← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 6321 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2003-04-25
2003-04-25 15:11 | User Profile
[color=blue]VDARE seems to be an OD bone of contention. Some feel its very mildness is its strength - a Paleo/WN Gateway Drug. Others sit there and smoke bowl after bowl and never seem to catch a buzz. Nothing illustrates the latter pov like this Guzzardi article.
Guzzardi does a good job in laying out the damning numbers. Follow the money and you follow the govt's priorities. Yet - after the yeoman work done by Raimondo & the Euro press in bringing the Israeli/art student/AMDOCS connection to 9/11 to light...despite equally-yeoman efforts by the American media to re-bury them.... the whole tone of the piece skews to evil Arabs acting alone with no other foreknowledge on any government or govt agency's part! In other words, he'd be happy to see a public hearing that merely buttressed the VDARE immigration position (granted, that would be something, at least)...but he's seized by temporary amnesia of the fact that our immigration disaster is overwhelmingly a blue-corn-and-salsa Mexican dish, and that the vital questions re 9/11 extend far beyond who-overstayed-their-visa.
The punctuation mark on my VDARE misgivings here have to be his repeated fanboy blathering over Michelle Malkin. And this is my overall problem with Brimelow's site: note that this could have been an excellent piece - if Guzzardi merely took the funding data he starts the piece citing, and logically extrapolates from there. But in holding to the VDARE Ethos of the Pulled Punch, he maintains the kind of appearance's-sake respectability that will get VDARE a thumbs-up on FRONT PAGE & REASON ONLINE by skewing his premise towards deliberately-misleading...but safe...conclusions. [/color]
[url=http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/back_pedaling.htm]http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/back_pedaling.htm[/url]
Why Is Bush Back-Pedaling On 9/11 Commission? By Joe Guzzardi
In his April 11th remarks at the Army and Navy Medical Centers in Bethesda, Maryland, a glowing George W. Bush said, ââ¬ÅThe Iraqi theater was a part of the war on terror, and we continue to fight the war on terror.ââ¬Â
What he meant is that he is willing to do the easy thing ââ¬â comparatively - by conquering Iraq. That is a political no-brainer. Trounce the enemy, make countless patriotic speeches and watch your popularity soar.
But deal with our wide-open borders, our flawed legal immigration system, and our crazy visa scamsââ¬âno way! Thatââ¬â¢s tough, ugly business. (See Bill Gertzââ¬â¢s recent Washington Times story ââ¬ÅTerrorists said to seek entry to U.S. via Mexicoââ¬Â which reported that 14 Al Qaeda terrorist tried to enter the U.S. through Mexico.)
If you think Iââ¬â¢m exaggerating, then explain Bushââ¬â¢s tepid endorsement of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the U.S.
White House support for the Commission has been luke-warm from the beginning. Perhaps hoping that the Commission would just push papers around, Bush first appointed the fossilized Henry Kissinger to head the investigation.
But disgusted victim family members booted Kissinger, tight with Saudi Arabia, out before he got in.
Then money became the issue. When it looked like Congress was going to pull the funding plug on the Commission after the $3 million start-up money was spent, even the New York Times wrote a critical editorial titled ââ¬ÅUndercutting the 9/11 Inquiry.ââ¬Â
After a week of haggling, Congress finally came through with an additional $11 million. But prying minds want to know why the shuttle disaster (seven deaths opposed to 3,000) has a $40 million budget - or why $30 million was wasted on the Whitewater inquiry (no fatalities).
Figuring out why Bush wants the Commission to disappear is easy. The Commission will certainly findââ¬âand we hope widely reportââ¬âthe same things that Michelle Malkin, Dr. Steven Camarota and Mindy Kleinberg already know: that the U.S. heeded no warning about the consequences of letting anyone into America for any reason at any time.
And the Commission will doubtlessly conclude, as have Malkin, Camorata and Kleinberg, that nothing much has been done since 9/11 to make America safe from future terrorist attacks.
VDARE.COM.com readers know Malkin and her best-seller, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores.
And many of you know the in-depth research reports by Dr. Camorata of the Center for Immigration Studies. On terrorism and 9/11 read his ââ¬ÅHow Have Terrorists Entered the U.S.?ââ¬Â (Full report, Op-ed based on the full report.)
But Mindy Kleinbergââ¬â¢s name may be new to you. Kleinberg, who testified during the first day of National Commission hearings, lost her husband at the World Trade Center.
Kleinberg asked: ââ¬ÅWhere was our government, its agencies, its institutions prior to and on the morning of 9/11?ââ¬Â
She comes up with interesting answers.
While naming the usual suspects - the I.N.S., the State Department and overseas consular officesââ¬âKleinberg adds new villains.
Where was the Securities and Exchange Commission? The S.E.C. monitors the domestic and overseas security markets for irregularities that might tip-off criminal activity. Yet it didnââ¬â¢t catch the largest dollar volume of put options purchased on United and American Airlines at the Chicago Board Options Exchange.
A week before 9/11, someone gambled that the value of United and American shares would drop dramatically. The $5 million in profit from those trades is still unclaimed and the names of the investors still undisclosed.
