« Moi | Gene Expression Front Page | Love & Cousin Marriage »
March 20, 2003

The Conservative Crack-Up Part N

David Frum slams paleos. He mentions The Occidental Quarterly. First, Steve Sailer, and now the TOQ? Some little boy has been really naughty, reading up on verboten materials....

Posted by razib at 02:47 AM




For the record I agree with most of what he writes. I wouldn't call Steve Sailer a 'real' paleo though many of his associates are and even if he were I'd make an exception for him because he's so reasonable. But his take down of the annoying types like Raimondo ("Israel was behind S11"), Lew Rockwell's obsession with the sexual life of Martin Luther King and his fairy tale view of the Old South, and Sam Francis is so spot on. What's paleo-conservatism? It's basically conservatism for losers and crackers.

Posted by: Jason Soon at March 20, 2003 03:12 AM


Frum gives a lot of space to the paleo's views, which speaks well for him, but he should have spent a little more time tearing them down. He clearly assumes that his audience already agrees with him and is just providing a sampling of the shocking, shocking views of the paleos, without going to the trouble of actually making much of an argument against them. Granted, he only has so much space...

Posted by: bbartlog at March 20, 2003 07:41 AM


point taken-but the "paleo" movement is pretty marginal, they talk about neocons constantly, i don't see why NR should give this so much play. sounds like a personal issue with frum. novak has swiped at him in print of course.

Posted by: razib at March 20, 2003 11:10 AM


Well, the paleos do come down on NR all the time, so some counterfire is hardly unexpected. Pretty good counterfire, too...

-Silaria Ozoo Mahoke

Posted by: Zakzak at March 20, 2003 11:19 AM


Aside from Steve Sailer, who's nearly always perfectly reasonable, I tend to have an impression of "paleos" similar to those already expressed here. Why doesn't Sailer keep better company?

Posted by: Aaron Baker at March 20, 2003 11:27 AM


I don't think Sailer's alliance with paleos has as much to do with frankness about race as it does with seriousness about immigration which is virtually absent from American dialogue. Sailer seems to bring 3 things to Vdare (and thus the immigration issue) that no one else does:

1) race realism- If biology is the raw materials of culture, then perhaps it should be considered that certain people will result in a certain type of society. (of course this is part of the argument of "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"1)

2) cultural realism- Following Thomas Sowell, if certain types of people bring certain values with them, then perhaps it should be considered that certain people will result in a certain type of society.1

and 3) Ethnic dynamics- a)how do ethnic groups co-exist and b) what are the best conditions for expecting them to peacefully co-exist? (his answers: a) usually not very well and b) with as much assimilation as possible [i.e no multi-lingualism/little multi-culturalism] and with as much social and economic equality as possible) 1, 2, 3, 4

And all that aside nobody's cared to mention how he isn't a paleo? Or in what way are paleos irrational and Sailer is not? (keeping in mind that a broad number of people probably fall under 'paleo' from Jared Taylor to Taki)

...Or is he just "one of the good ones" so we feel like we need to make excuses?

Posted by: Jason M. at March 20, 2003 01:17 PM


I think Godless and Jason M. are both onto something. Sailer's opinions about race AND immigration in particular militate against his being a regular on, say, the Nat'l Review site (altho' see John Derbyshire, with similar views on both subjects. Derbyshire is an exceptionally good writer AND (I think) very funny, so maybe that's how he pulls it off). Still, posting cheek by jowl with folks who think the Serbs were the principal victims in the most recent Balkan conflicts, or that Lincoln was the anti-Christ, or that just maybe we'd have been better off with Strom Thurmond as president, or whatever other nonsense Francis, Fleming, & Co. have come up with lately, can't be good for Sailer in the long run. Sad.

Posted by: Aaron Baker at March 20, 2003 02:22 PM


Sailer did sympathize with the Serbs and he did mention that some things were better before civil rights when he defended Lott. (or printed a letter on the blog that said as much).

