
Another thing: Mr. Boot grew up two decades after the 1965 immigration act. That law launched what may now be an irreversible transformation of the United States. It is working as expected by the Democrats who got it through the House and Senate in 1965. It is creating millions of immigrant voters and their children who vote overwhelmingly for the party that offers the most government money. The Southwest is steadily marching into the Democrats' tax-funded hip pocket. This process has only just begun. Differential birth rates will accelerate it. The immigration standards that prevailed before 1965, which the Right and the Left (especially the labor unions) accepted as normal in 1964, are dismissed by Mr. Boot and his "ilk" as "nativist." The dismissal of the past is hardly a conservative mindset. But it is a neoconservative mindset, as I hope to demonstrate.
But enough on domestic policy (for the moment). Anyway, that's what Mr. Boot recommends. But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning, even if its original raison d'être ââ¬â opposition to communism ââ¬â has disappeared. Pretty much all conservatives today agree on the need for a strong, vigorous foreign policy. There is no constituency for isolationism on the right, outside the Buchananite fever swamps. The question is how to define our interventionism.
FEVER SWAMPS Let's review briefly the history of the fever swamps. I date America's fever swamps with the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641), the second written constitution in American history, the first being the very brief Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts laid down the law: 7. No man shall be compelled to goe out of the limits of this plantation upon any offensive warres which this Comonwealth or any of our freinds or confederats shall volentarily undertake. But onely upon such vindictive and defensive warres in our owne behalfe or the behalfe of our freinds and confederats as shall be enterprized by the Counsell and consent of a Court generall, or by authority derived from the same.
It was this tradition in American history that George Washington invoked in his Farewell Address essay of 1796. I wrote the following For Lew Rockwell on December 28. It was published on December 31. In case Mr. Boot missed the original piece, let me offer some extracts.
In his now-famous "Farewell Address" of 1796, President George Washington expressed the following sentiments ââ¬â sentiments that are today considered wildly, flagrantly "politically incorrect" by virtually all Americans, except for a Remnant. Observe good faith & justice tow[ar]ds all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony with all ââ¬â Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence. . . .
In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. . . .
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great & powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. . . .
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause & confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
George Washington sent the handwritten copy of his now-famous Farewell Address to a Philadelphia newspaper, the American Daily Advertiser in the last full year of his Presidency. Philadelphia at that time was the nation's capital. The essay was published on September 19, 1796.
In his essay, President Washington defined what it means to be an American patriot. He also identified the characteristic features of "tools and dupes" who "usurp the applause & confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." It is not surprising that this essay is not assigned to students, even in graduate classes in early American history. Today, and for the last century, the tools and dupes have gained control of the federal government, the media, and the schools.
As the outgoing leader of what had become the Federalist Party, Washington also here articulated the sentiments of Jefferson's Democrats. This was the last year in which any President can truly be said to have represented the thinking of virtually all Americans. The penultimate draft of the essay was written by Alexander Hamilton, Washington's Secretary of the Treasury. Four and a half years later, Hamilton's political rival, Thomas Jefferson, delivered his first inaugural address in the nation's new capital, Washington, D.C. In it, he expressed these sentiments:
About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; . . .
Anyone who is looking for evidence of the annulment of "original intent" of the leaders of the Constitutional era need search no further. In politics primarily, and not in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the rejection of original intent is most blatant.
In foreign policy, above all, the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution has been negated ââ¬â politically, ideologically, philosophically, and especially emotionally. On this point, the Right and the Left, the Democrats and the Republicans, the conservatives and the interventionists all agree: The United States government has a both the right and a moral obligation to intervene in the national affairs of the world.
Today, upper-middle-class American conservatives cheer when the United States government sends the sons and daughters of the lower classes to die in foreign adventures. Then they complain about high taxes. They sacrifice other people's children to the Moloch State, but worry publicly about high marginal tax rates. Is it any wonder that their political opponents do not take them seriously, and their supposed political representatives regard them as permanent residents of their hip pockets: suitable for sitting on? All it takes to get conservatives to stop complaining about high taxes is another splendid little war, or better yet, a world war. This political strategy has worked every time since 1898: the Spanish-American War.
For the last century, the only people who have invoked the doctrine of original intent where it counts most, and where the Framers said it counts most ââ¬â in the life-and-death matters of foreign policy ââ¬â are members of the Remnant.
On December 28, I had never heard of Mr. Boot, but I surely was familiar with his "ilk." They are the spiritual heirs of the "tools and dupes" described so well by Washington over two centuries ago. They parade as patriots.
So, it is time for a litmus test. Apply it to yourself. See if you are a neocon. Then apply it to those who come in the name of the Republican Party to solicit your money, your votes, your allegiance, and above all, your intellectual subservience.