Where were the FAA and NORAD? According to the FAA and Department of Defense manuals, the FAA is to notify NORAD immediately in emergency situations. NORAD then scrambles fighter jets to intercept errant planes. But NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes after AA Flight 11 out of Boston had become non-responsive to ground control. And the fighter jets were not deployed until 32 minutes after loss of contact.
Directly relevant to VDARE.COM, Kleinberg concluded her testimony by pulling out copies of U.S. visa application forms filled out by the terrorists with incomplete or evasive answers, (Q: Destination? A: Hotel).
At the end of the two days of hearings, one of the Commissioners, former White House Counsel Fred Fielding said, ââ¬ÅYour stories are very compelling. Please stay with us. Please keep giving us guidance.ââ¬Â
I spoke to several family members who attended the hearings. Most came away with the sense that the Commission would like to do the right thing.
But some feel that Bush may not share the Commissionââ¬â¢s enthusiasm for the unvarnished truth.
Said Peter Gadiel of the Coalition for a Secure Driver's License and 9/11 Families For A Secure America:
ââ¬ÅAs a lifelong Republican I can only say that George Bush's fervent attempts to block the legislation that created the commission and now his attempt to starve it of funds give the strong impression of a man afraid of what an effective commission would disclose.
ââ¬ÅWith Bush's truly incredible refusal to make any effort to bring realistic forces to the country's border with Mexico for the purpose of reducing the flow of illegal immigrants, terrorists and drugs, how can you conclude that he is serious about making America safe?ââ¬Â
Concluded Gadiel:
ââ¬ÅBush may be riding high now but he could wind up back in Texas sooner than he thinks. If he believes that the 9/11 families are going to settle for a cover-up, then he is nuts. If we come to believe that he has betrayed us, and we start going around the country in 2004 and send out the message that the Commission's cover-up is Bush's cover-up, he is finished.ââ¬Â
2003-04-25 16:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 25 2003, 15:11 [color=blue] In other words, he'd be happy to see a public hearing that merely buttressed the VDARE immigration position (granted, that would be something, at least)...but he's seized by temporary amnesia of the fact that our immigration disaster is overwhelmingly a blue-corn-and-salsa Mexican dish, and that the vital questions re 9/11 extend far **beyond who-overstayed-their-visa.
The punctuation mark on my VDARE misgivings here have to be his repeated fanboy blathering over Michelle Malkin. [/color]
**
I disagree with you that "our immigration disaster is overwhelmingly a blue-corn-and-salsa Mexican dish". It goes far beyond Mexicans, and the writer is certainly right in that regards.
The word "Malkin" appears only twice in the article, and somewhat understandably IMO, considering she has actually written a best seller with mass appeal and reach, unlike what we do.
I think you and the other Vdare/Malkin bashers are being just a touch picky. If you don't like Malkin, maybe you'd be better off writing your own best seller.
2003-04-25 17:00 | User Profile
**If you don't like Malkin, maybe you'd be better off writing your own best seller. **
That's certainly an option, but who would publish it? I mean, you could take Malkin's book, verbatim, slap a white guy's name and face on it and suddenly, an expose' of our current immigration mess by a brave immigrant becomes vile, hateful, xenophobic trash by a Nazi and a (heavily implied) pedophile.
2003-04-25 17:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Apr 25 2003, 17:00 ** That's certainly an option, but who would publish it? **
My whole point. Publishers occasionally see the virtues of reach as opposed to perfect ideologically purity. Re: Malkin on Vdare.
2003-04-25 17:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 25 2003, 11:44 **It goes far beyond Mexicans, and the writer is certainly right in that regards. **
It may well go further than Mexicans and Central Americans, but man oh man, Texas and OK must truly be worlds apart. We're quite literally being overrun down here and the Alamo's fixin' to fall again for the second time.
Arabs, Iranians, Vietcongs, Chicoms, Pakis and Hindus -- Yes, they are a problem and should be dealt with, but that PALES in comparison to the waves and waves of Mexicans and Central Americans that are invading our homeland every day. All this crap about them being hard-working, quiet family people is just that, crap. We're already starting to see signs of them recognizing their numerical strength and beginning to murmur political threats and demands. I just heard two days ago that the county I live in north of Houston is the 20th fastest growing county in the nation. Ft.Bend County to the southwest of H-town is the 15th fastest growing county in the nation!
There's only one reason for those facts and that is Houston is being flooded with Mexicans and Central Americans and whites are fleeing by the thousands seeking refuge in the suburbs.
And I don't like Malkin, either.
2003-04-25 17:26 | User Profile
**My whole point. Publishers occasionally see the virtues of reach as opposed to perfect ideologically purity. Re: Malkin on Vdare. **
Yup. Anything but AMDOCS on VDARE. Even in an op-ed on the 9/11 "investigation".
**If you don't like Malkin, maybe you'd be better off writing your own best seller. **
But since you do, perhaps you'd be better off sneaking back onto FR under your 117th alias so you can hang out with all the other Michelle Malkin fans.