Posted by: Jason M. at March 20, 2003 02:45 PM


some of the paleos are quacks, and some serious. you find all things in a political movement. i used to be an isolationist, so i read a lot of paleo stuff once. these labels are imprecise and used generally in name calling anyhow. the problem i have with neocons is they tend to want to limit the bounds of discourse. and they limit it too much (no talk of immigration, race, etc. outside their paradigm that culture is all that matters and everyone will assimilate, etc.). that being said, some of the paleos with their fixation on lincoln and contempt for americans can be a bit weird.

fuck all sacred cows :)

Posted by: razib at March 20, 2003 03:05 PM


I agree with Jason. Steve is basically a paleo-con (although I'm sure he would say evol-con) The only difference between Steve and Sam Francis, aside from Steve's emphasis on biology in explaining behavior, is the degree to which each espouses White nationalism. Sam Francis believes that non-whites are not capable of maintaining America's current democratic capitalist society, thus advocates that whites remain comfortably in the majority. Steve also believes that whites should remain the majority population, but for different reasons. Note that neither man is a white separatist, unlike Jared Taylor. All three men are hostile to the notion that the United States is a “proposition nation”.

A rational argument can be made for white hegemony in the United States. I really don’t see how the racial-realist views propounded on this site are somehow more rational than paleo-con views on race.

Posted by: RR at March 20, 2003 03:09 PM


The Serbs may or may not have been "victims" in the various ex-Yugoslavia conflicts, but one of the end results of these conflicts was the "ethnic cleansing" of Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia and their own province of Kosovo. In fact, the drastic shrinkage of the territorial distribution of the Serbian nation is the single most important outcome of these conflicts.

Posted by: Dienekes Pontikos at March 20, 2003 04:14 PM


some of the folk at Chronicles are pro-Serb, and some are Serbs, and i remember guest spots by kostunica & stuff. but everyone has to admit that handing kosovo over to the albanians has only led to shit (gun running, drug trafficing and the creation of an entrepot for the slavic flesh trade). the whole yugoslavia fiasco shows the problems with ethnically mixed states in the modern era.

Posted by: razib at March 20, 2003 04:23 PM


the whole yugoslavia fiasco shows the problems with ethnically mixed states in the modern era.

Well, Yugoslavia had been mostly peaceful throughout the Communist era. What led to its disintegration was the fact that the West, and in particular Germany rushed to recognize the breakaway republics of Croatia and Slovenia before there was a resolution to the problem of the status of ethnic minorities. That led to the majority ethnic group in each state within the former Yugoslavia taking control (to the dismay of the minority group) => domino effect of destabilization.

Posted by: Dienekes at March 20, 2003 06:07 PM


I wasn't suggesting that Serbs haven't suffered grievously in the last several years. I am, however, prepared to stand by the proposition that Serbian leadership (more specifically Milosevich) was more blameworthy than other parties in the recent conflicts. A rough analogy: Germans suffered catastrophically as a consequence of WWII, including being ethnically cleansed from areas where Germans had lived for centuries. This misfortune of course in no way excuses Hitler. Some of the Paleocons I've read seem to have a hard time getting their minds around just how repellant Milosevich was (and is), and it is consequently hard to take them seriously. Sailer, I have to say, in the one article of his regarding the Balkans that I have read, criticized our Kosovo intervention without once attempting to absolve Milosevich. Maybe this is the way to put it: he's a Paleocon with a brain.

Posted by: Aaron Baker at March 20, 2003 08:41 PM


May I point out that Frum's article about all those beyond-the-pale paleos is running in a magazine that on November 25, 2002 featured a cover story by its best known writer that concluded with a call for the U.S. to blow up, in an unprovoked attack, the 2000 foot tall CN Tower in Toronto.

Posted by: A Reader at March 20, 2003 08:44 PM


And we musn't forget Jonah's call to forcibly re-colonize the entire African continent. Which might seem even more ridiculous if we weren't in the process of doing it with the Middle-east.

(Perhaps we should send the bombers in tomorrow from Algeria to Zimbabwe, so Frum can flash his patriotic superiority over all those retrograde yanks who express even the tiniest bit of embarrassment for their country)

Posted by: Jason M. at March 20, 2003 09:01 PM


Milosevic was undoubtedly not the best leader that Serbia could hope for. But the West definitely had an anti-Serb bias in the Yugoslavia conflict. For example, the average person in America and Western Europe has probably forgotten (if they ever knew) all about Krajina [The invasion of Krajna].