PART 1: DOMESTIC POLICY Each of the following Cabinet-level Departments has, on the whole, made America a better place to live, and should not be abolished: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Housing & Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
The Federal Reserve System has produced net benefits for the American economy, and it deserves its legal status as a privately owned monopoly over money and banking.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
Racial or religious discrimination in housing, dining, and other privately owned and privately funded sectors of the economy should be prohibited by federal law.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
All governments should lower their top marginal tax rates, but only by enough to increase their revenues.ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
Education vouchers are the best way to restore the public's faith in America's schools.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F Tax-funded education deserves our faith.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
Compulsory education is a Good Thing.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
To save the Social Security system, a portion of the reserves should be turned over to SEC-approved investment trusts.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
Social Security is worth saving.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F Michael King (a.k.a. Martin Luther King, Jr.) was both a good Christian and a scholar, and should not be judged on the content of his character (i.e., continual adultery).ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
John F. Kennedy was both a good Roman Catholic and a supply-sider, and should not be judged on the content of his character (i.e., continual adultery).ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
Robert A. Taft was a right-wing fanatic who fully deserved to be defeated by Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
PART 2: FOREIGN POLICY Having stayed out of all joint military treaties after the French Treaty of 1778 lapsed in 1802, the United States was wise in joining NATO, SEATO, and the other regional alliances after 1947.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
There are only two legitimate views of American Foreign policy: Theodore Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
The phrase "no entangling alliances" in fact means "more entangling alliances."ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
World War I was a just war for the United States.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
Woodrow Wilson was wise in abandoning neutrality and siding with England, even though he was re-elected in 1916 on the slogan, "He kept us out of war."ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
World War II was a just war for the United States.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
Franklin Roosevelt did the right thing in placing an oil embargo on Japan in 1941 and then not warning the commanders at Peal Harbor that the Japanese fleet was heading for Pearl in the first week of December, 1941. Had he not done this, Americans would not have been persuaded to go into Europe's war.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
The Korean War was a police action that did not require Congressional approval.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
The Vietnam War was a police action that did not require Congressional approval.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
The geographical United States is best defended by American troops that are stationed outside the geographical United States.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
The Central Intelligence Agency is a bulwark against foreign threats to the United States, and it deserves to be funded.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
The United States government should continue its formal relationships with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
The aircraft carrier is a more vital weapon for America's defense than the submarine.ÃÂ ÃÂ T ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ F
SCORE You get four points for each answer you identified as "F."
91-100: Patriot (as defined by George Washington)
81-90: Old Rightist (as defined by Robert A. Taft)
71-80: Fusionist (as defined by Frank Meyer)
61-70: New Rightist (as defined ââ¬â and more important, funded ââ¬â by Richard Viguerie)
51-60: Southern Partisan (as defined by George Wallace)
41-50: Conservative (as defined by Russell Kirk and F. A. Hayek, on why he wasn't one)
31-40: Buckleyite (pre-1970)
21-30: Good Old Boy (as defined by Strom Thurmond after 1970)
11-19: Neoconservative, Type A (as defined by Gertrude Himmelfarb)
5-10: Neoconservative, Type B (as defined by Himmelfarb's husband and son)
0-4: Republican National Committee
DAS BOOT Mr. Boot is representative of the new, improved conservatism of the post-Cold War era. Acknowledging that the Soviet Union collapsed, he recognizes that American foreign policy now has no military reason to remain internationalist. This has created a major problem for neocons: what to do with the American Empire, other than the unthinkable, i.e., bringing the troops home by Christmas ââ¬â any Christmas. So, he sets forth the two views of American foreign policy that have been offered to the voters since the election of 1912. We get to choose between only these.
[Theodore Roosevelt's] One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.
[Woodrow Wilson's] Many conservatives think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. They suggest that we need to promote our values, for the simple reason that liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East ââ¬â a massive undertaking, to be sure, but better than the unspeakable alternative. And if this requires occupying Iraq for an extended period, so be it; we did it with Germany, Japan and Italy, and we can do it again.
As for me and my house, give me Grover Cleveland.
CONCLUSION World War II settled whether the Big Moustache or the Little Moustache would control Eastern Europe. Big Moustache won. Producing that decision cost Americans 291,000 lives, 670,000 wounded, and the prospects of an unbalanced budget until the Second Coming.
The Cold War settled whether the Marxist internationalists or the fractional reserve banking/oil company internationalists would dominate the world. The latter visibly won in 1991.
The winners forgot about the Crescent Flag. That error in calculation ââ¬â an error above all of demographics ââ¬â will be with us for the next two centuries. The battle is being lost on the battlefield that counts most: the bedroom. Pat Buchanan assembled the figures and published them in The Death of the West. The neocons have yet to reply. That's because, on average, they and their constituents have fewer than 2.1 children ââ¬â the population replacement rate.
Furthermore, the Arabs have institutional memories longer than the Vatican's. In contrast, the neocons have little sense of history. They do not remember how short a time the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted: two centuries.
Mr. Boot tells us that he is not a neoconservative, yet his two foreign policy options are those offered by the neocons. They are the same two general approaches that have been offered for nine decades by American
Progressivism, a movement that was (and remains) Darwinist and statist to the core. As card-carrying Progressives, the neocons have adopted
Progressivism's expansionist, interventionist foreign policy. Their special twist has been their focus on the Middle East as their primary theater of operations. This focus began with Harry Truman's decision in May, 1948, to recognize the State of Israel , to the consternation of the foreign policy establishment, which was WASP to the core. The establishment's incarnation in 1948 was George C. Marshall, who was then Secretary of State. Marshall threatened to resign if Truman recognized the State of Israel, but he wimped out when Truman ignored him and did what Truman's former business partner recommended. The entire foreign policy Establishment also capitulated. The neocons, who had been mostly Democrats before they became dominant as advisors of Bush-Clinton-Bush, have extended Truman's Middle East policies.
