Neoconservatism

James Woolsey: A terrible choice, a grim portent

/36 Comments/in , /by

From The Irish Savant, originally posted on Friday, 11 November 2016

woolseyIn common with many Trump supporters on the alt-right I’ve long harboured a horrible doubt that – just maybe – he was a huckster using his marketing genius to tap into the zeitgeist, leveraging it to close the ultimate sale. Did he really plan to get on with Russia, de-fund NATO, pull American troops out of the Middle East (i.e. stop fighting wars for Israel) and instead focus attention and resources on domestic issues? If that represented his true beliefs, then he literally could not have made a worse choice for National Security Adviser.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey recognised early in his career the boundless opportunities open to an energetic shabbos goy. Shamelessly throwing in his lot with the Israeli-Jewish power structure, he became rich and powerful despite (or by way of) being mired in corruption and conflict of interest at every stage.

And he repaid his benefactors in full, enthusiastically supporting the slaughter and destruction in Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and Syria. On cue he’s now agitating for war with Iran and for taking a ‘tough stance’ with Russia. He endlessly proclaims Israel to be “America’s greatest friend and ally”. His pandering on occasion has even embarrassed many American Jews, such as when he claimed that spy Jonathan Pollard was in jail only because of his Jewishness.

He’s the Neocon’s Neocon and Trump’s stated position is not compatible with his. Someone will have to concede. I’m not optimistic.

Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump (5): Would Trump’s Defeat Be Blamed On Jews?

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

donaldtrumpataipac

Posted at Vdare.com

See previous articles in this series.

Almost exactly a year ago, VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow raised the question of whether America’s Jewish groups would turn on Donald Trump (who after all has Jewish grandchildren and a lifetime of Jewish business associates) with the hysteria they employed against Patrick J. Buchanan. I have been tracking the matter ever since and the answer is now in: yes—clearly triggered by visceral reaction against Trump’s nationalist acceptance speech in Cleveland and outright panic at his subsequent poll lead (July 25-29 according to the Real Clear Politics average). I suspect, however, that we have crossed a watershed and that, regardless of the results of this election, this will not end well for them.

Before the convention, Wall Street Journal Deputy Editorial Page Editor Bret Stephens [Email him] said with astonishing arrogance: “It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents—this kind of ethnic quote, ‘conservatism,’ or populism be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party, the Republican voters will forever learn their lesson…” WSJ‘s Bret Stephens: Trump Must Lose So Badly That the GOP Voters ‘Learn Their Lesson’, by Sam Reisman, Mediaite, May 29 2016.

Just on Friday, Paul Krugman [Email him] writing in the New York Times continued the now-widespread theme: any expression of ethnic identity by America’s whites, no matter how implicit, was “bigoted” and “white nationalist”:

Recently Avik Roy, a leading Republican health-policy expert, had the personal and moral courage to admit what liberals (and political scientists) have been saying for years: “In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that top Republicans were or are personally bigoted—but that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that they were willing to curry favor with bigots in the service of tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation. Remember, Mitt Romney eagerly accepted a Trump endorsement in 2012, knowing full well that he was welcoming a racist conspiracy theorist into his camp.

All that has happened this year is a move of those white nationalists from part of the supporting cast to a starring role.

Pieces of Silver, August 12, 2016 (links in original)

Read more

An Anti-Neocon Revolution in GOP Foreign Policy?

/71 Comments/in , , /by

One of the big stories coming out of the Trump campaign is the intense hostility he is getting from the neocons, a major part of which is that they would be out of luck when it comes to positions in a Trump administration.

But that implies a huge vacuum in the area of foreign policy for Republicans. After all, neocons have dominated the GOP foreign policy establishment since the Reagan Administration and achieved unrivaled power in the George W. Bush administration.

But with the Trump campaign, the neocons are on the outside looking in, which is a major part of why they are defecting to Hillary or plotting a third party candidacy — anything to derail Trump. (Bill Kristol keeps plugging away. In his latest, he claims that even obscure Congressmen would be good candidates to run against Trump, although of course he would love it if Mitt Romney took up the cause. So would Jennifer Rubin. Their desperation is showing.)

Given that there is a real possibility that Trump could win, it must have occurred to the people surrounding the Koch brothers that, even though they would much prefer a free market libertarian-type conservative, there is now an opening for some fresh ideas for Republican foreign policy. In any case, the Charles Koch Institute sponsored a conference of foreign policy experts which, given that the Koch brothers are well-known to be Republicans, could only be interpreted as a repudiation of the neocons, likely with the aim of providing the basis for a refurbished GOP foreign policy establishment. No neocons were invited. And just as significant are some of those who were invited, including some very well-known names high on the neocon hate list.  Read more

Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump (4): Neocon Angst About A Fascist America

/29 Comments/in , , /by
noitisnt

Previously posted at VDARE.com 

The reactions of anonymous people on Twitter criticizing Jews are now fodder for news stories by both “right wing” Jews like Ben Shapiro and more liberal journalists like Jonathan Weisman.  [Trump’s supporters unleash anti-Semitic attack on New York Times editor, by Sophia Tesfaye, Salon, May 20, 2016] Somehow, all the death threats,  vulgar criticism, and actual violence  conservatives have received over the years never become  a source of sympathy from the Main Stream Media!

One of the more spectacular examples of an MSM frenzy over supposed anti-Semitism: the reaction to the attack by David Horowitz against his fellow Jew Bill Kristol, leader of a campaign to destroy Donald Trump [Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew, May 15, 2016] The headline, written by Horowitz, alluded to Kristol being Jewish.

