The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
The Curious Case of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
2014, Sept., Ilana-9804

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The reader should know that I cringe as I write this first-person account.

Why the disclaimer?

Opinion differs about how often to use the first person pronoun in various genres of writing. Certainly its overuse in opinion writing is a cardinal sin. To get a sense of how bad someone’s writing is count the number of times he deploys the Imperial “I” on the page.

Abuse “I” when the passive-form alternative is too clumsy. Or, when the writer has earned the right to, because of her relevance to the story. The second is my excuse here.

Righting two wrongs I must.

Clichés about victors writing history aside—it has become apparent to me how easy it is to write individuals out of their place in history, however meager that place and past are.

Since history is another term for reality chronicled, it is ineluctably tied to truth. It’s crucial to tell history like it is.

The stage has been set. Onto it steps a young academic, George Hawley, who’s taken on the first assiduous investigation of an exceedingly small set of individuals: “Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism.”

There is, however, lacuna in Dr. Hawley’s work. By his own admission, Hawley has failed to mention one veteran writer who falls squarely in the even-rarer paleolibertarian subset.

She has been writing voluminously in that tradition, week-in, week-out, for close on two decades (since 1999), and is the author of two unmistakably paleolibertarian books, one of which is “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” (Oh Buddha! The Imperial “I” has now given way to third-person writing. Mea culpa, gentle reader.)

Undergirding these, and the forthcoming “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” is paleolibertarianism.

Plainly put, I (ouch) believe that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the libertarian non-aggression axiom, by which we all must live, cannot endure. That’s me. That’s my work.

Another academic, author and Townhall columnist Jack Kerwick, contends the omission of one ILANA Mercer from the first academic’s book covering the dissident Right is a glaring one.

” … There are three reasons why it is imperative that Mercer be included in any discussion of paleolibertarianism,” avers Kerwick:

First, and most obviously, she is a paleolibertarian—and a tireless one at that. Over decades, this defender of the paleolibertarian vision has published a couple of books and thousands of articles and blog posts in which she’s shattered not only leftist pieties but neocon and “libertarian-lite” (left-wing libertarian) sureties as well. Much blood, sweat, and tears, to say nothing of opportunities for professional advancement, has Mercer foregone in her campaign against the idols of our politically correct age.

Second, not only is Mercer a veteran paleolibertarian writer. She is unquestionably the most visible, the most widely read, of such contemporary writers. At one point, she was nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate, and for close on 20 years, WorldNetDaily (WND), a site that boasts roughly 1 million visitors a month, has featured Mercer’s weekly column, “Return to Reason”—its “longest standing, exclusive, paleolibertarian weekly column.”

In addition to WND, Mercer’s work has been showcased in a plethora of outlets, both internationally and stateside, and she’s currently a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies.

No paleolibertarian—to repeat, a rightist proponent of a tradition-grounded classical liberal ideal—has nearly as much exposure when it comes to scholarly and popular audiences alike as does Mercer.

Third, Ilana Mercer is a woman. Moreover, she is a Jewish woman, the daughter of a Rabbi, who was raised in both South Africa and Israel. This is no insignificant detail: Mercer is a standing repudiation of the stereotype, all too easily reinforced by her exclusion from any study of “right-wing critics of American conservatism,” that such critics are exclusively elderly white men.

Moreover, this willingness on her part to break with the pack—paleolibertarianism, like all political persuasions to the right of Fox News and “conservative” talk radio, tend not to appeal to those who are interested in “social respectability,” much less does it appeal to your average Jewish female intellectual—distinguishes Mercer for both her courage and devotion to truth.

Professor Kerwick goes on to call into question a column penned by John Derbyshire, “former writer for National Review Online” (he made it into Hawley’s tome).

In John’s “hear ye, hear ye” effort—it conjures a town crier of old—John proclaims Dr. Hans Hermann-Hoppe the only proponent of paleolibertarianism left standing, paleolibertarianism being the “once-promising intellectual movement that stayed true to libertarian principles while opposing open borders, libertinism, egalitarianism, and political correctness.”

Joisee Jack is having none of it:

Hoppe is most certainly a paleolibertarian. And he’s an arresting thinker in his own right. But Mercer has proven to be a far more influential voice as a right-wing critic of American “conservatism” than either Hoppe or most of the right-wing critics named in Hawley’s book, for unlike many of them, she has invested her resources in promoting paleolibertarianism to a large popular audience. And unlike most of Hawley’s right-wing critics, she has succeeded in not just acquiring a hearing among very large numbers of readers, but in maintaining that audience over a span of decades.

Actually, Jack, our WND readers have gone from demanding I be fired to converting to my creed. As Objectivist investor Victor Niederhoffer, Ph.D., once said: “You can’t win an argument with this woman.”

Look, as obscure and as tiny a faction as we of the Old, self-cannibalizing Right form—to omit this writer from a survey of that tradition, circa 2016, is like leaving Ann Coulter out of a book about American Conservatism.

ORDER IT NOW

Coulter’s eclipse would pacify National Reviewniks Against Ann Coulter, but it’d be ludicrous. The fact that the antediluvian members of the Old Right exclude this writer in their own renditions of their philosophical universe is, moreover, no reason for serious chroniclers and scholars to follow their lead.

Yes, the social sciences are more serendipity than science. Still, scholarship ought to be judged by its fidelity to the truth, not by its popularity with members of a clique.

Whether my commentary spanning years is considered favorably or not; whether it’s deemed good or godawful—it exists; has existed for a long time, and is in the tradition of a rightist critique of neoconservatism.

Yes, the Old Right, marvelous Ron Unz excepted (vote for Ron, California!), boycotts my work. But they’ll not get away with denying its existence.

The more the mangy members of the Old Right and their younger submissives persist in willing their own reality into existence—the more they look like infants who’ve yet to acquire object permanence:

Cover your face and the scary lady will go away.

This excruciating exercise is not to complain about a single error, but to forestall what has become a pattern. The excising of my work by a cabal of libertarians is developing into a bad habit.

The tipping point came with another egregious lapse.

Years of sustained antiwar writing against Genghis Bush had produced dozens of columns that made powerful, analytical, natural-law based arguments against that invasion.

Some of this epistolary, antiwar warfare was written for antiwar.com.

Others are collected in the book “Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture.”