The collapse of the Soviet Union has allowed them to move the primary theater of operations from Europe to the Middle East.
In the name of good, old-fashioned Republican conservativism (1985 vintage), Mr. Boot promotes the neocons' agenda. It is obvious to those of us who are in the tradition of the Old Right, which culminated politically in the candidacy of Robert A. Taft, that Buchanan is correct: the neocons are the brains behind Mr. Boot's variety of conservatism, as surely as Perle and Wolfowitz are the brains behind George W. Bush's foreign policy.
Until the neocons call on the President or his surrogate in the State of Israel to launch the one military tactic that might reverse this war ââ¬â a nuclear bomb dropped on Medina and another on Mecca ââ¬â they are just fooling around with our money and our lives. They are offering halfway-house options. Nuclear bombs on the supreme emblems of Islam might work, or they might not, but this is sure: nothing less than this will, if the battle is perceived by Western politicians and their advisors as essentially a matter of foreign policy and armaments, which they do today. But this battle is deeply religious, and the primary determinants of victory are three-fold: (1) commitment to a creed that confidently invokes supernatural power; (2) the will to recruit and disciple common people in terms of this creed; (3) the willingness to conquer through procreation. The neocons are losing this war in all three areas.
For those of us who are opposed to pre-emptive war, especially pre-emptive nuclear war, the neocons appear to us as (1) high IQ fools with very short memories, or (2) nuclear war-mongers who have not yet laid their fall-back option on the table for discussion. If it's a question of the Fever Swamps or The Big One (twice), I'll stick with the Fever Swamps. January 3, 2003
Gary North is the author of Mises on Money. Visit [url=http://www.freebooks.com]http://www.freebooks.com[/url]. For a free subscription to Gary North's twice-weekly economics newsletter, click here. Copyright é 2003 LewRockwell.com Gary North Archives ààààààà[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north151.html]http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north151.html[/url] à=================================
I scored a 99. -S ÃÂ ÃÂ
2003-01-04 13:12 | User Profile
2003-01-14 19:52 | User Profile
The wording of this test 'prejudiced' things ever so slightly....
A more central point: I am little troubled by the attempt to make isolationist views conservative-orthodoxy. Things have changed a little since Washington's day--the enemy has the ICBM.
2003-01-16 18:20 | User Profile
This one has to be the pretzl that choked Bush:
(sober judgment of Gary North, after kicking around "Max Boot" for not kicking around neocons enough....) (talkin' mean economics, here)
"Many conservatives think....we need to liberalize the Middle East"
The spasm would ensue from 1. realization of this truth; 2. realization that it is self-nullifying -- nobody, and no segment, however historically unconstructed and split-off from reality, can get by encouraging others to be exactly as they claim they are not -- it is self-contradictory, therefor self-nullifying as a possible future; 3. his administration's, and himself having been absolutely, categorically pre-committed to this precise self-contradiction, as basis of foreign policy.
It worked out to a narrowly averted bloodbath situation between Pakistan and India over Kashmir recently. The fool Bush's intransigence required both to act maximally tough, "you are with us or against us" world-postutring, one thinking it was America's ally by opposing its internal fanatical religious right wing conservative Remnant (Pak), the othe thinking it was being American by promoting its fanatical religious right wing conservative Remnant (India). Its, like, exporting US schizophrenia, and explecting to profit off sale of computers as porno delivery system to budding Middle East youth, before the catch on to the utter depravity. american values, huh.
Note little "a" -- those who think Hamilton was the father of this country, and don't understand that George Washington was a Freemason, back when that meant no Catholics or Jews owned property or voted, most places. These are your neocon forebears, if you want to get spiritual about it -- leaving out details like the liquor trade and off-shore financial empires -- and many Southern Confederate White Nativists do. You don't need a test to tell 'em. The item on vouchers marked "F" is enough: you get 100% for that along, scratching the obligatory smear of the public school system. They know who they are. So won't anybody else who has eyes to see and ears to hear. They think to usurp our American heritage. Why can't Gary North mention Israel, and the Jews, abortion (coded falsely to "values" -- a high level civilization has sanitary provision for abortions; its a mark of its maturity, not a testimony to its depravity)?
No, this domestic scene doesn't turn on economic questions from the olds rust belt industrial politics. When William Casey and Oliver North hooked up in early '80's with Wotjlka, whatever, to hustle Lech Walesa's genune Solidarity dock worker's confrontation with communism in Poland; then taught the muhajadeen how to jihad their youth to kill Soviets, arming them with weapons to do so -- both betrayed -- these created the de facto situation leading to the blow- back, today, from religious wars started abroad by un-American interests. Neither this North, nor the other, seem able to deal with that, or with those in El Salvador and Nicaragua during the '80's slaughtered by Reagan's backers, for wanting economic democracy. To impose US corporate fascism -- don't forget the computer sales -- with the Pope's blessing. If that is what G. North means by saying the war over domestic politics began with foreign policy, I agree; why doesn't he say? Cat gets their tongue when Vietnam comes up.