Posted by: Dienekes at March 20, 2003 09:01 PM


For the record I am a "paleoconservative" or possibly something to the right of that.

I noticed in Frum's essay he wrote:

"The antiwar conservatives aren't satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war. Questions are perfectly reasonable, indeed valuable. There is more than one way to wage the war on terror, and thoughtful people will naturally disagree about how best to do it, whether to focus on terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah or on states like Iraq and Iran; and if states, then which state first?"

I may be readhing things in that aren't there but to me in the above paragraph he basically admits to what palecons (like me) allege. He says *outright* that the debate ought to be limited to questions similar to "which state first?". I don't want the odious Frum to get his way. (I may be misremebering but didn't Frum once refer to Steve sailer as "loathsome"?)

Like other paleoconservatives I maintain that fighting Israel's enemies (like Iraq and Iran) has nothing to do with genuine conservatism, but serves only the interest of Zionists. Many anti-war non-neocon Jews are also to blame for this sorry state of affairs since a good many of them want to shut gentiles up who talk about about the Zionist angle. Consider Rabbi Lerner (a leftist who claims to be against the war) but was aghast that some peace marchers might allege that the war was being fought on behalf of Israel. If indeed we Paleocons are on the side of truth, then the Lerner's in this world are *complicit* in causing the war, by helping to hide its chief fomenters (like Frum and Perl) from the searchlight.

Posted by: Sporon at March 20, 2003 09:03 PM


Like other paleoconservatives I maintain that fighting Israel's enemies (like Iraq and Iran) has nothing to do with genuine conservatism, but serves only the interest of Zionists.

sporon, what the hell is a zionist? Israel exists now, ok? the word is obsolete. Second, certainly the people in charge don't want Iraq lobbing a nuclear bomb into tel-aviv (his chances of ever doing which I would say are doubtful, but others disagree) but we also don't want Saddam passing a nuke to terrorists to use against us in asymmetrical war-fare (his chances of ever doing which is doubtful IMO, but others disagree). The argument goes beyond defending Jews and it sure as hell is being made by many non-jews who no paleos (and many leftists of the same opinion) ever seem to mention. Why are Cheney and Rumsfeld never mentioned!? Bush? Are they Zionists? A cabal??

Furthermore: Is it only Jewish republicans who are concerned with Israel or is Israel important to most Republicans? I seem to recall Hannity, Limbaugh, Liddy, etc.,etc.,etc. and most every Pub I can think of being very sympathetic to the Israeli state. Where's the outrage at these fifth-column Zionists (read: most Republicans). Or is it only "Zionism" when Jews voice basic Republican thoughts b/c 'Oh, it's treason when_they_do it'.

Posted by: Jason M. at March 20, 2003 09:29 PM


Frum's article is probably a result of getting ticked off at this: http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/review.html in the American Conservative.

Zionism isn't quite obsolete as a word, Jason. Here's dictionary.com on it: A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Zionism is alive and well as a word, it's used by both supporters of Israel and its opponents.

I think that ignoring Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, is wrong, as you say. They support the war on Iraq because of a certain worldview. I imagine it goes something like: "America overall is a force for good in the world. Terrorists strike at us out of envy and insanity. Terrorist action is fundamentally random." That sort of logic leads inextorably towards fighting a war against 'Terrorism' in general. It leads to support of other nations whose people live in fear of terrorism, i.e. Israel. It leads to a worldview that cannot tolerate WMD in the hands of people who hate us.

There are other worldviews. One is that terrorism is not a fundamentally random act. Many strong supporters of Israel understand that terrorism has causes--yes, what Buchanan called the "amen corner" exists in America and has powerful influence within the administration. The majority are Jews. I know that it's not PC to point out the wealth and power of Jews, but it's fine to point out the political clout of blacks or talk about southern whites and racism or Cuban Americans and their support of embargo. Jews are an ethnic community like any other. Many (Jewish) neo-cons do support American military campaigns in the Middle-East to "make the world safe for Israel." This viewpoint exists and has consequences. I've read the Weekly Standard and National Review and New Republic since 9/11, and I remember who was saying what over the following months. They were beating the Iraqi war drums before anybody. Ideas have consequences.

