← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust

Thread 8843

Thread ID: 8843 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-08-07

Wayback Archive

Okiereddust [OP]

2003-08-07 16:34 | User Profile

(Note - I'm sure you will detect a slight note of ingratiation toward establishment positions, but overall the message is clear as to the direction of this country's "conservative establishment") - Okiereddust

NeoCons - Or Vichy Cons?

John Zmirak writes: This talk was given in Washington, D.C. on July 9 to an America’s Future Foundation symposium on “What the Heck is Neoconservatism?” My fellow-participants were The American Conservative editor Scott McConnell; American Enterprise Associate Editor Eli Lehrer; Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review. The event drew almost 100 mostly young conservatives, evenly divided between men and women, full of enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity. Most of them seemed quite unacquainted with arguments for immigration control or other populist/traditionalist perspectives—but excited to learn about them.

Scott McConnell’s talk contrasted the quite reasonable principles laid out by Irving Kristol, in his essays defining neoconservatism, with the utopian imperialism displayed by his heirs.

Eli Lehrer defined “paleoconservatism” as the “blood and soil” school of the American right, which he declared “intellectually interesting but totally irrelevant” to the public debate. “Reading the work of paleocons is like reading Cicero,” he said.

Ramesh Ponnuru emulated David Frum’s well-known jeremiad “Unpatriotic Conservatives”, making his speech a compilation of every ill-tempered mention of race he could find in the archives of Chronicles magazine and The American Conservative. He focused particularly on articles that mentioned him personally—ending with the declaration: “We reject the idea that conservatism should form a kind of identity politics for white people.”

I replied by citing Steve Sailer’s analyses in VDARE.COM showing that the GOP’s “Southern Strategy” was an implicit version of precisely that—identity politics for white people. This strategy made the Republicans a majority party once again. But the neocons’ spurning of immigration reform, affirmative action and the social issues now threatens to undermine that achievement.

On reflection, I think what makes Ponnuru’s assertion interesting is the double standard it betrays. Neoconservatives take for granted that every other ethnic group in the world—especially American minorities— develop “identity politics.” From the Congressional Black Caucus to the Israeli Likud Party, neocons accept as normal group-based politics based on a sense of ethnic kinship. The only groups to whom they’d deny this form of micro-patriotism are the (vanishing) majority groups in Europe and America—as if white people should somehow be “above” that sort of thing.

This curious form of masochistic racial elitism deserves further examination in another article.

By John Zmirak

[Previously by John Zmirak: The Brogue Wears Off: Why The Catholic Church Is Addicted To Immigration]

(Click on [url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_politics&Number=799803&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Okiereddust&Match=Username&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=799801#Post799803]Link - Vdare/Liberty Forum[/url])

Paleoleftist

2003-08-07 17:41 | User Profile

"Vichy" is of course an euphemism -the Neocons are not collaborators, but prime movers. Neoconservative German Workers Party would be more like it.

And notice how Lehrer, whom I find more repulsive than Ponnuru, manages to create, in passing as it were, the impression that Cicero, one of the most outstanding defenders of Republicanism, is irrelevant. Got to love them! :taz:

Franco

2003-08-07 19:15 | User Profile

I always find the use of "Vichy," etc. very suspicious. Furthermore, today's connedservatives, neo- or otherwise, are irrelavent, although granted neo-conism is a Jewish-created movement, not political but racial...

2600

2003-08-07 22:31 | User Profile

**“Reading the work of paleocons is like reading Cicero,” he said. ** .

Reading the works of neo-cons is like reading Trotsky [just replace 'social revolution' with 'democratic revolution' and 'liberation'].

Also, isn't Zmirak half-Jewish?

Okiereddust

2003-08-07 22:39 | User Profile

Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 7 2003, 17:41 * And notice how Lehrer, whom I find more repulsive than Ponnuru, manages to create, in passing as it were, the impression that Cicero, one of the most outstanding defenders of Republicanism, is irrelevant. Got to love them!  :taz:*

Of course Cicero is irrelevant! He may have known a lot about Roman republicanism, but he'd never swatched MTV or The Simpsons like Boy Jonah. :rolleyes:

Phillip Augustus

2003-08-08 01:11 | User Profile

Originally posted by 2600@Aug 7 2003, 16:31 * ** > *“Reading the work of paleocons is like reading Cicero,” he said. ** .

Reading the works of neo-cons is like reading Trotsky [just replace 'social revolution' with 'democratic revolution' and 'liberation'].

Also, isn't Zmirak half-Jewish? **

No. He is half-Croat and half-Irish. He is one of the top paleo commenators out there, and is about to join the others on Frum's little hit list if he keeps it up with great columns like this one.

Faust

2003-08-08 01:49 | User Profile

And what may ask is wrong with Cicero!

Eli Lehrer defined "paleoconservatism" as the "blood and soil" school of the American right, which he declared "intellectually interesting but totally irrelevant" to the public debate. "Reading the work of paleocons is like reading Cicero," he said.

Yes! "Reading the works of neo-cons is like reading Trotsky!"