2003-01-17 12:35 | User Profile
Dark Eddy,
I think the test is pretty accurate myself.
A more central point: I am little troubled by the attempt to make isolationist views conservative-orthodoxy.
I`m not. It is the failure of so many Americans to understand history and what the Founding Fathers wrote which is why America is in the mess that it is today.
Things have changed a little since Washington's day--the enemy has the ICBM.
Washingtons words are just as valid today as they were when he penned them. Since the beginning of the 20th Century this country has been in a decline in a spiritual, historical, and cultural sense. The Materialism that is hyped today isnt what makes a country great, having a great history and culture does. A nation that doesnt have that or in the case of America, has a dedicated minority determine to deracinate us doesnt have a future.
Oh, no, since our "leaders" decided that they just had to interfer in WW I, we have seen our liberties reduced and our burdens increased. I frankly have no desire to police the rest of the world in the name of "free trade," "capitalism," "democracy," and when resisted to have to shove it down othersthroats for the benefit of Zionist Neo-cons and the multinational corporations that couldnt care less about this country as long as they can make a profit. We keep screwing around like this it will in time come back to bit us in the backside in an even worse way than what has already occurred over the past years. Indeed, I think it already has, with the present crop on nitwits, opportunists, and downright evil people we have as "leaders" today.
As for the ICBMs that Red China has I say that it is due to in no small way to some of multinationals who went out there and sold them the technology to make them to begin with. That technology that costs the rest of us billions in finding a way to offset the damage done by these criminals. The U.S. needs to pursue a policy of armed neutrality instead of worrying about Hussein, who is more of a potential threat to the parasitic state of Israel than anyone else.
BTW, I see that this is post 1946-- the same year as we got saddled with the wonderful UN, one of the many benefits from our involvement in WW II.
2003-01-17 21:05 | User Profile
You think this test is accurate? I managed to score an 84--making me an 'Old Rightist'--because I disagree with statements such as, 'Tax-funded education deserves our faith,' (our 'faith'?), 'Michael King (a.k.a. Martin Luther King, Jr.) was both a good Christian and a scholar' (who really believes that?), 'The geographical United States is best defended by American troops that are stationed outside the geographical United States' (it's better to have some stationed domestically as well), 'There are only two legitimate views of American Foreign policy: Theodore Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's' (again, who believes this--neocon cartoon characters), etc.
No, Washington was thinking of a situation where we had two oceans between us and our enemies. At a time when Russia, China, and (perhaps) N. Korea have nuclear ICBM's, where Iraq and N. Korea have nuclear ICBM programs, and where defeat of Soviets was made possible only through pacts with Europe and Japan--we need plenty of entangling alliances.
2003-01-17 21:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 15:05 ** At a time when Russia, China, and (perhaps) N. Korea have nuclear ICBM's, where Iraq and N. Korea have nuclear ICBM programs, and where defeat of Soviets was made possible only through pacts with Europe and Japan--we need plenty of entangling alliances. **
Bunk.
Although they have recently begun to show signs of disease with their vote to join the UN, Switzerland managed quite well, even through the Cold War, without any entangling alliances. And that's Switzerland, whose access to natural resources pales in comparison to our own.
Like Sert said, armed neutrality. That's the true conservative way.
Don't tread on me.
2003-01-17 21:25 | User Profile
Switerland simply relied upon NATO and the desire of the USSR not to upset world opinion. They were small enough to be parasites. This is not an option available to the US.
2003-01-17 21:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 15:25 ** This is not an option available to the US. **
Oh! Ok.
Parasitic Swiss...give me a break.
:wacko:
2003-01-17 22:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 15:05 ** No, Washington was thinking of a situation where we had two oceans between us and our enemies. At a time when Russia, China, and (perhaps) N. Korea have nuclear ICBM's, where Iraq and N. Korea have nuclear ICBM programs, and where defeat of Soviets was made possible only through pacts with Europe and Japan--we need plenty of entangling alliances. **
Iraq is not making ICBM's. They can't even hit Tel Aviv with any kind of power now. And as for North Korea, the people directly involved--Japan and South Korea--believe they can handle it themselves and want us to leave. I agree.
Your arguments had validity during the cold war, but there's no good reason for us to stick our nose abroad anymore. The only thing we got to worry about are the Atlantic and the Pacific and the Southwest border. Everybody else can go to hell for all I care. That includes Israel, Palestine, India, Russia and every other point in between. They want to trade, well, we'll see, but they don't need our money and they sure as hell don't need our boys.
Best, P
2003-01-17 22:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 17 2003, 15:31 ** > Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 15:25 ** This is not an option available to the US. **
Oh! Ok.
Parasitic Swiss...give me a break.
:wacko: **
Actually, the Swiss were unoffical members of NATO. Convoys'd cross from Italy to Germany all the time when I was there in '89. They're acting as one large bomb also did us plenty of good. They were certainly better than a lot other countries in Europe who let their defense capabilities erode due to their reliance on us. Those countries were parasitical, and they still are.