2003-04-25 18:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Apr 25 2003, 17:20 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 25 2003, 11:44 It goes far beyond Mexicans, and the writer is certainly right in that regards.ÃÂ **
It may well go further than Mexicans and Central Americans, but man oh man, Texas and OK must truly be worlds apart. We're quite literally being overrun down here and the Alamo's fixin' to fall again for the second time.
Arabs, Iranians, Vietcongs, Chicoms, Pakis and Hindus -- Yes, they are a problem and should be dealt with, but that PALES in comparison to the waves and waves of Mexicans and Central Americans that are invading our homeland every day. **
Well as your tourist advertisements used to say, Texas is a whole 'nother country.
Texan's and some other southwesterners do tend to have a different perspective on immigration issues, seeing it as a mainly Mexican affair, but elsewhere in the country to the north and east its quite different. For instance when Bush put through his immigration pandering amnesty bill it was targeted only at Mexicans, but immigrationist politicians elsewhere quickly expanded it to the other nationalities, realizing there's far more to pander to than just Mexicans or even Latin-Americans in general.
**We're already starting to see signs of them recognizing their numerical strength and beginning to murmur political threats and demands. **
Actually I've been reading about that happening in Texas for at least 25 years.
In south Texas it may seem like mainly a wetback problem, but remember statistics show that over half of those who become illegal aliens come here originally legally, on tourist, student, or temp worker visa's. This goes quite beyond the pure wetback problem.
2003-04-25 18:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 25 2003, 17:26 ** But since you do, perhaps you'd be better off sneaking back onto FR under your 117th alias so you can hang out with all the other Michelle Malkin fans. **
:lol:
2003-04-25 21:54 | User Profile
VDARE is kiddie fun-at-the-beach time:
"Look, Buffy! Moondoggie is playing frizbee!"
"Gee, Biff, you're right! Look at him go!"
"Jews? What Jews? We like Asian women who don't mention Jews!"
"Yes, Buffy, we do! And look, we are out of bean dip!"
[Both: "awwwww.."]
[sigh]
2003-04-25 22:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Apr 25 2003, 21:42 > The word "Malkin" appears only twice in the article, and somewhat understandably IMO, considering she has actually written a best seller with mass appeal and reach, unlike what we do.
I think you and the other Vdare/Malkin bashers are being just a touch picky. If you don't like Malkin, maybe you'd be better off writing your own best seller. **
I have to disagree with you on Malkin. Sometimes no visible support is better than "partial" support on a single issue, particularly when that partial support is merely the sleight-of-hand used to advance an under the table agenda. Michelle Malkin acts as a neoconservative stalking horse, on the surface making common cause with paleoconservatives on the immigration restriction issue.
Her real agenda, in fact, is to lure would be dissenting Americans away from paleoconservatism or racialism by conceding on a single issue while demanding that they tow the party line on foreign policy and on other matters of domestic policy. It should also be noted that the bulk of her "restrictionism" is directed towards Arabs and Muslims, thereby using restrictionism as a launchpad to advance neocon Mideast warmongering and the whole "Arab bogey man" concept. Malkin's restrictionism is about as sincere and deep as David Horowitz's "concessions" to the AmRen crowd on the slavery 'repamarations' issue last year, before he threw off that mask and became a more aboveboard and hardcore neocon.
Malkin will do VDARE and the "National Question" crowd more damage than good by essentially coopting the issue and neutering what might be an incipient racialist (or at least ethnocultural) movement by moving it in the direction of an interpretation consistent with neoconservatism. The fact that VDARE not only runs her column but cites here drivel as "authoritative" tells us just how far the coopting has already advanced.**
Well I admit I have not gotten deeply involved in the Michelle Malkin issue to fully justify in my own mind why the great distrust you have for her is justified, to the extent of damning an article just because she is cited in passing. Overall though I think its important that as conservatives that we recognize that what you say is > her real agenda in fact, to lure would be dissenting Americans away from paleoconservatism or racialism by conceding on a single issue while demanding that they tow the party line on foreign policy and on other matters of domestic policy is of course one that is pretty much the traditional drift of post war conservative Republican thought in this country, and it is in fact superficially at least the most attractive policy to the vast majority of conservatives in this country. Dogmatically demanding someone be immediately excommunicated from paleocon dominated publications because they do not support newly emerging paleocon positions demanding support for dicators like Hussein, Milosovich, Kim Jong, or Castro or oppose trade restrictions, etc. is not the way to positively impress large numbers of existing conservatives. Of course some people view the importance of size and political success differently - some people I suppose will be perfectly happy with a movement that remains small enough to comfortably fit inside a broom closet.
Now there may be merit to these suspicions and dislike about Malkin and reason to be suspicious of her motives frm the standpoint of paleoconservatism. But especially for a site like Vdare, which really is more of a strictly immigration restrictionist site than a broad paleoconservative sight, and includes other moderate writers like Scott McConnell, I can understand it might seem logical in view of their stated sight mission to continue to work with Michelle Malkin. It might not make it a CoCCC or Amren site, but I'm not sure exactly why it needs to be that precise type of site to do good. At least unless you can articulate your reasons for suspicions and the need for ideological purity better to the broader conservative movement, most people will not understand it this way.