All are accessible at IlanaMercer.com.

The latest—in which the passion still burns as hot as a Babylonian kiln—are “Trump Called Bush A Liar & Won South Carolina” and “Making America Great Means Exposing ‘W.’”

Compounded by the ongoing tribal, internecine hostilities aforementioned, these antiwar columns killed a career with Republicans and mainstream media, sunk a newspaper syndication and soured publishers.

None rated a mention in an anthology titled “We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now,” assembled by Murray Polner and libertarian historian Thomas E. Woods.

“Not featuring you was a regrettable oversight,” admitted Dr. Woods.

For his part, Dr. Hawley has candidly acknowledged that, “In retrospect, it was a mistake to omit [Ilana Mercer] from the section on paleolibertarianism,” offering that “the mistake will not be repeated,” and that it may even be amended in updates to the text in time for the release of the paperback edition, next year.

When it comes to remedial action, the editors of “We Who Dared to Say No to War” have tons of material to choose from. But “Classical Liberalism And State Schemes” (September 2, 2005) is a good place to start. It’s “the best refutation of liberventionism I have read,” vowed Norman Singleton, former vice president for policy for Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty.

Perhaps the estimable editors of “We Who Dared to Say No to War” will follow Hawley’s lead and fix their glaring omission in the anthology’s second edition.

In the haunting words taken from D. H. Lawrence’s “Snake”:

“You have something to expiate: A pettiness.”

 
Hide 95 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Not only that, but I’ve just checked Wikipedia’s page on paleolibertarianism, and Ilana Mercer’s name doesn’t appear there once, as of this writing. On the other hand, her own Wikipedia page is quite detailed and prominently identifies her as a paleolibertarian thinker. Curious.

    I would think that anyone interested in this subject would be anxious to mention Ms. Mercer, if for no other reason than that his attentions might be seen as a flirtatious nod in the direction of this lovely woman. (I’m sorry Ilana. I’m sure you would prefer to have your work stand on its own, but with the picture posted above, I can’t help it.)

    I’m a paleoconservative myself, a Catholic Traditionalist, and therefore I don’t eschew Throne-and-Altar statism, as I gather paleolibertarians probably would. However, in the few months I’ve been reading Ms. Mercer, I’ve been duly impressed with both her arguments and writing style. An unforgivable omission indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Ilana rocks! I’ve been following her work ever since it appeared on Mark Ames’ “Exile” website when it was still based in Russia. Including her was probably one of the few good decisions that numbskull Ames has made.

    Read More
    • Agree: Priss Factor
    • Replies: @anonymous-antiskynetist
    Unz ought to archive the Exiled classics here, the readership must overlap big time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. J1234 says:

    Ilana Mercer is among the most intelligent of paleos, as well. But the most critical thing is that leaving her out of an overview ignores the nuance that exists within the dissident right. And not recognizing nuance is something the left has a serious problem with.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Truth says:

    What’s up with the HOTT photos, Babe, are you going on air for FOX?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Mark Green says: • Website

    Ilana Mercer is a talented, conservative writer. And she’s pretty hot, too.

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don’t think so.

    Then again, the very definition of that term needs revision. And updating.

    After all, the cold war is over. And domestic conditions in America have changed radically. I see Ms. Mercer as yet another crypto-Israeli poseur.

    Is America’s ongoing, unconditional commitment to that state of Israel a paleoconservative value?

    Definitely not.

    Has Ms. Mercer addressed this political crisis forthrightly?

    No.

    Ilena Mercer is a rebellious neocon dressed up as some kind of bulwark against… what?

    Political correctness?

    BFD.

    Why do we need her?

    I have no idea. She’s taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I’ve observed.–(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there’s been an incremental takeover of American ‘conservativism’ by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @Cletus Rothschild
    "What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?"

    I asked myself the same question when I saw her articles pop up. I had read her articles years ago and I was struck by the incongruity of some of her message with her unflagging fealty to Israel. I wrote her off then and I see here that she hasn't changed a bit. And that includes her continued selling of herself via her "ain't I gorgeous?" pictures.

    My message to Ilana is this: dye your hair blonde and go to FOX where you're be taken as seriously as you deserve.
    , @anonymous
    Don't expect her to respond, either.

    Given her practice of only responding to praiseful comments on this website, this overlong, immodest kvetching about being ignored comes across as parody. And did she pick the pic?
    , @ilana mercer
    It's all well and good if you suffer a disability and can't read, research or digest written material, but don't pretend you've based your libel here on even a remote familiarity (research or reading) of my positions. Lying is disgusting. It's despicable.
    http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_search.php?Search+by+Category=Search+by+Category
    , @Reactionary Utopian

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don’t think so.
     
    I gave the piece a pretty careful reading, and saw not a single instance of Ms. Mercer describing herself as a "peleoconservative," or even a paleoconservative. She represented herself, instead, as a paleolibertarian. "Libertarian" and "conservative" not being the same, it seems reasonable that prefixing these terms with a common "paleo-" does not result in an identity of the resulting compound terms, either.

    ... She’s taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I’ve observed.–(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there’s been an incremental takeover of American ‘conservativism’ by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?
     

    AWOL: a military initialism for "absent without leave." I don't think Ms. Mercer's in your army, nor in any other, as far as I know. Free people write about subjects of their own choosing. Deal with it.

    Yes, Ilana Mercer can be fairly described as a Zionist. I am not -- indeed, much the contrary. That doesn't mean that reading her writing, on the Zionist project or on any other subject, is dangerous to me. I read her the same way I read anyone else: taking her viewpoints into account. I don't read only writers with whom I'm in complete agreement; sadly, the only person in this world with whom I agree completely is ... me. I guess I could save a lot of reading time if I read only my own writing. Don't think I'll start, though.

    By all means, find Ms. Mercer guilty of ARH (Alt-Right Heterodoxy) and purge her work from this site. Make a safe space for yourself, where you don't have to worry about reading anything that might trigger you.

    , @woodNfish
    You seem to have a reading comprehension problem Mark, and apparently so do those who agree with you.
    , @ilana mercer
    Are you borderline retarded, Mark Green? You admit that, 1. you have not read much of my work. 2. I have taught you nothing. Avoiding self-contradiction is the touchstone of truth—being mired in self-contradiction, the touchstone of error. To the Greek philosophers, to be mired in self-contradiction was, to quote one wag, to be "less than human, less than coherent, less than sane."