Best, P
2003-01-17 22:15 | User Profile
No matter how you look at it, the Swiss didn't truly go it alone.
2003-01-17 22:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 16:15 ** No matter how you look at it, the Swiss didn't truly go it alone. **
Yes, but we have different options than the Swiss. We can go it alone.
Best, P
2003-01-17 22:59 | User Profile
--Although we have more opportunities for 'going it alone' than the Swiss did, there is still the question of whether it is a particularly good idea.
--The debate over Iraq comes down to the question of whether the Iraqi's would develop nuclear weapons capable of hitting Europe if not attacked. If they can, a 'capabilities,' realist approach requires that we attack them. If they aren't capable of developing these weapons, then war with Iraq is a neocon fraud.
I think the Iraqis could develop nuclear weapons capable of hitting Europe in the coming decades if not attacked. I think that they would certainly try. Thus, I say, invade.
Others have different views on Iraqi abilities here. In the end, it's an intelligence question (the MI5, CIA kind). Unless one actually works for the CIA or MI5, there is little way of settling the dispute.
2003-01-17 23:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 16:59 ** I think the Iraqis could develop nuclear weapons capable of hitting Europe in the coming decades if not attacked. I think that they would certainly try. Thus, I say, invade. **
I don't care if the Iraqis can or cannot attack Europe. It ain't my problem. It's the Europeans' problem, and they don't seem all to ate up about us taking care of it for them. There's no reason not to let them deal with it on their own. They more than enough capability to deal with it. France alone has a considerable nuclear arsenal. It's certainly not worth us taking on our very Gaza-Strip-on-the-Euphrates.
Best, P
2003-01-17 23:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 16:59 ** The debate over Iraq comes down to the question of whether the Iraqi's would develop nuclear weapons capable of hitting Europe if not attacked. **
Let me add another point here. You complain about declining white birthrates. Our foreign policy in Europe is part of the cause of that problem. We supply defense for the Europeans who take the savings and invest it in expensive retirement programs. Without needing to provide young men for defense or to take care of the elderly, Europeans don't feel the need to produce kids. Now you and I know that in the long run this is suicide, but the average person doesn't think that abstractly. He sees kids as being either a nuiscance or a luxury, not a necessity.
In the end, our "help" winds up debilitating the countries it supposed to support. Israel's aid sure doesn't do us any good; it costs a lot and unduly antagonizes the Arab world. Yet it also hurts Israel in the long run because it blinds them to their real situation in the region, not to mention the fact that it subsidizes their socialist economy. Again, look at their birthrates: down, down, down, down. If they don't get out of the West Bank soon, they're going to lose Israel altogether.
Now look at Taiwan. They don't get squat in aid from us, and they don't even have our official recognition. They pay for all their weapons and all their government programs on their own. As a result they have a strong economy and strong enough defense to discourage a Chinese attack. They're not living in an illusion. Ironically, it's "isolationism" that can provide for better security by making the countries involved stand up on their own.
Best, P
2003-01-18 00:17 | User Profile
Eddy,
You think this test is accurate? I managed to score an 84--making me an 'Old Rightist'--because I disagree with statements such as, 'Tax-funded education deserves...
It was accurate for me. Now, you I cant say for I dont know enough about your beliefs except that your views on foreign affairs are those of the Neo-cons.
At one time we did need these alliances due to our previous meddling. I regarded the Soviet Union as a real threat. That was then and I believe that you are making a mistake that alot of others are making. In short, the Cold War is over. I have no desire for a collection of Israeli Firsters in league with the multinationals to start another one. If people wish to fight over something there are plenty of enemies right here in American. There is a homegrown "axis of evil" right here built around publications like the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and of course, the Weekly Standard. I`d rather deal with them and the globalist ideology they represent and their screwed up domestic views such as open borders than some nonsense like Hussein is going to attack us.
**No, Washington was thinking of a situation where we had two oceans between us and our enemies. At a time when Russia, China, and (perhaps) N. Korea have nuclear ICBM's, where Iraq and N. Korea have nuclear ICBM programs, and where defeat of Soviets was made possible only through pacts with Europe and Japan--we need plenty of entangling alliances. **
Once again, the Cold War is over.
Entangling alliances nor troops scattered all over the globe arent going to help one iota if someone decides to [u]nuke the U.S.[/u] Right now I dont see that happening from Iraq or Iran. If anyone were to try that it might be Kim Jong Il, and I even doubt that. The South Koreans themselves want us to leave and that suits me just fine. They are strong enough to stand on their own two feet and that includes Japan as well. The mission has been accomplished, time to bring the boys home- from everywhere.
2003-01-18 02:57 | User Profile
Gary North is the REAL DEAL.
Dig it: He has worked as a senior strategist/staffer to Ron Paul (in his first stint in Congress, prior to running for the Presidency as a Libertarian), and he got that job through the late Congressman Larry McDonald (John Birch Society president, assassinated in 1983 aboard Korean Airlines flight 007).
Mr. North is one of the most astute and learned scholars of a return to a hard-money standard (he's written enough on the subject to fill 4 books), and now writes exclusively for LewRockwell.com.