2003-04-26 00:23 | User Profile
The only way a white male could get a book like Malkin's published would be to make sure the material is as semitically correct as hers, and to make sure he's married to a jew, like she is. It's that simple. She's a front. A non-white griping about a problem that's starting to bother whites a lot. Okiereddust should look at her stand on legal immigration. She wants it as is. That means it favors Mexicans, Filipinos, Jews, Africans etc. Whites are at the bottom of the list. She's nothing but feel good b.s. wrapped in what the power structure feels is a non-threatening package.
2003-04-26 07:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Apr 26 2003, 03:14 ** Too many rightwingers, including some in our camp, regard Malkin as some kind of heroine for speaking out against illegal immigration. I don't see what the fuss is all about, considering that even Jonah Goldberg and most other neos concede that illegal immigrants should be deported. The only difference is that Malkin mouths this statement reassuringly more often than her counterparts, who keep quiet even on the matter of illegals unless pinned down on the subject.
When I see her speak out against LEGAL colored immigration into this country (apart from Arabs, which are an easy and politically correct target) I might be impressed and concede that she belongs on VDARE. Otherwise, she would be better off running her column at NRO or FrontPageMagazine. **
Regarding my being too soft on Mrs. Malkin, how weird it is that so many paleo's who whine at VDARE for having Mrs. Malkin on its fairly modest website are the same ones who are all for if not actually marching with open borders, anti-white, globalist Communists to show their Rage Against the Bush/Jewish Machine they chatter about?
Good show, guys - once these more idiot antiwar paleos start laying truth on them about real racial equality, sovereignty, and justice, they'll be flushed out of the clique and hacked to pieces
The point is people climb all over Vdare for keeping the pro-war pro-legal imigration Malkin, but they think nothing of themselves citing with approval doctrinaire open borders people/leftists like Chomsky, etc., when it suits their agenda's. I really don't see how the hard-paleo's have the right to rag over other people like Vdare for their lack of consistency when they're gushing with enthuisiam over people going to march in communist anti-war rallies.
2003-04-26 08:33 | User Profile
*Okie said:
I really don't see how the hard-paleo's have the right to rag over other people like Vdare for their lack of consistency when they're gushing with enthuisiam over people going to march in communist anti-war rallies.*
This is exactly what I mean when I say that paleos [and rightists in general] confuse "racial" with "political." Anti-war [anti-Jewish-war] rallies are good for Whites RACIALLY. Whether they are good for Whites POLITICALLY is beside the point.
Okie needs to abandon Republican bean-bag tossing in the park and begin thinking racially, if'n ya ask me -- a dumb knuckle-dragging caveman. Been there, done that, gone home.
2003-04-26 08:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 26 2003, 02:08 **Regarding my being too soft on Mrs. Malkin, how weird it is that so many paleo's who whine at VDARE for having Mrs. Malkin on its fairly modest website are the same ones who are all for if not actually marching with open borders, anti-white, globalist Communists to show their Rage Against the Bush/Jewish Machine they chatter about?
Good show, guys - once these more idiot antiwar paleos start laying truth on them about real racial equality, sovereignty, and justice, they'll be flushed out of the clique and hacked to pieces
The point is people climb all over Vdare for keeping the pro-war pro-legal imigration Malkin, but they think nothing of themselves citing with approval doctrinaire open borders people/leftists like Chomsky, etc., when it suits their agenda's. I really don't see how the hard-paleo's have the right to rag over other people like Vdare for their lack of consistency when they're gushing with enthuisiam over people going to march in communist anti-war rallies.**
I don't think any of the hard paleos here are 'gushing with enthusiasm' about joining ranks with anti-war commies. Discussing the feasibility of such, sure, but with marked caution and foreknowledge of consequences. I can't speak for others here, but I don't relish joining hands with anybody in the "Free Mumia" crowd, ever.
But let's look at the hard reality. Immigration is slow-drip suicide, but war is immediate death. In other words, war forces, or should force, everyone to put their cards on the table immediately. I'm not hard on Malkin because of the immigration issue. What put me off was VDARE's front-page featuring of her jingoistic pro-war diatribes and then pulling a cowardly Pontius Pilate "we take no position on the war" stance. I say, "yes you did by running the article." VDARE's position of no position on the war was just bush-league.
If you're going to proclaim your site as strictly immigration oriented, fine, more power to you. But don't go and give your front-page to mealy-mouth neo-con diatribes on other issues like the Iraqi war. Simply run articles from Malkin that deal with immigration and don't run the others. I've received numerous articles from contributors that I haven't ran because they don't deal with what I consider paleo-con philosophy and that's what I want presented on the main page. With few exceptions, the contributors understand that and go about their business, no hard feelings. That's my position as the site owner and administrator and I'll stick to that position. The articles I run are carefully selected by me and reflect the position and focus of the entire site. Integrity does not allow for me to proclaim this as a site for paleos and then feature an article on say, the joys of the New Age movement, and then turn around and say I don't have a position on New Ageism. That's just bush.