    Sounds like you, sir. Archives going back to 1999: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_list.php?orderby=dDate
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Ilana’s real problem is that she’s too good-looking to be taken seriously by all hands. A more Jeane Kirkpatrick-look would serve her well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Leftist conservative [AKA "Make Unz.com Great Again"] says: • Website

    sounds like the plot of a grade B SyFy tv show–let me know when the first episode comes out….I wanna see it…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Stogumber says:

    Indeed I use “paleolibertarian” for the followers (or “the school”) of Murray Rothbard, i.e. people like Lew Rockwell or Justin Raimondo or Hoppe.
    I understand that Mercer defines herself as “paleolibertarian”. I don’t understand why it is thus important for her.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Rehmat says:

    “History is another term for reality chronicled.”

    Totally wrong, dear. History, in fact, is written by the victors to serve the further imperialism. Ask any American, Australian or New Zealand Native, or a German or a Palestinian or a Spanish Muslim.

    America is a murderous colonial empire, and there is the so-called ‘Right-Wing or Left-Wing’ are faces of the same coin – lying shamelessly from both ends of their bodies.

    Did America learned anything from apartheid in South Africa? Well, after watching a large crowed of brainwashed westerners, one would come to the conclusion, ZILCH. As America supports another apartheid – the Jewish apartheid in Palestine.

    On March 21, 2014, British journalist and author Ben White launched second edition of his 2009 book, ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide’ at a well attended function at London Amnesty International office. The event was chaired by David Hearst, former chief foreign leading writer at British daily Guardian.

    Israeli embassy in London and the British Jewish Lobby ran a campaign against the launching of the book.

    Ben White has been praised by Bishop Desmond Tutu, Ilan Pappe PhD, Max Blumenthal and Ali Abunimah, to name a few. However, Paul Eisen, Ben White’s fellow member at the ‘Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends’ questions Ben White’s sincerity to the Palestinian cause.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/03/24/ben-white-on-israeli-apartheid/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @Mark Green
    Ilana Mercer is a talented, conservative writer. And she's pretty hot, too.

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don't think so.

    Then again, the very definition of that term needs revision. And updating.

    After all, the cold war is over. And domestic conditions in America have changed radically. I see Ms. Mercer as yet another crypto-Israeli poseur.

    Is America's ongoing, unconditional commitment to that state of Israel a paleoconservative value?

    Definitely not.

    Has Ms. Mercer addressed this political crisis forthrightly?

    No.

    Ilena Mercer is a rebellious neocon dressed up as some kind of bulwark against... what?

    Political correctness?

    BFD.

    Why do we need her?

    I have no idea. She's taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I've observed.--(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there's been an incremental takeover of American 'conservativism' by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?

    “What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?”

    I asked myself the same question when I saw her articles pop up. I had read her articles years ago and I was struck by the incongruity of some of her message with her unflagging fealty to Israel. I wrote her off then and I see here that she hasn’t changed a bit. And that includes her continued selling of herself via her “ain’t I gorgeous?” pictures.

    My message to Ilana is this: dye your hair blonde and go to FOX where you’re be taken as seriously as you deserve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Quebeker says:

    I really wonder what is so important about labels.

    She is outspoken, thought-provoking, always interesting to read if sometimes infuriating. I do think she is raising a valid point, but a minor one in my view.

    Now, I noticed she included a recent picture of her, and got the effect she was looking for, as half the comments posted so far mention her looks. Over the years I have noticed that she seems to be proud of her appearance, and appreciative of men’s attention.

    Hey, her beauty is as much a gift of nature as her intelligence and writing talent.

    Her readership here and elsewhere is mostly male, and I see this as a friendly innocent game. She sends us a nice picture for us to see on a fine Sunday morning, and we compliment her on it.

    The only thing that worries me is that she seems to look more attractive as she ages. Good grief, I hope she hasn’t made some kind of pact with Satan !

    Ilana, say it ain’t so !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mark Green
    Ilana Mercer is a talented, conservative writer. And she's pretty hot, too.

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don't think so.

    Then again, the very definition of that term needs revision. And updating.

    After all, the cold war is over. And domestic conditions in America have changed radically. I see Ms. Mercer as yet another crypto-Israeli poseur.

    Is America's ongoing, unconditional commitment to that state of Israel a paleoconservative value?

    Definitely not.

    Has Ms. Mercer addressed this political crisis forthrightly?

    No.

    Ilena Mercer is a rebellious neocon dressed up as some kind of bulwark against... what?

    Political correctness?

    BFD.

    Why do we need her?

    I have no idea. She's taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I've observed.--(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there's been an incremental takeover of American 'conservativism' by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?

    Don’t expect her to respond, either.

    Given her practice of only responding to praiseful comments on this website, this overlong, immodest kvetching about being ignored comes across as parody. And did she pick the pic?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    this overlong, immodest kvetching about being ignored comes across as parody
     
    Well, damn near. Posturing is pointless and counterproductive, Ilana. Write your stuff; write it well; make your points; keep on trucking to the end.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Fidelios Automata
    Ilana rocks! I've been following her work ever since it appeared on Mark Ames' "Exile" website when it was still based in Russia. Including her was probably one of the few good decisions that numbskull Ames has made.

    Unz ought to archive the Exiled classics here, the readership must overlap big time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @anonymous
    Don't expect her to respond, either.

    Given her practice of only responding to praiseful comments on this website, this overlong, immodest kvetching about being ignored comes across as parody. And did she pick the pic?

    this overlong, immodest kvetching about being ignored comes across as parody

    Well, damn near. Posturing is pointless and counterproductive, Ilana. Write your stuff; write it well; make your points; keep on trucking to the end.