On the other hand, if you are neutral on the Israel issue, the idea that terrorism has root causes leads you somewhere fundamentally different. The idea is "if we weren't over there, they probably wouldn't be angry enough to blow us up. They might still be blowing something up, but probably not us." That we have no interest in the Middle East so pressing as to send troops over there seems to follow. The oil is still going to get pumped. Having troops there and fighting wars there only leads to extremists blowing our cities up.

Yeah, that's isolationism. But if you always reject isolationism out of principle, you wind up always having to fight everywhere all the time.

We could invest the wealth and power of our nation in a project of war and nation-building that wouldn't be complete until the planet is one of democracies whose people all love us. That is probably impossible. If it were possible, then I think we could do it. But the American people would truly need to be behind it. Until we discover a second 'manifest destiny', I find that unlikely.

So we are left with two realistic alternatives. The first is wars of half-measures, wherein we accomplish a lot of fighting in the mid-east, and clear out a few corrupt regimes replacing them with theoretically slightly less corrupt regimes. Pakistan and Iran still keep their nukes, however, and North Korea still sells WMD's to everyone with cash (they prefer the dollar). The world is possibly more safe without Saddam, but maybe not.

The second alternative is abandoment of the Middle East. Isolationism. Removing debate of this from the table by crying 'paleo' is dangerous.

Posted by: Thrasymachus at March 20, 2003 10:53 PM


They are reliably hostile to anything and everything non-white, unless it's the Palestinians, who are non-white but fighting Jews.

Vdare?

Godless is it possible for you to think that an American could want a mostly homogenous society w/o demonizing them, or is it necessarily a hate-filled and completely irrational desire? And I'm not saying that b/c you and I have different ideas about immigration- we don't- I'm saying that b/c those ideas that you get excited about don't involve injury to anyone (like say Jim Crow laws)so I don't see why you can't leave it as simply a difference of opinion; a difference in values. Are you unable to see a possible cost/benefit formula for this issue with enough uncertainties to justify multiple viable opinions?

Posted by: Jason M. at March 20, 2003 11:01 PM


I know that it's not PC to point out the wealth and power of Jews, but it's fine to point out the political clout of blacks or talk about southern whites and racism or Cuban Americans and their support of embargo. Jews are an ethnic community like any other.

Good call, Thrasymachus. I don't want to give the impression that I don't think the ethnicity of Wolfowitz and Jews in general isn't a strong element in their support for the war, or even that Jews* don't make effective campaigns to seek out their shared common interests (as minorities, ethnic populations, and organized groups in general do). What I can't tolerate is singling out Jews for an exaggerated condemnation, when there is no crime, and not even aberrant behavior. It would be different if many American jews were pooling their resources for aberrant illegal behavior. I wouldn't much be offended if someone said "hey, these Jewish crime-gangs are becoming a problem" if such was the case. But "these Jews are brain-washing the president" is a whole different animal. Jews can play their own talented role in the political process, and that shouldn't be treated as something dangerous or with poisonous suspicion. Of course I feel the same-way about Southern whites who have to live with the other tasteless suspicion of "neo-confederate" for like-wise supporting mainstream republican platforms (i.e., "yeah, we know what it means when he supports "state rights" or opposes Affirmitive action *wink* *wink*." Even though I see nothing wrong with supporting state rights or opposing Affirmitive action, no matter what ones_real_motivation for it is).

*Yes, sensitive readers, I'm talking in trends.

Posted by: Jason M. at March 20, 2003 11:22 PM


on Francis-he's not a separatist really, i saw a exchange (written) between him & a separatist. the separatist claimed that we need to break up the US and give each ethnic group their own territory. Francis rejected this-he said that whites should just reassume their natural position as the dominant ethnic group, and simply make it understood to non-whites who was the boss. in a literal sense, Francis is a supremacist-though surely far less frothing-at-the-mouth than others that go by that appellation. additionally, Francis i think did not propose that non-whites would have no political rights, that as long as they were a significant minority, whites would be in a dominant position.

as far as Brimelow, he is clear that the importance of this nation's white heritage is crucial. he claims (and rightly) that this was self-consciously a white nation until recently (why would FDR prattle about defending the fellow anglo-saxon people of australia during WW II?). he gets around blacks by saying that they were not a part of the political nation. in ALIEN NATION Brimelow brings up the point about the fuzzy edges of whiteness, where white/asian mixes often identify as white and so reenforce the white political core of the nation.