But the bottom line to this argument as I see it comes right down to the Israel issue. In my years following conservatism, and granted they are fewer than many here, I've never witnessed such a polarizing issue that served to delineate the various camps of the greater Right. Like it or not, it's the bellweather issue of the day, post 9/11. With the gross foreign influence and subversion of our government and media by AIPAC and other Jewish lobbyists and dual-loyalists, coupled with the very real life and death result of that influence, the Iraq invasion, it's just not enough to proclaim one 'takes no position.' Not if you don't want to be marginalized and considered a joke in and about the movement.
So all in all I don't fault Malkin for doing what she is doing. I believe it is quite obvious that she is merely a shill for the neo-con subversion, but after all, she is only one of many. I take issue with VDARE for featuring her pro-war articles and then taking a coward's way out of 'no-position.'
Further, it's easy for those on the sidelines to scoff and point fingers when they're not in the game mixing it up with their integrity on the line. Yes, 9/11 did change our world and it forever changed American conservatism. The question is, is one a traditional conservative standing firm on the true conservative values of anti-intervention, limited constitutional government, firm borders and states' rights, to name a few, or do you throw your hat in the ring with the neos and mainstream GOP of open borders, foreign interventionism, exporting democracy, totalitarian Patriot Acts and sycophantic monetary and military support of a foreign country like Israel?
For myself, I'll stand faithful in the true and noble cause of traditional/paleo-conservatism and if a life and death issue like war presents itself as it just did, the immediacy of that consequential issue demands that I try and find common cause ON THAT ISSUE wherever I can find it. We can go back to fighting our traditional enemies afterwards. It may not be fun and pretty, but its real politics in the big leagues.
2003-04-26 10:31 | User Profile
**....how weird it is that so many paleo's who whine at VDARE for having Mrs. Malkin on its fairly modest website are the same ones who are all for if not actually marching with open borders, anti-white, globalist Communists to show their Rage Against the Bush/Jewish Machine they chatter about? **
No weirder than the FR counter-demonstrators crying crocodile tears about how opposing the war is actually practicing racism against Arabs, while holding up placards that might as well be emblazoned with "Consume & Obey" over the eye-in-pyramid insignia of The Office of Information Awareness or whatever overnight-Orwellian watchdog-agency they're selling us this week.
**Good show, guys - once these more idiot antiwar paleos start laying truth on them about real racial equality, sovereignty, and justice, they'll be flushed out of the clique and hacked to pieces... **
Then log on to FR, by all means, and explain all about 'real racial equality' to the assembled faithful (who know better than to fall for that antiwar okeydoke). That way, you'll have your own tale of woe to post at the Biker Bar the day after you're banned.
2003-04-26 22:18 | User Profile
**I also have to agree with TD that the question of war and the US-Israel connection can hardly be regarded as peripheral. **
That's my entire point. Guzzardi's article is titled "Why Is Bush Back-Pedaling On 9/11 Commission?". Then he narrows his locus of outrage only to concerns already deemed appropriate by the neos. The idea that a truly independent commission, with real teeth, might lead us to our purported friends as well as our nominal enemies is never raised. Instead, he focuses on the incompetence of the INS, our insane immigration policies and one tantalizing dangled sidebar re the question that nobody yet has answered to my satisfaction: 'where in blazes were the F-16s?'
What jumps out at me is if there was a realistic shot the Bush Admin could've opened & closed the investigation with a handful of pension-vested agency heads forced to walk the plank, he would have funded the commission out the wazoo and timed his photo-ops & soundbites to coincide with the hearings. Given the corrupt and byzantine network of cynical alliances we've cultivated...with every player on the Middle East gameboard....they obviously couldn't allow any serious public investigation of 9/11.
But Guzzardi knows that. He reads the out-of-town papers. He just pretends it's all news to him for the purposes of this piece and - I'm sorry, Okie - the Malkin references cinch it for me. Here's a standalone paragraph:
"VDARE.COM.com readers know Malkin and her best-seller, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores."
That's not a sentence, it's a house ad... and a fawning one. If he was simply citing something specific Malkin had pointed out germane to his topic, there would be no need to write out the entire longwinded title of the book, when most folks get by just fine with a simple INVASION. Why he left out the "New York Times #1" that always precedes "bestseller", however, is a mystery.
I have my own little paranoid theory: that overtures are being made from the Neocon Right towards VDARE at around the time Brimelow would be mulling ideas to take VDARE to a wider and more 'mainstream' audience anyway.....and he may be listening. Horowitz flirted with this sort of thing with AmRen and backed off almost immediately, but he might be game for another try. He certainly doesn't mind trucking with outfits that identify as white, so long as it's sotto-voce and hands-off on Jews. We shall see.
2003-04-26 22:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Apr 26 2003, 19:53 **This all depends on how you prioritize your enemies. I regard "honest leftists" as opponents, while I consider the neocons and Clintonites to be my enemies. The latter two groups are fully entrenched in power and represent a far greater threat: an enemy from within with the power to actually call the shots. Since both the we and the Old Left have a revolutionary goal, that of overthrowing the existing elite and their power structure, by default we are more their "allies" than we are allies of the establishment apparatchiks who mouth a few conservative-sounding platitudes. Ask yourself this question: who do you consider to be a more destructive influence in America - Ralph Nader or William Kristol? I know where I stand.....That is why I would rather find myself in the political company of Noam Chomsky than Michelle Malkin.