This is where the rubber meets da road. e.g., Are you (speaking generally) a "conservative"?, or are you a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist? Can't serve two masters.
2003-01-18 04:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Jan 18 2003, 02:57 ** Gary North is the REAL DEAL.
Dig it: He has worked as a senior strategist/staffer to Ron Paul (in his first stint in Congress, prior to running for the Presidency as a Libertarian), and he got that job through the late Congressman Larry McDonald (John Birch Society president, assassinated in 1983 aboard Korean Airlines flight 007).
Mr. North is one of the most astute and learned scholars of a return to a hard-money standard (he's written enough on the subject to fill 4 books), and now writes exclusively for LewRockwell.com.
This is where the rubber meets da road. e.g., Are you (speaking generally) a "conservative"?, or are you a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist? Can't serve two masters. **
Incidentally, Gary North is also a Calvinist reconstructionist, who wrote a trenchant critique of contemporary Protestantism "Backward's Christian Soldiers".
I don't get into all of the minutia here, like the obscure stuff about the Federal Reserve, as being litmus tests in their execution, although their tendency is undoubtedly questionable.
2003-01-18 05:42 | User Profile
Clearly, the 'test' has a bit of rhetorical edge to it that one either find very 'right-on,' and potentially amusing... or, like me, just interpret it as rather sad hick sensibility.
Alliances can help us forclose the possibility that a state would use nuclear weapons against the US. During the Cold War, for example, the foreward stationing of nuclear arsensals added to our deterent force against the USSR. Today, alliances give us forward staging areas and allied troops to mount operations against nations with nuclear programs we wish to terminate through non-strategic forces.
Also, alliances counter foreign aggression that might require a nuclear response. For example, our alliance with Japan counters the possibility of Chinese aggression against Japan that might require a nuclear response.
As far as bringing all the troops home goes--that is certainly a reasonable position. However, I don't think it will save us all that much money in the end, nor do I think it is a very wise idea until Iraq and N. Korea are neutered. After that, it may be a better idea, but harldy something to get too worked up about (a la Buchanan). There are far important issues today than whether we keep an Infantry Division in Germany or Texas.
Finally, I would note that while my views on foreign policy are not wholly divergent from neocons, I don't share a neocon interest in empire-building, spreading democracy through force, or maintence of law and order simply everywhere around the globe. And unlike many neocons, I support the emerge of Europe a military power that is on a par with the US and able to handle alliance responsibilities.
2003-01-18 05:52 | User Profile
P,
Short of nuking Iraq themselves, the Europeans are certainly not up to the task of stopping Saddam from developing nukes. It is true that I am taking up a rather paternalist stance toward Europe, since, with the exception of the UK, they are clueless about the Middle East and its potential dangers to them, but we do have an alliance and we have to accept that they have grown dependent on us. We need to ween them from our military support, but this will take time. Moreover, as a good white nationalist, I want to protect Europe even if it means American force has to be used in conflict with their 'better' judgment.
As far as Tawain goes--what are you talking about? The Chinese can take it at any time, assuming the US does not intervene. We give Tawain military aid because this allows them to be able to fend off the Chinese for long enough to allow meaningful US intervention. We have never ruled out intervention in a PRC-Tawain conflict.
Finally, I don't think Europe's low birth rate has much to do with not feeling the need for soldiers due to US support. I agree that, in a roundabout way, it has something to do with things. But other factors, such as feeling guilty about colonialism, the Holocaust, and being plagued by the same anti-white and feminists ideologies that the US is, are more to blame. And of course there is all the welfare, which disrupt normal family life. In any case, getting white births up wont do much for the white population if Europe also gets nuked, and a French retalitory strike againt Iraq wont help here--only pre-emptive action matters here. And I am afraid that only the US is up to such at the moment. Sad, but true.
2003-01-18 20:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 23:52 **P,
Short of nuking Iraq themselves, the Europeans are certainly not up to the task of stopping Saddam from developing nukes. It is true that I am taking up a rather paternalist stance toward Europe, since, with the exception of the UK, they are clueless about the Middle East and its potential dangers to them, but we do have an alliance and we have to accept that they have grown dependent on us. We need to ween them from our military support, but this will take time. Moreover, as a good white nationalist, I want to protect Europe even if it means American force has to be used in conflict with their 'better' judgment.**
If the French, the British and the Germans won't build themselves up, then what is that to us? They can certainly defend themselves against an Iraqi (snort) invasion, and as for Hussein having nukes, they can deter it just as well as we can.
Moreover, as a good white nationalist, I want to protect Europe even if it means American force has to be used in conflict with their 'better' judgment.
Well, as American nationalist, I find your glib disposal of American lives abhorrent.
As far as Tawain goes--what are you talking about? The Chinese can take it at any time, assuming the US does not intervene. We give Tawain military aid because this allows them to be able to fend off the Chinese for long enough to allow meaningful US intervention. We have never ruled out intervention in a PRC-Tawain conflict.