Guzzardi seems like a straightforward restrictionist, he doesn't bring racialism explicitly into it that i can see. i would say that Paul Craig Roberts is more racially conscious than he....

the thing that disturbed me about VDARE most was statement on Emitt Till...


VDARE.COM does not, as it happens, advocate lynching. But it cannot be denied that Till was lynched for what would now be called the sexual harassment of a white woman. And elementary math suggests that, in the almost five decades since his death, up to 1.5 million white women may have been raped by blacks. Perhaps 50,000 whites may have been killed.

In my unassimilated way, I wonder when we’ll see a Till-type PBS Special about this.

Posted by: razib at March 20, 2003 11:56 PM


Please read closely this quote from David Frum:

"The antiwar conservatives aren't satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war. Questions are perfectly reasonable, indeed valuable. There is more than one way to wage the war on terror, and thoughtful people will naturally disagree about how best to do it, whether to focus on terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah or on states like Iraq and Iran; and if states, then which state first?"

Please note that according to Frum the permissible range of options is focusing on "al-Qaeda and Hezbollah" or "Iraq and Iran" and if we choose the latter, then we are allowed to choose which state first. If we choose "al-Qaeda and Hezbollah," we are not allowed to choose between them. They are required to be of equal priority to "thoughtful people."

May I point out the obvious: al-Qaeda is the blood enemy of the United States but Hezbollah is, at present, not. It's the blood enemy of Israel. Now there are scores of evil terrorist grooups in the world that deserve to be stomped on -- how about the Tamil Tigers or the Corsican separatist bombers/mafioso -- but they shouldn't be part of our War on Terror. I'm sure Frum would agree.

But in Frum's mind, there is no distinction between the interests of the U.S. and Israel. I don't think he's being consciously disloyal to the U.S. He just thinks that what's good for Israel is good for America. Even if it's not good for America to go out making new enemies in any normal sense of the word, it would be, well, morally good for us to smite Israel's foes for Israel.

Lots of people feel the same way about their ethnic homelands. Armenian-Americans periodically come close to getting Congress to pass a resoltuion intended to flush U.S.-Turkish relations down the toilet over the 1915 genocide. Clinton had to intercede in 2000 to prevent the House from doing just that. I certainly don't blame the Armenians. It's not their fault that they are less important to America's national interst than is Turkey. I would only object to attempts by Armenian-Americans to rule out of bounds any discussion by anybody who points out that they are prejudiced. Frum is trying to do the same thing by the using the much more potent smear "anti-Semite" to shut up anybody who would point out that he possesses a perfectly natural bias in favor of the interests of his people's home nation, but that that nation is not America.

Posted by: A Reader at March 21, 2003 12:18 AM


Dear Godless:

Don't forget to mention VDARE's 3rd syndicated columnist, that white racist anti-Semitic blue-eyed blond Saddam loving Nazi: Michelle Malkin.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec02/om_8-30.html

www.freedomalliance.org/events/ armynavy2002_part2.htm

http://ccir.net/Images/malkinmichelle108x139.gif

Posted by: A Reader at March 21, 2003 01:50 AM


my opinion of VDARE-if i see that the byline says "Steve Sailer," i read it. if it says "Sam Francis," i ignore it (since Francis tends to focus on the needs of white people-i'm obviously not a target and am not going to be too interested in what he says). if it is someone else, i check the title and see if i'm interested in it. i check the site every day-and even though i don't agree with everything on it, it is a perspective that i think needs to be heard, and when it trends toward illiberal, i use my responses to sharpen my blades and perhaps forge new tools in the defense of the individualistic liberal order.