......To remain "neutral," or "silent" on this question is obviously impossible, so Brimelow dishonestly plays both sides by running Sam Francis's piece on "Likudniks" one week followed by a double dose of Malkin's warmongering on behalf of those very same Likudniks! It's a tactic as dishonest as it is cowardly.**
I really don't see exactly how presenting both sides out of a desire to go to far beyond your original objectives - i.e. addressing immigration and "the national question" is automatically "dishonest and cowardly". You seem to be following into the authoritarian mindset of personally attacking anyone who does not agree with you on all points.
Also indicative of authoritarianism and extremism is your stance Chomsky over Kristol and Nader over Bush. It is rather transparently obvious that Buchanan would find it impossible to govern democratically if his opposition were made up of Greenies (even though the argument could be made it would be almost as hard governing with an opposition of mainstream liberals, moderates, and neocons).
Just want to let you know where you are placing yourself, and no whining about the Schwartz's of the world talking about antiwar-paleo's favoring a "Red-Brown" alliance.
2003-04-26 23:03 | User Profile
It is rather transparently obvious that Buchanan would find it impossible to govern democratically if his opposition were made up of Greenies (even though the argument could be made it would be almost as hard governing with an opposition of mainstream liberals, moderates, and neocons).
Buchanan might find it easier to work with the Greenies--there are certain themes that the Greenies are receptive to that the moderates and neocons are not.
For example, the moderates and neocons are big "free traders." The Greenies rightfully despise multinational corporations and would certainly end NAFTA and GATT. They also want to end "corporate personhood," and that's not such a bad idea. Kiss China-Mart, I mean Wal-Mart, goodbye! :D
Another area that we can "work" with the Greenies on would be the immigration issue. The Greenies are concerned about overpopulation and environmental destruction, and if framed in these terms, are more likely to support an end to immigration, since immigration exacerbates the problem of overpopulation et al. The CofCC's Virginia Abernethy has argued against immigration from this angle, and many in the ecology-crowd are receptive to these ideas.
Finally, the Greenies are very anti-war, obviously, since that's what we've been talking about here, so they'd support Pat Buchanan's non-interventionist foreign policy as well.
Three issues so far that we can persuade the Greenies on: trade, foreign policy, and immigration--and I consider those issues to be top priority for this country, since the two major parties are in lock-step in their error and silence on these issues.
Also, I believe Buchanan once called this a "Left-Right Coalition," which sounds better PR-wise than a "Red-Brown" coalition, although I realize even some of the Red-Browns call themselves that.
2003-04-26 23:15 | User Profile
Schwartz's of the world talking about antiwar-paleo's favoring a "Red-Brown" alliance.
I've come to notice that the neocons like to criticize paleos for "teaming up" with "Islamists" and "ecoterrorists" because they're afraid that such an alliance might actually work, and might actually displace the neocons from power.
Neocons can criticize paleos for who they build coalitions with, but keep in mind that the neocons think it's perfectly OK for them (and the RNC) to "reach out" to the gays, the Latino vote, the Blacks, and the like, trying to out-Democrat the Democrats.
The neocons were hoping that the paleos were as "insular" and "unwilling to work with others" as they claimed in their anti-paleo propaganda. The neocons have been proven wrong now that they've seen the paleo ability to "improvise" and "think outside the box," hence, they've started up the propaganda about "Satanism" coming to a town near you.
2003-04-26 23:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 26 2003, 23:03 For example, the moderates and neocons are big "free traders." The Greenies rightfully despise multinational corporations and would certainly end NAFTA and GATT. They also want to end "corporate personhood," and that's not such a bad idea. Kiss China-Mart, I mean Wal-Mart, goodbye! :D
They may despise multinational corporations like we do. However it's for different reasons. We despise them because they're multinational. They despise them because they're view them as white imperialists, and because they hate private property.
Another area that we can "work" with the Greenies on would be the immigration issue. The Greenies are concerned about overpopulation and environmental destruction, and if framed in these terms, are more likely to support an end to immigration, since immigration exacerbates the problem of overpopulation et al. The CofCC's Virginia Abernethy has argued against immigration from this angle, and many in the ecology-crowd are receptive to these ideas.
Many such as who? Certainly not organizations or people like the Sierra club, which continues to defeat every effort to raise immigration as an issue.
Note in particular the Sierra club breaksdown on immigration substantialy along left/right lines. The left "greenie" types are most hostile to immigration reform.
Leftist environmentalism after all ideologically is basically postmodernist, i.e, doctrinairely anti-western and anti-national.
**Finally, the Greenies are very anti-war, obviously, since that's what we've been talking about here, so they'd support Pat Buchanan's non-interventionist foreign policy as well. **
Even here, I don't see the convergence beyond superficialities. Buchananites oppose wars because they think they aren't in American interests, greenies oppose wars cause they think they are in American interests.