    Read More
    • Agree: edNels
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Agent76 says:

    Mar 12, 2013 Milton Friedman on Classical Liberalism

    What is Classical Liberalism? According to a Classical Liberal, what is the proper role of government in a free society?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ralph Raico
    I knew Milton Friedman when I was a grad student at Chicago, and I consider him a great man. However, the history of ideas was by no means his strong suit, as illustrated by this film clip. John Stuart Mill was hardly a classical liberal, but rather the father of "modern liberalism," which is in reality a form of democratic socialism (in Joseph Schumpeter's analysis). In his famous essay, Mill states that liberty and individual autonomy may be even more endangered by "society" than by the state, by the pressures to conform to authority and tradition. As the scholar Linda Raeder has shown, this was part of Mill's program to replace traditional religious faith by a new Religion of Humanity, the faith of the new Millian Man, who devotes his life to furthering the collective welfare of all mankind. In contrast, I very much enjoyed the panel discussion on Murray Rothbard, who, incidentally, had some very trenchant criticisms of Friedman's policy views.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Agent76 says:

    Feb 13, 2016 Murray Rothbard, The Godfather of Libertarianism

    The late Murray Rothbard is in many ways the godfather of the modern libertarian movement, starting with the publication of his great treatise ‘Man, Economy, and State’, back in 1962. And of course, Rothbard played an instrumental role in helping Lew Rockwell get the Mises Institute off the ground.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "What s the proper role of government in a free society?" begs the question because there is not one universal society, but a world of societies. Rothbard's thinking developed. Bryan Caplan said "I lost a lot of respect for Rothbard around 1990 when he reversed his lifelong support for free immigration". While debating with Ron Unz, Caplan made it clear he is a utilitarian universalist, and not particularly interested in the people of the society in which he lives:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UpKRUcyO0I
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. iffen says:

    Isn’t Ilana saying, “I am an attractive woman with a credible resume of conservative libertarian work and yet I can be ignored by a scholar writing about the permutations of modern conservatism and libertarianism while Fox girls with no serious intellectual work can get coverage 24/7.” Isn’t she just illustrating another nail in the coffin of our political life?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Political philosophy is not like sexual orientation: You don’t just come out to the world, call yourself a thinker, and expect to be get embraced. You shouldn’t get away with that, although some try.

    You do the bloody hard work, day-in, day-out. You write, you think; you get pelted or praised; and you get up and do it again the next day.

    You can’t just come out every day and proclaim, ‘I’m a perfect paleolibertarian, I believe everything Rothbard said. Look at me, ain’t I neat, unlike Mercer,” not having written a coherent systematic sentence in your life.

    And by systematic I mean, don’t just parrot the greats! The work involves, yes, applying philosophy as you see it to the political reality, doing it in fresh, new ways.

    You can’t sit on the fence, lazily, proclaiming your purity; forever suspended between what “is” and what “out to be,” and revel in your immaculate conception (while throwing stones at me, as so many in this community have done).

    In a word, you can’t be lazy, smug; an intellectual nullity that tears the hard-working down (love split infinitives).

    As to The Mercer Image: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

    Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at Unz Review. Ridiculous!

    The point of the essay is simple. My work over 2 decades (voluminous) speaks for itself. Good or bad.

    It is systematic; it is paleolibertarian. Any scholar of substance would locate it squarely in the paleolibertarian tradition. Such a scholar might also distinguish a salient thing that sets this thought apart from some of those surveyed in the volume under discussion. As I wrote in defense of John Derb (http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=647):

    I cop to Western man’s individualist disdain—could it be his weakness?—for race as an organizing principle. For me, the road to freedom lies in beating back the state, so that individuals may regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

    As for Israel: Why not ask the Ron Paul 2007 campaign why it commissioned a think piece from me and adhered to its tenets pretty well throughout the campaign—until someone likely told Paul or handlers that Mercer was unkosher; and until someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer?

    “Unshackling Israel,” cited in “Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?,” was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect.

    http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=601

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quebeker
    I will readily admit that I am not familiar with the ways of the press.

    I meant no disrespect when presuming you had put that picture yourself. In fact, I thought it was in good fun, and did not detract from your message.

    And of course I was making a compliment, which I think is not out of place even in a forum like this one.
    , @geokat62

    As for Israel...
     
    Ah, yes, Israel. Here's my previous comment about your "short position" on Israel:

    Thanks for linking to your “short position” on Israel. It was a very interesting read… and I found the following quotes quite revealing:

    For America’s Evangelicals—and not the puny AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) often invoked derisively by libertarians—are Israel’s most powerful political lobbyists.

    The truth is that libertarians consider Israel a bit of a vexation. As a principled libertarian and an unapologetic Zionist, I have strived to navigate these shoals without resorting to special pleading…

    Due to its dependence on American military aid, posited Paul, Israel was not always able to act independently and self-interestedly.

    HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE. For foreign aid, Israeli leaders have been forced to subordinate their country’s national interests to Washington’s whims…

    Patriots for a sane U.S. foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends, especially Israel, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours

    The American founders had a deep affinity for—and knowledge of—the Mosaic faith and morals… As a devout Christian steeped in American history, Dr. Paul values and appreciates this unique bond.”
     
    I think many of these points could have been written by Noam Chomsky, who is still pushing the old Cold War myth that Israel is a useful asset of the US (dog wagging tail), rather than admit that we are living out PNAC’s goal of having the US launch the GWOT as a front for remaking the ME, in order to make the jungle a little safer for the villa (tail wagging dog).

    Just to put things in perspective, I think it is useful to contrast the points you chose to emphasize in your short position with those emphasized in the following statement recently issued by the LFTL:


    LIBERTY FROM THE LOBBY
    A project of the Council for theNational Interest councilforthenationalinterest.org

    On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the US Navy research ship USS Liberty. American casualties were 34 dead, 171 wounded. The perpetrators of this heinous crime have done their best to conceal it, so most Americans have never heard of the Liberty. The newly formed “Liberty From The Lobby” is a campaign to educate U.S. citizens, to reclaim our ideals, and to restore American political sovereignty from the malign influence of the Israel Lobby.
    The attack on the Liberty is just one example of damages from our “special relationship” with Israel. A more recent case is the US invasion of Iraq. As John Mearsheimer (U. of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Harvard U.) stated in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, “without [the Lobby's] efforts, the United States would have been far less likely to have gone to war in March 2003.”

    The Iraq war has cost us dearly, in both lives and treasure. According to Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics, and Linda Bilmes, Harvard U., it has cost US taxpayers $3 trillion. More tragically, invading Iraq has also resulted in the death of 4,500 US soldiers and up to a million Iraqis.
    Unknown to most Americans, Iraq was just the first step in the Lobby’s larger efforts to remake the Middle East. (As former General Wesley Clark revealed: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”) This strategy was laid out in a policy paper by PNAC (The Project for a New American Century), a key member of the Israel Lobby. It was written in 1996, five years before 9/11. According to PNAC, all that was needed was a “Pearl Harbor-type event” to implement it. And that event arrived in the shape of 9/11.