Invading Taiwan would require a D-Day sized landing. China doesn't have the navy to pull this off, and her air power would have trouble with Taiwan's more advanced air force. Eventually, China could re-take the island, but Taiwan has made it so that the costs of such an operation far outweigh the benefits, and Beijing knows it.
Finally, I don't think Europe's low birth rate has much to do with not feeling the need for soldiers due to US support. I agree that, in a roundabout way, it has something to do with things. But other factors, such as feeling guilty about colonialism, the Holocaust, and being plagued by the same anti-white and feminists ideologies that the US is, are more to blame. And of course there is all the welfare, which disrupt normal family life.
I didn't say it was the sole reason, but it is a factor.
In any case, getting white births up wont do much for the white population if Europe also gets nuked, and a French retalitory strike againt Iraq wont help here--only pre-emptive action matters here. And I am afraid that only the US is up to such at the moment. Sad, but true.
This is absurd. Hussein doesn't have the slightest interest in striking Europe. He's certainly not suicidal.
Best, P
2003-01-18 20:15 | User Profile
P.,
Our differences apparently boil down to conflicting estimation of China's military power, a 'let's try to psychoanalyze Saddam' (you) v. a capabilities view (moi), and America-first nationalist v. real white nationalism.
2003-01-18 22:12 | User Profile
Polichinello is correct on this.
At this time Red China has the sealift to move only one infantry division. As for air assault capability they may have at the most the ability to drop in one division. Given time and the help of "American businessmen," I have no doubt that in the next few years they will gain the capability.
As far as Iraq goes, I couldn`t care less if they get the bomb or not.
2003-01-20 21:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 14:15 ** P.,
Our differences apparently boil down to conflicting estimation of China's military power, a 'let's try to psychoanalyze Saddam' (you) v. a capabilities view (moi), and America-first nationalist v. real white nationalism. **
Your capabilities view is based on maybe-he-does-maybe-he-doesn't kind of take that can be applied to practically every Muslim country, especially Egypt, which has lately talked about getting its own deterrent. It has no value. On the other hand, there is a value in asking why you think Hussein would attack Europe, his main base of international support. Further, the only involvement he's had lately in European affairs was during the Kosovo crisis, where he backed the Serbs, not the Albanians as one would expect under your scenario.
Before you start waving sabres at other countries, you should ask yourself if you really want to occupy them? I'll tell you, it won't end up the way you want. It'll just increase the demographic crisis. It's no coincidence that Britain has Pakistani immigrants and France Algerians.
Best, P
2003-01-20 21:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sertorius@Jan 18 2003, 16:12 ** Taiwan has businessmen much like our multinationals. They are over there building plants, buying products, making Red China more of a threat than it could be on it own, much like U.S. businesmen did with the U.S.S.R; so now I would question going to their defense. **
This is true, S. Let me insert one quick "on the other hand...", though. Both Taiwanese and Chinese see one another as the two Koreas and the two former Germanies saw one another. Eventually, some kind of reunion, some time down the road, will happen. The big difference here is that the Communist country is the larger partner in this instance, which makes for a bit of a different dynamic. By building up links to the mainland, Taiwan hopes to make itself more valuable to the Chinese as it is instead of the other option, a costly invasion that will in effect kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. As the Chinese are notoriously risk-averse, the strategy makes some degree of sense.
There's no excuse for the American companies, though.
Best, P
2003-01-20 22:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 20 2003, 15:25 ** > Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 14:15 ** P.,
Our differences apparently boil down to conflicting estimation of China's military power, a 'let's try to psychoanalyze Saddam' (you) v. a capabilities view (moi), and America-first nationalist v. real white nationalism. **
Your capabilities view is based on maybe-he-does-maybe-he-doesn't kind of take that can be applied to practically every Muslim country, especially Egypt, which has lately talked about getting its own deterrent. It has no value. On the other hand, there is a value in asking why you think Hussein would attack Europe, his main base of international support. Further, the only involvement he's had lately in European affairs was during the Kosovo crisis, where he backed the Serbs, not the Albanians as one would expect under your scenario.
Before you start waving sabres at other countries, you should ask yourself if you really want to occupy them? I'll tell you, it won't end up the way you want. It'll just increase the demographic crisis. It's no coincidence that Britain has Pakistani immigrants and France Algerians.
Best, P **
We have documented proof of Iraq's attempts to gain nuclear weapons. The level of activity documented places Iraq in a different category than other Muslim nations in the Middle East.
The capabilities view I was proposing was not what you suggest. My claim was that Iraq will develop nuclear weapons if not stopped. My further claim is that we cannot allow Iraq to have nuclear weapons, because this would give him capabilities we cannot allow Iraq to have.
If you want to dispute that the claim that Iraq will develop nuclear weapons down the road if not attacked, fine. But it is something else to claim that one ought to not worry about Iraqi's having nuclear weapons because we can judge his personality!
This is the kind of disregard of the capabilities approach liberal Democrats and liked to bandy about during the Cold War. I don't think anyone on the right could sincerely argue this. I suspect you simply want to oppose whatever the Israelis and the neoconservative Jewish establishment want. Since what we say here isn't going to effect whether we go to war or not, I suppose there might be something to such an approach. But there are too many white Gentiles who have good reasons for supporting the war, and who are symapthetic to white nationalist ideals, for me to engange in these kinds of tactics. We need to make immigration and demographics the issue, not war in Iraq. Immigration, demographics, and anti-white racism will be issues long after the war is over.