Three issues so far that we can persuade the Greenies on: trade, foreign policy, and immigration--and I consider those issues to be top priority for this country, since the two major parties are in lock-step in their error and silence on these issues.
Don't see anything substantive beyond irrational wishing. I'm surprised to see such attitudes here from people who seem in the past to have been more level-headed.
2003-04-27 00:01 | User Profile
Okie,
It might be superficial in some ways, but I'm not sure if that's a problem. I'm approaching this from the perspective that "a vote is a vote." The voter may have a different rationale for voting for the same candidate or policy than I do, but at least we both are satisfied that we got the policy change made. For example, I voted for Buchanan because I agreed with him. Suppose there's another voter out there who also voted for Buchanan because she just likes the way his name is spelled on the ballot. I may think her reason for voting Buchanan is foolish, but I'm not really going to complain, since her vote helps bring about my goals.
Leftist environmentalism after all ideologically is basically postmodernist, i.e, doctrinairely anti-western and anti-national.
You're correct that the Left is by no means united as a monolith on these issues. However, there is a growing willingness on the Left to consider "national" over "globalist" alternatives to the status quo. For example, their rhetoric remains pie-in-the-sky about a "united humanity," but they are considering concrete policy proposals that have the effect of bolstering national sovereignty--they advocate something called "delinking"--getting nations out of the IMF and World Bank, and toward more locally-based economies.
As far as their postmodernism, there are ways to "finesse" that connection with the Left too, by pointing out that postmodernists are skeptical of uniform, top-down "grand projects," and I'd say the New World Order qualifies as such a project to be skeptical of.
2003-04-27 00:24 | User Profile
**When Brimelow drops Sam Francis's column (Francis being the only VDARE writer to attack the neocons and their war) to make room for Robert Savage or Don Feder (other neocons who talk about illegal immigration), you'll know that VDARE has followed the lead of Townhall, FreeRepublic, and the whole bloody conservative (bowel) movement. **
AY, I dunno if you meant this half-facetiously or not, but that is exactly my feeling. Francis was a vital part of VDARE's launch & early years, due to his cachet & credibility with the Hard/Old Right. His presence on the masthead guaranteed them a certain bedrock readership. (And isn't it something how every opportunistsic "rising star" of the Right, no matter their later disdain for we benighted 'haters', starts out courting & catering to us? Even Horowitz began his long march to Karl Rove's speed-dial list via a steady flow of black-crime and anti-entitlement op-eds designed to flatter and appeal to whites frustrated by the omnipotence of the Propasphere - i.e., Hating Whitey)
But if Brimelow plans to take VDARE uptown, where 'paleoconservative' means 'troglodyte', Francis' relative staying of the original course becomes problematic.......maybe even dealbreaker-problematic. It's ironic but typical of the modern Right that His Canniness, one of the more genteel and reasonable thinkers in paleoconservatism, might become the canary in the VDARE coalmine, and all for the crime of remaining the same writer Brimelow hired in the first place.
2003-04-27 00:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 27 2003, 00:01 **Okie,
It might be superficial in some ways, but I'm not sure if that's a problem. I'm approaching this from the perspective that "a vote is a vote." The voter may have a different rationale for voting for the same candidate or policy than I do, but at least we both are satisfied that we got the policy change made. For example, I voted for Buchanan because I agreed with him. Suppose there's another voter out there who also voted for Buchanan because she just likes the way his name is spelled on the ballot. I may think her reason for voting Buchanan is foolish, but I'm not really going to complain, since her vote helps bring about my goals.**
What policy change did she bring about? You seem to have a very condescending view toward democracy - not really consistent it seems to me with making such a big deal of vote getting. What difference do meaningless or inconsequential votes really make?
> Leftist environmentalism after all ideologically is basically postmodernist, i.e, doctrinairely anti-western and anti-national.**
You're correct that the Left is by no means united as a monolith on these issues. However, there is a growing willingness on the Left to consider "national" over "globalist" alternatives to the status quo. For example, their rhetoric remains pie-in-the-sky about a "united humanity," but they are considering concrete policy proposals that have the effect of bolstering national sovereignty--they advocate something called "delinking"--getting nations out of the IMF and World Bank, and toward more locally-based economies.**
Do you have link substantatively supporting this notion? I'm a little skeptical.
As far as their postmodernism, there are ways to "finesse" that connection with the Left too, by pointing out that postmodernists are skeptical of uniform, top-down "grand projects," and I'd say the New World Order qualifies as such a project to be skeptical of.
Sounds like the talk I heard about using deconstructivism back on the multicultural left. Sounds like more "driving out the devil with beelzebub" type speculation to me offhand.
It makes me curious how all this talk of wild coalitions on this forum exists side by side with utter paranio about the likes of innocent little Michelle Malkin.
2003-04-27 01:23 | User Profile
What policy change did she bring about? You seem to have a very condescending view toward democracy - not really consistent it seems to me with making such a big deal of vote getting. What difference do meaningless or inconsequential votes really make?