    As soon as the campaign in Afghanistan began, the neocons and Israel-firsters pushed hard to go after Iraq. Only trouble is, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. As Ron Paul said in a 2007 debate, 9/11 was blowback for US foreign policy:“They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” This mirrors statements by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, identified by the 9/11 Commission Report as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.” The Report noted that, “By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
    The Israel Lobby seized the opportunity to implement their larger plan of remaking the ME. What most Americans don’t realize is that rather than protecting Americans after the 9/11 attacks, the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was really launched to protect the people of Israel. According to Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”

    Even so, in 2006 during Israel’s bombing campaign against Lebanon, Condoleezza Rice confirmed the PNAC strategy thus: “What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing — the birth pangs of a new Middle East.”

    The Israel Lobby has cultivated influence in the U.S. over many decades. We propose to return the special relationship to a more normal footing. Follow us at Council for the National Interest, and look for our Liberty from the Lobby page (under construction) at the CNI website.
     

     
    , @anonymous
    "As to The Mercer Image: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

    Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at Unz Review. Ridiculous!"

    So, what's the provenance of the picture? Google shows only this use at Unz Review. And I don't see it among the first dozen in the "Gallery" on your website. Did you not send it to UR?
    , @Cletus Rothschild
    "“Unshackling Israel,” cited in “Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?,” . . ."

    Great title! We care if Ron Paul is good for AMERICA.

    ". . . was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect."

    Indeed. It was used to such "good effect" that " . . . someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Quebeker says:
    @ilana mercer
    Political philosophy is not like sexual orientation: You don't just come out to the world, call yourself a thinker, and expect to be get embraced. You shouldn't get away with that, although some try.

    You do the bloody hard work, day-in, day-out. You write, you think; you get pelted or praised; and you get up and do it again the next day.

    You can't just come out every day and proclaim, 'I'm a perfect paleolibertarian, I believe everything Rothbard said. Look at me, ain't I neat, unlike Mercer," not having written a coherent systematic sentence in your life.

    And by systematic I mean, don't just parrot the greats! The work involves, yes, applying philosophy as you see it to the political reality, doing it in fresh, new ways.

    You can't sit on the fence, lazily, proclaiming your purity; forever suspended between what "is" and what "out to be," and revel in your immaculate conception (while throwing stones at me, as so many in this community have done).

    In a word, you can't be lazy, smug; an intellectual nullity that tears the hard-working down (love split infinitives).

    As to The Mercer Image: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

    Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at Unz Review. Ridiculous!

    The point of the essay is simple. My work over 2 decades (voluminous) speaks for itself. Good or bad.

    It is systematic; it is paleolibertarian. Any scholar of substance would locate it squarely in the paleolibertarian tradition. Such a scholar might also distinguish a salient thing that sets this thought apart from some of those surveyed in the volume under discussion. As I wrote in defense of John Derb (http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=647):


    I cop to Western man’s individualist disdain—could it be his weakness?—for race as an organizing principle. For me, the road to freedom lies in beating back the state, so that individuals may regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.
     
    As for Israel: Why not ask the Ron Paul 2007 campaign why it commissioned a think piece from me and adhered to its tenets pretty well throughout the campaign---until someone likely told Paul or handlers that Mercer was unkosher; and until someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer?

    "Unshackling Israel," cited in "Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?," was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect.
    http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=601

    I will readily admit that I am not familiar with the ways of the press.

    I meant no disrespect when presuming you had put that picture yourself. In fact, I thought it was in good fun, and did not detract from your message.

    And of course I was making a compliment, which I think is not out of place even in a forum like this one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. geokat62 says:
    @ilana mercer
    Political philosophy is not like sexual orientation: You don't just come out to the world, call yourself a thinker, and expect to be get embraced. You shouldn't get away with that, although some try.

    You do the bloody hard work, day-in, day-out. You write, you think; you get pelted or praised; and you get up and do it again the next day.

    You can't just come out every day and proclaim, 'I'm a perfect paleolibertarian, I believe everything Rothbard said. Look at me, ain't I neat, unlike Mercer," not having written a coherent systematic sentence in your life.

    And by systematic I mean, don't just parrot the greats! The work involves, yes, applying philosophy as you see it to the political reality, doing it in fresh, new ways.

    You can't sit on the fence, lazily, proclaiming your purity; forever suspended between what "is" and what "out to be," and revel in your immaculate conception (while throwing stones at me, as so many in this community have done).

    In a word, you can't be lazy, smug; an intellectual nullity that tears the hard-working down (love split infinitives).

    As to The Mercer Image: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

    Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at Unz Review. Ridiculous!

    The point of the essay is simple. My work over 2 decades (voluminous) speaks for itself. Good or bad.

    It is systematic; it is paleolibertarian. Any scholar of substance would locate it squarely in the paleolibertarian tradition. Such a scholar might also distinguish a salient thing that sets this thought apart from some of those surveyed in the volume under discussion. As I wrote in defense of John Derb (http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=647):


    I cop to Western man’s individualist disdain—could it be his weakness?—for race as an organizing principle. For me, the road to freedom lies in beating back the state, so that individuals may regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.
     
    As for Israel: Why not ask the Ron Paul 2007 campaign why it commissioned a think piece from me and adhered to its tenets pretty well throughout the campaign---until someone likely told Paul or handlers that Mercer was unkosher; and until someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer?

    "Unshackling Israel," cited in "Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?," was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect.
    http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=601

    As for Israel…

    Ah, yes, Israel. Here’s my previous comment about your “short position” on Israel:

    Thanks for linking to your “short position” on Israel. It was a very interesting read… and I found the following quotes quite revealing:

    For America’s Evangelicals—and not the puny AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) often invoked derisively by libertarians—are Israel’s most powerful political lobbyists.

    The truth is that libertarians consider Israel a bit of a vexation. As a principled libertarian and an unapologetic Zionist, I have strived to navigate these shoals without resorting to special pleading…

    Due to its dependence on American military aid, posited Paul, Israel was not always able to act independently and self-interestedly.

    HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE. For foreign aid, Israeli leaders have been forced to subordinate their country’s national interests to Washington’s whims…

    Patriots for a sane U.S. foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends, especially Israel, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours

    The American founders had a deep affinity for—and knowledge of—the Mosaic faith and morals… As a devout Christian steeped in American history, Dr. Paul values and appreciates this unique bond.”

    I think many of these points could have been written by Noam Chomsky, who is still pushing the old Cold War myth that Israel is a useful asset of the US (dog wagging tail), rather than admit that we are living out PNAC’s goal of having the US launch the GWOT as a front for remaking the ME, in order to make the jungle a little safer for the villa (tail wagging dog).

    Just to put things in perspective, I think it is useful to contrast the points you chose to emphasize in your short position with those emphasized in the following statement recently issued by the LFTL:

    [MORE]

    LIBERTY FROM THE LOBBY
    A project of the Council for theNational Interest councilforthenationalinterest.org

    On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the US Navy research ship USS Liberty. American casualties were 34 dead, 171 wounded. The perpetrators of this heinous crime have done their best to conceal it, so most Americans have never heard of the Liberty. The newly formed “Liberty From The Lobby” is a campaign to educate U.S. citizens, to reclaim our ideals, and to restore American political sovereignty from the malign influence of the Israel Lobby.
    The attack on the Liberty is just one example of damages from our “special relationship” with Israel. A more recent case is the US invasion of Iraq. As John Mearsheimer (U. of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Harvard U.) stated in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, “without [the Lobby's] efforts, the United States would have been far less likely to have gone to war in March 2003.”

    The Iraq war has cost us dearly, in both lives and treasure. According to Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics, and Linda Bilmes, Harvard U., it has cost US taxpayers $3 trillion. More tragically, invading Iraq has also resulted in the death of 4,500 US soldiers and up to a million Iraqis.
    Unknown to most Americans, Iraq was just the first step in the Lobby’s larger efforts to remake the Middle East. (As former General Wesley Clark revealed: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”) This strategy was laid out in a policy paper by PNAC (The Project for a New American Century), a key member of the Israel Lobby. It was written in 1996, five years before 9/11. According to PNAC, all that was needed was a “Pearl Harbor-type event” to implement it. And that event arrived in the shape of 9/11.

    As soon as the campaign in Afghanistan began, the neocons and Israel-firsters pushed hard to go after Iraq. Only trouble is, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. As Ron Paul said in a 2007 debate, 9/11 was blowback for US foreign policy:“They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” This mirrors statements by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, identified by the 9/11 Commission Report as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.” The Report noted that, “By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
    The Israel Lobby seized the opportunity to implement their larger plan of remaking the ME. What most Americans don’t realize is that rather than protecting Americans after the 9/11 attacks, the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was really launched to protect the people of Israel. According to Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”

    Even so, in 2006 during Israel’s bombing campaign against Lebanon, Condoleezza Rice confirmed the PNAC strategy thus: “What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing — the birth pangs of a new Middle East.”

    The Israel Lobby has cultivated influence in the U.S. over many decades. We propose to return the special relationship to a more normal footing. Follow us at Council for the National Interest, and look for our Liberty from the Lobby page (under construction) at the CNI website.

Read More
• Replies: @Sean
Israel is not calling the tune if you look closely.

HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE. For foreign aid, Israeli leaders have been forced to subordinate their country’s national interests to Washington’s whims…

 

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/clinton-two-state-solution-still-possible-for-israel-palestinians-1.320369

It is official US policy for Arabs in the West Bank to have a state created for them, and if that does not happen and they stay where they are, Israel will cease to be a Jewish state. John Mearsheimer and Ron Unz have both said as much: the US has locked Israel into a unsustainable position.

It is far from clear that Bush the younger's destruction of Iraq (which he reportedly said God told him to do) was beneficial to Israel. Thanks to Germany, Norway ect Israel has nuclear weapons and the most powerful army in the regions. Sure, the neocons said they were doing something good for Israel, but really Iraq was a third world peasant country and not a substantial threat, unlike the West Bank Arabs. If the Israel lobby were not so concerned with their own personal aggrandizement and fanatically Zionist they would advocate Meir Kahane's policies, which as Ron Unz has said are the only think that can save Israel in a continuation of the current situation:


There appear to be only two possible outcomes to this conflict. Israel may eventually choose to follow the path of the outlawed Kach Movement, and exterminate or expel virtually all Palestinians from both Israel proper and the West Bank, whether or not they are long-time Israeli citizens. Or... the collapse of the Jewish state within another generation or so.http://www.ronunz.org/2002/01/01/israels-future-kachism-or-nothing-2/
 
Mearsheimer called the current Israeli strategy unsustainable over time. "Think about that , because he is no great pal of Israel. The current support of Israel may well be greater than Ilana allows, but US aid to Israel is totally conditional on Israel playing along with the US's process towards a Palestinian state, which is a game Israel cannot win in the end

Mearsheimer:“This situation, however, is unsustainable over time. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Greater Israel is a reality, the righteous Jews will have two choices: support apartheid or work to help create a democratic bi-national state. I believe that almost all of them will opt for the latter option, in large part because of their deep-seated commitment to liberal values, which renders any apartheid state abhorrent to them.”

 

Commentators as different as Mearsheimer and Unz have converged on much the same conclusion as Ilana . The only difference is she sees a way out for Israel and the US.

Israeli leaders have been forced to subordinate their country's national interests to Washington's whims. This is bad for both allies. Those of us who want the U.S. to stay solvent—and out of the affairs of others—recognize that sovereign nation-states that resist, not enable, our imperial impulses, are the best hindrance to hegemonic overreach. Patriots for a sane U.S. foreign policy ought to encourage all America's friends, especially Israel, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours.

 

I think that rings true, and if the US keeps out the internal affairs of Israel and ceases to prop up a family dictatorship in the already existing Palestinian state (Jordan) people will end up where they belong, which will be the best outcome. At present, Israel is not calling the tune, if you look closely. The neocons think first and mainly of themselves and they are bringing Israel ever closer to disaster, which will also spell trouble for the US.
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Mark Green
    Ilana Mercer is a talented, conservative writer. And she's pretty hot, too.

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don't think so.