what we disagree with only makes us stronger :)

in any case, what really bothered me about frum is that i think he overestimates the importance of paleos. they are a loud cadre of intellectuals, but without ground support, they can only influence the debate through the response of neocons. as derbyshire said in the corner, paleos can get some debates started that neocons in their ivory tower think tanks would not touch for fear of ruining their position.

finally, i tend to find the leftist critiques of free trade, capitalism and a hawkish foreign policy retreads of 1960s arguments. quite often they are factless and screeching. the paleos also take on the same sacred cows, but often in a much more hard-headed fashion. i don't agree with them a lot (most?) of the time as a moderate libertarian, but they actually want to debate, even through insults and what not. the Left often feels the Right is just a collection of neo-nazis and so really wants to simply shout 'till everyone else accedes to their position....

Posted by: razib at March 21, 2003 02:30 AM


I completely agree with the poster who said that things would be alot worse for the Palestinians if Israel didn't have US support.
Certainly Thrasymachus should know enough history to think that sometimes wars start because one side, say Sparta, says, "Oh shit, those Athenians, they're getting powerful. We're stronger now, but we won't be stronger forever. Let's kick their asses now while we can." Without the US, Isreal would say, we can remove Arabs forcibly now( Both from Israel and the Disputed Territories) but they have too many babies for us to do it 50 years. Better to win now and move 3 million people than wait 30 years and move 7.
The Arabs should think hard about what would happen to them if Israel had a free hand.
If I ran the Israeli Defense Force, I might've been vaccinating Jews against a number of diseases for a long time by now. The Israelis might be better prepared for biowar than anyone else.

Posted by: Rob at March 21, 2003 09:26 AM


Also on the Palestinians, they are so dependent on Israel for food, they could easily be starved out.

Posted by: Rob at March 21, 2003 09:38 AM


Jason M. wrote:

"Furthermore: Is it only Jewish republicans who are concerned with Israel or is Israel important to most Republicans? I seem to recall Hannity, Limbaugh, Liddy, etc.,etc.,etc. and most every Pub I can think of being very sympathetic to the Israeli state. Where's the outrage at these fifth-column Zionists (read: most Republicans). Or is it only "Zionism" when Jews voice basic Republican thoughts b/c 'Oh, it's treason when_they_do it'."

Jason, its treasonous no matter who is doing it. Also, AFAIK, Rush Limbaugh recently converted to Judaism and sometimes refers to "my rabbi" on air.

Let's look at how all this war on Iraq started. Certain Zionists were dreaming of seeing Iraq overthrown years ago, although the specific plan of having the US make war on Iraq may not have been thought up at that stage.

From http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html:

"The paper advocated, even as far back as 1996, containment of the threat against Israel by working closely with ­ guess who? ­ Turkey, as well as with Jordan, apparently regarded as the only reliably moderate Arab regime. Jordan had become attractive for these strategists because it was at the time working with opposition elements in Iraq to reestablish a Hashemite monarchy there that would have been allied by blood lines and political leanings to the Hashemite throne in Jordan. The paper's authors saw the principal threat to Israel coming, we should not be surprised to discover now, from Iraq and Syria and advised that focusing on the removal of Saddam Hussein would kill two birds with one stone by also thwarting Syria's regional ambitions. In what amounts to a prelude to the neo-cons' principal policy thrust in the Bush administration, the paper spoke frankly of Israel's interest in overturning the Iraqi leadership and replacing it with a malleable monarchy. Referring to Saddam Hussein's ouster as "an important Israeli strategic objective," the paper observed that "Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly" ­ meaning give Israel unquestioned predominance in the region. The authors urged therefore that Israel support the Hashemites in their "efforts to redefine Iraq." "

This paper was written by Feith, Perle, and both David and Meyrav Wurmser "issed by an Israel think tank for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu."

Also from http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html:

"In a much longer policy document written at about the same time for the same Israeli think tank, David Wurmser repeatedly linked the U.S. and Israel when talking about national interests in the Middle East. The "battle to dominate and define Iraq," he wrote "is, by extension, the battle to dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run," and "the United States and Israel" can fight this battle together. Repeated references to U.S. and Israeli strategic policy, pitted against a "Saudi-Iraqi-Syrian-Iranian-PLO axis," and to strategic moves that establish a balance of power in which the United States and Israel are ascendant, in alliance with Turkey and Jordan, betray a thought process that cannot separate U.S. from Israeli interests."