Perhaps I used a bad example. What I meant to say was that the rationale of the Left for supporting a certain policy may be quite different from my own, but if they are willing to support the same policy goal as I am, such as repealing NAFTA, then that's common ground to work with--it gets me an anti-NAFTA vote. I'm being pragmatic. The Left can have any lunatic reason it wants for ending "free trade," it doesn't matter if the Left's reason behind it is that aliens aboard a UFO told them to do it, as long as they support the specific policy goal in question. Their dumb reasons for wanting to end free trade do not cancel out my good reasons, and the end result is still the same: NAFTA is repealed.
Do you have link substantatively supporting this notion? I'm a little skeptical.
One interesting link I found is to [url=http://www.library.arizona.edu/ej/jpe/volume_8/701Skidmore.html]a review in the Journal of Political Ecology[/url] of a book called, Naming the Enemy: Anti-Corporate Movements Confront Globalization, by Amory Starr, London: Zed Books (2000). Starr is a Leftist academic who advocates "delinking," and she even finds common cause with "right-wing nationalists." The review of the book that I'll be quoting from below is written by someone who disagrees with Starr's point of view, but manages to treat Starr with some degree of fairness.
Here are the passages I found most relevant (and the bolded areas are my emphases):
"Relocalization" or "delinking" would reverse the process of globalization, instead centering market activities and political authority in the hands of local communities, each free to chart their own distinctive course. From a third mode standpoint, the principle problems of modern life concern issues of scale. Large-scale, centralized structures of economic and political power, including big corporations, nation-states and international organizations, all serve to render authority more distant from the control of average people and communities. The most important challenge, from a third mode perspective, is to wrest power away from large, impersonal and bureaucratic institutions and relocate decision-making at the level of local communities, which operate on a human (and humane) scale of social organization.
The heroes of Starr's book are those movements that have demonstrated uncompromising attitudes toward the corporate order, such as hackers ("Hacking can be heroic" (p. 76)), anarchists and Zapatistas. In contrast with most leftist commentators, Starr also embraces religious nationalist groups, such as the Christian/Patriot movement in the United States** about which she states:
The movement has a number of legitimate political and political economic concerns about local economics and politics. Like religious nationalism elsewhere, the Christian/Patriot movement has racist elements, and, like movements elsewhere, panicked accusations of racism are being used to delegitimize core concerns and proposals, which are democracy, populism and the rights of locality (pp. 141-142).
Religious nationalists, whether right wing Christian fundamentalists in the United States or militant Islamic movements elsewhere in the world, should be viewed as potential allies or converts because they share with the left a suspicion and active resistance to pro-capitalist states, corporations and international organizations. Starr notes, for instance, that the Freemen and the militia movements in the United States hold "conspiracy theories" that "differ little from left-wing analyses, emphasizing the Trilateral Commission, the New World Order and GATT" (p. 142).3
In general, Starr shows a clear preference for third mode movements over those associated with either of the first two modes.**
This brings us to the heart of Starr's argument - her advocacy on behalf of third mode movements. Starr's uncompromising attitude toward contemporary states and corporations, her critique of "globalization from below," her defense of religious nationalism - all of these become comprehensible once we understand the values and assumptions underpinning her own preferred alternative future.
While corporate globalization is the ostensible bogeyman of Starr's story, the real villain is modernization itself. Among the prominent features of modern life that Starr denounces are science and technology ["scientists are nearly always wrong about the things that matter" (p. 127)], the green revolution, bureaucracy, the contemporary state, liberal democracy, economic growth ["Growth as a definition of development has failed utterly" (p. 14)], urbanism and consumption. In many places in the book, Starr identifies with a pre-modern vision of locally self-sufficient village-level communalism. Her intellectual and moral roots lie in the 19th century romantic tradition and in anarchist intellectual currents of the same period. For Starr, "delinking" and "relocalization" are necessary starting points for recreating imagined utopias that draw upon rural, pre-industrial traditions. Starr stresses the importance of conceiving political economy in terms of some sort of "moral order" (pp. 145, 190), which is one reason that she defends religious nationalist movements and rejects critiques that associate rural village life with parochialism and intolerance. Her neo-traditionalist vision reflects a longing for the return of human-scale communities in a world that is all too centralized, rationalized, bureaucratized and dehumanized.
It's worth noting that the Left is by no means in agreement with Starr--some say her "romantic" ideas are unworkable, while others disagree with her because she's willing to work with "regressive" forces on the Right.
Starr, from the Left, is willing to work with us, and she's taking heat from her Leftist colleagues because of it. Paleos need to meet people like Starr halfway--Starr has a platform--she is writing books, teaching students, and she therefore has influence.
Most Leftists harbor negative stereotypes about we right-wingers. Most Leftists think that we're too "closed-minded" to read Starr's book and open a dialogue to work with the Left. If we take Starr up on her offer in the public realm with our writings and so on, then we can help ensure that Starr's "paleo-friendly" version of the Left wins out over Starr's Leftist opponents who are likely Jewish internationalists. Buchanan's TAC has done a good job of this, putting in Mailer's article and running that piece about the shoddy way animals are being treated by the pork companies.