2003-01-20 23:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 20 2003, 16:04 ** > Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 20 2003, 15:25 ** > Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 14:15 ** P.,
Our differences apparently boil down to conflicting estimation of China's military power, a 'let's try to psychoanalyze Saddam' (you) v. a capabilities view (moi), and America-first nationalist v. real white nationalism. **
Your capabilities view is based on maybe-he-does-maybe-he-doesn't kind of take that can be applied to practically every Muslim country, especially Egypt, which has lately talked about getting its own deterrent. It has no value. On the other hand, there is a value in asking why you think Hussein would attack Europe, his main base of international support. Further, the only involvement he's had lately in European affairs was during the Kosovo crisis, where he backed the Serbs, not the Albanians as one would expect under your scenario.
Before you start waving sabres at other countries, you should ask yourself if you really want to occupy them? I'll tell you, it won't end up the way you want. It'll just increase the demographic crisis. It's no coincidence that Britain has Pakistani immigrants and France Algerians.
Best, P **
We have documented proof of Iraq's attempts to gain nuclear weapons. The level of activity documented places Iraq in a different category than other Muslim nations in the Middle East.
**
We have documentation on every country in the region trying to get nukes. With Israel in control of a nuclear arsenal, it's surprising that more don't. Good Lord, Pakistan already has them and Iran is further down the road than Iraq. Egypt could do it in a few years if she put her mind to it.
The capabilities view I was proposing was not what you suggest. My claim was that Iraq will develop nuclear weapons if not stopped. My further claim is that we cannot allow Iraq to have nuclear weapons, because this would give him capabilities we cannot allow Iraq to have.
Such as what? The ability to blow up Amman? Not my problem. Even if he could hit Europe (something decades down the road, by which time Father Time will have long rid of us Hussein), the answer would be the same. By the time he could ever develop such a capability, Europe could have their own response and deterrence in place. They really already do. If France or Brittain wanted to take out Hussein, they could. They don't have any problem roaming about Senegal or the Ivory Coast right now.
If you want to dispute that the claim that Iraq will develop nuclear weapons down the road if not attacked, fine. But it is something else to claim that one ought to not worry about Iraqi's having nuclear weapons because we can judge his personality!
But you've already admitted that at worst he'd threaten Europe. So what? That's Europe's problem.
At any rate, we can certainly judge his track record. We do it all the time, otherwise we'd have to invade just about every country on the planet since many of them have the capability to build nukes if they so desired. Saddam Hussein is driven solely by self-interest. He has no interest in attacking Europe. You don't have a wishy-washy liberal to see that.
This is the kind of disregard of the capabilities approach liberal Democrats and liked to bandy about during the Cold War. I don't think anyone on the right could sincerely argue this. I suspect you simply want to oppose whatever the Israelis and the neoconservative Jewish establishment want.
The problem is you're ignoring our capabilities. Yes, we could sieze Iraq, but could we hold it? Could we stand having our own Gaza Strip? The pictures of Americans firing on kids? I very much doubt it. Now tack on to this all the other occupations and peacekeeping we're engaged in, along with future contigencies that other countries like N. Korea might kick up. In addition, you must factor in the increase in terrorism likely to be created by our invasion of a Muslim country: it in itself will be a huge recruitment boost to al-Qaeda. These costs start adding up, and they will reach a breaking point.
Invading Iraq for the sake of some highly theoretical capability you've conjured up (nuking Europe) is simply bad policy from a practical standpoint. Even on theoretical grounds, it fails. Europe is Europe's problem, and they can take care of themselves. If they won't, then that's their problem, not ours.
Best, P
2003-01-21 06:47 | User Profile
"Sick hick sensibility," thats about it, alright. About as "conservative" as David Howititz' "American Under Seige .."America's enemies within..." he starts out, referring to those protesting Bush's war.
Jewish fellow, isn't he? I notice "darkeddy" checking in over there at his site, and here, defining what John Birchers, I suppose, are -- right wing Jew conservatives.
Love Sharon, love vouchers, love bucks for Vatican-blessed soup lines, love Scalia's GOP-GOD weltschmertz, love war, love eating Bush, love Muhammed and Malvo (won the neocon re-pubics the '02 election, no problem), love that limelight...love Lott's arse exposed, just like they love each other. The Brotherhood of Trent. ... MY God! never thougfht there could be such fine, self-hating goobers. No wonder the South lost. Lee and Forresgt couldn't do everything (Gump was named to belittle Bedford, played by t. hicks)
What you are -- most members of this thread, which was started for your benefit, so you could discover who and what you are on it ....
is... not white (except maybe skin color0
not Southern Protestant
not American Conservative
not human
just
maggots
You can wipe me and every American right off the board with one swipe, TD. I'll just come back on somewhere else.
The final solution will have three parts: 1. mass executions for co-coinspirators; 2. Mass deportations to British Guiana; 3. Imprisonment in GItmo cages, offer of suicide pills each day.