As Jonathan S. Tobin [Email him] notes in Commentary,

[T]he real offense here is … his attempt to wrap him in the Star of David and to somehow brand his opponents as traitors to the pro-Israel cause. …

[H]is invocation of “America First” and the use of a term like “renegade Jew” in the headline (though not in the text of the article) seems to echo the smears of the pro-Trump alt right racists who have attacked conservative critics of the candidate with an avalanche of anti-Semitic invective.

[Breitbart’s ‘Renegade Jew’ Disgrace, May 16, 2016]

Horowitz’s offense was not simply criticizing Kristol’s campaign against Trump. Lots of people have done that without incurring the wrath of Commentary. And even saying that Kristol’s views are not good for Jews and Israel is commonplace:  Mondoweiss, J Street, and Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby argue that neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby have a tragically mistaken view of Jewish and Israeli interests—also discussed in Charles Bloch’s and Steve Sailer’s VDARE posts. Read more

The Alt Right Is Right, FEDERALIST’s Tracinski Wrong, About American History (And Donald Trump)

/75 Comments/in , , , /by

anyconservativewhowavestosupporters

 

Previously posted at VDARE.

The Alt Right is busting out all over (two more Main Stream Media attacks today, here and here)! Some of of this is because Richard Spencer, head of the National Policy Institute, made the wise move of having high-profile public meetings in Washington, DC. But I think it’s more than that.

Donald Trump’s candidacy has resonated deeply with voters, to the point that his supporters are famously immune to the hostile MSM barrage. Mainly these are the (white) people who have been left behind by both parties—the Democrats and their Rainbow Coalition of the racially and sexually aggrieved advocating ever more immigration, multiculturalism, Political Correctness, and LGBT privileges; the Republicans with their unholy alliance between neoconservatives  traitorously promoting the interests of Israel, and the Chamber of Commerce/K Street/wealthy donors promoting free trade, outsourcing, cheap labor, Open Borders, etc.

That leaves the Alt Right as the only identifiable segment of the political spectrum with any kind of theoretical or ideological grounding that supports Trump.

To combat this new menace to Conservatism Inc., we have hit jobs like Robert Tracinski’s Yes, The Alt Right Are Just a Bunch of Racists in The Federalist [April 4, 2016] specifically professing to refute two articles that “run interference for the Alt Right”. [The Intellectual Case For Trump I: Why The White Nationalist Support? By Mytheos Holt, Federalist, March 30, 2016 and An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right, by Allum Bokhari & Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, March 29, 2016]

For all his intellectual pretensions, Tracinski [Email him] really depends on the knowledge that his audience can be stampeded by the “racists” smear. No need to do any heavy lifting. Nevertheless, I think his arguments, however disingenuous, are worth deconstructing as a case study in cuckservatism. Read more

Bill Kristol prefers Hillary to Trump: What happened to all those conservative principles?

/113 Comments/in , /by

It’s always been obvious that Hillary as president is just fine with the neocons. After all, she voted for the Iraq war and was instrumental in the disaster in Libya. She supported sending arms to Syrian rebels and likened Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, to Hitler. She wholeheartedly backs Israel, and has her own set of rabidly pro-Israel foreign policy advisers, especially Robert Kagan who advocates military intervention and democracy creation throughout the Middle East as a moral imperative—exactly the ideology that led the US into the disastrous Iraq war. Clinton’s main donor is Haim Saban, a rabid Zionist who has said that his only issue is Israel.

Obviously, Bill Kristol and the neocons would not lose any sleep if Hillary Clinton became president.

In fact, I suspect they would prefer Hillary to any Republican candidate except Marco Rubio who has the ideal blend of subservience to neocon foreign policy and support  for liberal social policy on issues like immigration. Rubio is bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby (especially Paul Singer and Norman Braman) and is now the establishment favorite.

On the other hand, Donald Trump opposed the Iraq war, calling it a “complete disaster” and, even more amazingly, stating, “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”  Trump has also supported Vladimir Putin’s policy of propping up the Assad government in Syria. As is well known, Assad and Putin are very high on the neocon hate list. He has told the Republican Jewish Coalition that he didn’t want their money because with their money comes control and he has pledged to be neutral on the Israel-Palestine issue.

Because of this blatant conflict with neocon foreign policy, neocons like Bill Kristol have been in the lead of floating third-party candidates to run against him should he get the GOP nomination. Read more

National Review’s Failed Conservatism of Values, Ideas, and Principles

/87 Comments/in , /by

The National Review assault on Donald Trump brings up the issue of basing one’s political views on values, ideas, and principles. The problem is simply that these abstractions may or may not reflect fundamental interests, and the Trump candidacy is bringing this to the fore. The NR commentary is essentially a brief for the priority of principles, ideas, and values over interests. NR editor Rich Lowry sums up the theme:

If you truly are conservative, you believe in ideas and in principles, … It’s not just attitudes. It’s not just who you dislike. It’s limited government. It’s the Constitution. It’s liberty. Those are the things that truly make this country special. And they are basically afterthoughts to Donald Trump. He almost never talks about them.

For Lowry, the contrast is between ideas and principles versus not liking someone (?!). Concerns about “limited government” and respect for the Constitution are the main themes running through the comments. Trump just hasn’t been mouthing adherence to either of them, and his critics point to instances, mainly in the past, where he has strayed from these abstractions. (Yes, the Constitution is an abstraction, because as Joe Sobran said (and quoted by Gregory Hood), “the Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” It follows from this, and it is certainly true, that the Constitution does not pose any serious threat to the eclipse of White America.)

In all of this, there is no mention of fundamental interests that might  be compromised by adhering to the principles they espouse. As I noted in a recent article on the response to Trump, “Conservatism Inc. may argue that Trump is not a ‘conservative.’ But the reality is that Trump voters are focusing on his big issues—immigration first and foremost. Unless we win the immigration battle, none of the other battles can possibly be won.” Read more