    Then again, the very definition of that term needs revision. And updating.

    After all, the cold war is over. And domestic conditions in America have changed radically. I see Ms. Mercer as yet another crypto-Israeli poseur.

    Is America's ongoing, unconditional commitment to that state of Israel a paleoconservative value?

    Definitely not.

    Has Ms. Mercer addressed this political crisis forthrightly?

    No.

    Ilena Mercer is a rebellious neocon dressed up as some kind of bulwark against... what?

    Political correctness?

    BFD.

    Why do we need her?

    I have no idea. She's taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I've observed.--(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there's been an incremental takeover of American 'conservativism' by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?

    It’s all well and good if you suffer a disability and can’t read, research or digest written material, but don’t pretend you’ve based your libel here on even a remote familiarity (research or reading) of my positions. Lying is disgusting. It’s despicable.

    http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_search.php?Search+by+Category=Search+by+Category

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    Ms. Mercer- "Lying is disgusting"? Yes. "It's despicable". OK. And your point is... ?

    Your fake ideology is a ruse. And what you're selling we're not buying.

    I've committed some kind of "libel" against you? Ha! See you in court.

    I've read you sufficiently to understand where your loyalties lie. In familiar fashion, you're hiding behind an ideological label, calling yourself a 'paleolibertarian'. This fits a pattern.

    Other Israelis hide behind the ideology of 'neoconservatism'. And I bet you all get along rather well. Earlier, members of your tribe rode into town proclaiming the imminent perfection of humankind under a system called communism. The canards never end.

    So please stop dissembling. You are an Israeli and you write very much like Israelis do when they address an American audience. As a 'paleolibertarian' you're just adjusting various ideological markers to mask your agenda. It's fascinating to observe.

    Below are some observations I made after reading a previous diatribe of yours that appeared on Unz.com on 11/23/15. As always, you attempted to whitewash Israeli criminality.

    How did an Israeli propagandist [Ilana Mercer] worm her way onto this site?

    Aren’t there enough forums devoted to Israel-centric advocacy already? What about Fox news or the Weekly Standard?

    Is an op-ed by Charles Krauthammer coming next?

    Ms. Mercer will be happy to know that, as it turns out, the Israelis enjoy a very comfortable upper hand in this struggle–though you’d never know it by reading her breathless screed.

    Sadly, innocent people are dying on both sides. But it is the Palestinians who are doing most of the suffering and most of the dying. In fact, the long-term kill ratio favors Israel by at least eight to one. Even so, the economic and political disparity favoring Israel is still greater since these revealing numbers do not reflect the death toll of crypto-Israeli militarism such as Washington’s destruction of Iraq and Libya.

    So please quit clouding the issue with your anti-Muslim rants. Theology is incidental to the struggle in Israel/Palestine. The conflict is more about ancestry and identity. These terrible ‘Muslims’ could just as easily be Palestinian-born Christians or Hindus or atheists, since all non-Jews are equally unwelcome living inside the Jewish State. They interfere with what Israel is all about: Jewish safety, Jewish cohesion, Jewish identity and Jewish separation.

    What we have in Israel/Palestine is a war between Jews from anywhere and gentiles from one place. In a normal world, America would be neutral in this conflict. But our nation’s policies have been hijacked. This is both perplexing and worrisome. After all, the US government cannot in any way express religious preference within our borders. So why are we expressing religious preference outside of our borders? I attribute this distortion to the pressures of one ethnic lobby.

    This entrenched favoritism is not consistent with Constitutional principles. And on a more practical level, Washington’s love affair with the Jewish state is perilous.

    Indeed, it was the imposition in 1948 of a Jews Only state in a land inhabited primarily by non-Jews that sparked and sustains this region’s most-enduring struggle. Christians, Jews and Muslims were living in relative harmony in pre-Zionist Palestine. The establishment of Israel put an end to that. Formal lines were drawn. Foreign invasions were launched. Wars have since skyrocketed. America has needlessly taken sides.

    Israel’s preemptive war in 1967 added more fuel to the fire. The Six Day War not only provided Israel with more territory, but a larger, non-Jewish population to rule over. These non-Jews have been living under Israeli military occupation for nearly half a century. This subjugation is the near-equivalent of a ‘life sentence’ for hundreds of thousands of ordinary civilians.

    And if it wasn’t for uninterrupted (and unconditional) US aid given to Israel ever since LBJ, the Jewish State’s iron grip on the region would not survive. Yet it does. Hey, there’s a headline right there! Care to comment, Ms. Mercer?

    Why not weigh in on the political repercussions of ‘Israeli influence in Washington’?

    Huge? Significant?–or of no importance whatsoever?

    Any opinion? Please let us know!

    Israel, America, and the entire Middle East have some very ugly problems going forward. Choices must be made. Hard choices. The status quo must be altered. It’s poison. Even the vaunted, decades-long ‘peace process’ turned out to be a mirage. It turns out that Israel can simply say “NO” indefinitely (and build Jews Only settlements in Palestine)–and there’s no penalty and virtually no consequences. Who’s fooling whom?

    In the meantime, the Palestinian people remain stateless, powerless, vulnerable and impoverished. They know what’s going on: conquest. It’s a state of war. No wonder they’re carrying out ‘terrorist acts’. Their backs are to the wall. Israel is marching into Palestine and mercilessly squeezing them out. What would you do in their situation?

    Unfortunately, all these puny Palestinians can do is launch a protest, throw stones, pray for an Israeli concession, or go on a suicide mission. The result is invariably the same: continued disenfranchisement, less and less leverage.

    These facts speaks to a resounding imbalance of power there that favors Israel. Am I wrong about this, Ms. Mercer?

    If America was half the sovereign superpower it’s supposed to be, this would be the deal:

    Washington suspends all aid to Israel unless the Israelis either 1) end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to develop their own independent and contiguous state approximating their 1967 borders, or 2) annex the Occupied Territories and give all the gentiles living there equal rights and equal citizenship with Jews inside greater Israel. One democratic state for all?

    How’s that for democratic values? So which shall it be?

    Israel’s answer: Neither.

    Israel will never ‘jeopardize’ its Jewish character nor give up the land that it snatched in 1967. Those wonderful Zionists would rather let the Palestinians live under the worst conditions imaginable than achieve lasting peace though concession.