Whether or not these people were in Israel at the time they were writing this stuff, the fact is that it was written for the Israeli government. Zionists have been dreaming of having Iraq overthrown for years.

You ask why we should be concerned with the Jewish neocons as opposed to the gentile ones. It is because they have authored these plans for war. and it is a clear that an ethnic agenda is being pursued. When looking for who to blame the question that one must always ask first is "cui bono". The answer to that is clear.

Posted by: at March 21, 2003 10:37 AM


Rob, I think you are correct that America acts as a restraining force on Israel. I read someplace a while back that America does have a world hegemony, but ours is the 'hegemony of the status quo.'

Moreover, the economic disaster that would occur if the US cut off aid to Israel would probably drive Israel towards a 'final solution' to the Palestinian problem.

If we take a cold-eyed look at the world, though, I don't see how that concerns us. Whether it is Palestinians getting driven out from their land, or Israelis getting blown up in shopping malls, I think that it is not a vital security interest to us. Getting involved will only lead to problems.

Nuclear war could interupt our oil supply, but I don't foresee nuclear war. Pakistan has nukes and Iran is getting them. No one is likely to do a first strike. And if they are then the best we could do is delay it. Israel does have a demographic problem, as you say, and we can only prevent them from acting on it for so long.

I suppose another way to avoid the energy crunch brought about by oil price spikes would be to build breeder reactors and spend more on fusion (the hot kind) research. Expensive, but not when you compare it to the cost of going to war in the Middle East every decade.

If we really want to do something to make the world a better place, we can spend a few billion helping destitute people in Africa or some such. Do-good military involvement leads to too many complications.

As a side note, I also noticed someone say that they agreed with me that Jews have 'disproportianate power.' I don't think I'd go that far. The way America's democracy works is that people who really care about their pet issues can have an effect on policy disproportianate to their numbers. The NRA, teacher's unions, pro-Life and pro-Choice groups at various times, affirmitive action debators, and what not. The same happens on various issues that are central to Jews. Jews certainly don't all have the same opinion on things. They are very liberal overall, and donate a great deal of money to the Democratic party. But there are also a high number of influential Jewish intellectuals who have influence with both the liberal and conservative movements. Every ethnic group intertwines itself within the society of our country in a different way. Certain ethnic groups are more influential on their issues because of this, but I certainly wouldn't call Jews the most influential. The white ethnic-European status quo still has considerable power. Blacks are probably much more influential on their own issues than Jews because of simple solidarity. Hispanics have population on their side in many areas. Like the rest, Jews have a certain degree of power because of the way they integrate with our society, but that is often diminished because of so many divergent viewpoints amoung Jews.

Yeah, America sometimes follows the minority's lead in decision making, even if the majority disagrees. The key, though, is that the minority is passionate about the issue, while the majority is often rather uninterested.

That doesn't mean that I can't say that the minority is wrong and doing something harmful to the majority. They often are. And this case I think it might be the "Likudniks". I have sort of viewpoint is often attacked as anti-Semite, even when anti-Jewish bias is clearly absent. Just look at Moran. If he had said the same about blacks or women, he would have been applauded for recognizing their social power. Accusing everyone of crypto anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism is harmful to the debate, and I suppose that's what I didn't like about Frum's article.

Posted by: Thrasymachus at March 21, 2003 11:35 AM


My grammar sort of fell apart in that last paragraph, didn't it? Here it is again just to avoid any misunderstandings:

That doesn't mean that I can't say that the minority is wrong and doing something harmful to the majority. They often are. And in this case I think the minority might be the "Likudniks". I know this sort of viewpoint is often attacked as anti-Semitical, even when anti-Jewish bias is clearly absent. Just look at Moran. If he had said the same about blacks or women, he would have been applauded for recognizing their social power. Accusing everyone of crypto anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism is harmful to the debate, and I suppose that's what I didn't like about Frum's article.

Posted by: Thrasymachus at March 21, 2003 11:39 AM