    What the Israelis secretly want is for the Palestinians to give up and crawl away. Am I wrong about this? What’s your solution to this conundrum, Ms. Mercer?–more negotiations?

    What should Israel’s precise borders be?

    Oddly, we Americans are expected to always root for the Israelis and always subsidize them. How come? Is this Fantasyland?–or a bad dream?

    But the ‘evasive’ peace in Israel/Palestine is very achievable. It is also entirely in Israel’s hands.

    Israel has all the political and economic and military power. Israel also controls the land. Israel can hold the Palestinian people hostage. Affluent, nuclear Israel is basically holding all the cards.

    Palestinians on the other hand are holding all the sling-shots. The Palestinians have nothing to bargain with, besides resistance. But even this does not faze super-powerful Israel. The Israelis could care less. They want the Palestinians living in Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon or anywhere besides inside Israel or next to the Jewish state.

    Therefore, Israel’s long term goal is gradual (or sudden) expulsion. As Meir Kahane prophetically declared: “They Must Go”. Bibi agrees. Palestinian society must collapse or fold up its tent and disappear. After that, Israel gets the land that God promised the Jews.

    All the agreements and all the accords and all the ceremonial pomp involving the ‘peace process’ blah blah blah over the past 40 years have basically been a ruse. They bought Israel time. Now the game is over and it’s war through attrition.

    So don’t fib to us, Ms. Mercer, about poor righteous Israel being under siege. That’s kosher baloney you’re selling. Israel is clearly in the driver’s seat.

    I say: let the Zionists fight their own battles. America has no vital, national interest in maintaining the supremacy of one, tiny ethno-state. What’s in it for us? What’s in it for humanity?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @Agent76
    Feb 13, 2016 Murray Rothbard, The Godfather of Libertarianism

    The late Murray Rothbard is in many ways the godfather of the modern libertarian movement, starting with the publication of his great treatise 'Man, Economy, and State', back in 1962. And of course, Rothbard played an instrumental role in helping Lew Rockwell get the Mises Institute off the ground.

    https://youtu.be/6spFVuPHz-Y

    “What s the proper role of government in a free society?” begs the question because there is not one universal society, but a world of societies. Rothbard’s thinking developed. Bryan Caplan said “I lost a lot of respect for Rothbard around 1990 when he reversed his lifelong support for free immigration”. While debating with Ron Unz, Caplan made it clear he is a utilitarian universalist, and not particularly interested in the people of the society in which he lives:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UpKRUcyO0I

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    You are on the right track. JUNE 10, 2014 The Real Jobs Report: “Free Trade” Kills American Manufacturing

    In May, the economy added an estimated 217,000 jobs and the unemployment rate stayed at 6.3%. According to the lie the mainstream media tells we should be happy because we have finally recovered to the number of jobs that we had before the recession began.

    http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-real-jobs-report-free-trade-kills-american-manufacturing
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • I’ve yet to read anybody who brings as rigorous an intellectual analysis to Libertarianism as Hans Hoppe.

    The Whack Nut Daily site is a festering den of neocons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @geokat62

    As for Israel...
     
    Ah, yes, Israel. Here's my previous comment about your "short position" on Israel:

    Thanks for linking to your “short position” on Israel. It was a very interesting read… and I found the following quotes quite revealing:

    For America’s Evangelicals—and not the puny AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) often invoked derisively by libertarians—are Israel’s most powerful political lobbyists.

    The truth is that libertarians consider Israel a bit of a vexation. As a principled libertarian and an unapologetic Zionist, I have strived to navigate these shoals without resorting to special pleading…

    Due to its dependence on American military aid, posited Paul, Israel was not always able to act independently and self-interestedly.

    HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE. For foreign aid, Israeli leaders have been forced to subordinate their country’s national interests to Washington’s whims…

    Patriots for a sane U.S. foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends, especially Israel, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours

    The American founders had a deep affinity for—and knowledge of—the Mosaic faith and morals… As a devout Christian steeped in American history, Dr. Paul values and appreciates this unique bond.”
     
    I think many of these points could have been written by Noam Chomsky, who is still pushing the old Cold War myth that Israel is a useful asset of the US (dog wagging tail), rather than admit that we are living out PNAC’s goal of having the US launch the GWOT as a front for remaking the ME, in order to make the jungle a little safer for the villa (tail wagging dog).

    Just to put things in perspective, I think it is useful to contrast the points you chose to emphasize in your short position with those emphasized in the following statement recently issued by the LFTL:


    LIBERTY FROM THE LOBBY
    A project of the Council for theNational Interest councilforthenationalinterest.org

    On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the US Navy research ship USS Liberty. American casualties were 34 dead, 171 wounded. The perpetrators of this heinous crime have done their best to conceal it, so most Americans have never heard of the Liberty. The newly formed “Liberty From The Lobby” is a campaign to educate U.S. citizens, to reclaim our ideals, and to restore American political sovereignty from the malign influence of the Israel Lobby.
    The attack on the Liberty is just one example of damages from our “special relationship” with Israel. A more recent case is the US invasion of Iraq. As John Mearsheimer (U. of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Harvard U.) stated in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, “without [the Lobby's] efforts, the United States would have been far less likely to have gone to war in March 2003.”

    The Iraq war has cost us dearly, in both lives and treasure. According to Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics, and Linda Bilmes, Harvard U., it has cost US taxpayers $3 trillion. More tragically, invading Iraq has also resulted in the death of 4,500 US soldiers and up to a million Iraqis.
    Unknown to most Americans, Iraq was just the first step in the Lobby’s larger efforts to remake the Middle East. (As former General Wesley Clark revealed: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”) This strategy was laid out in a policy paper by PNAC (The Project for a New American Century), a key member of the Israel Lobby. It was written in 1996, five years before 9/11. According to PNAC, all that was needed was a “Pearl Harbor-type event” to implement it. And that event arrived in the shape of 9/11.

    As soon as the campaign in Afghanistan began, the neocons and Israel-firsters pushed hard to go after Iraq. Only trouble is, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. As Ron Paul said in a 2007 debate, 9/11 was blowback for US foreign policy:“They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” This mirrors statements by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, identified by the 9/11 Commission Report as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.” The Report noted that, “By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
    The Israel Lobby seized the opportunity to implement their larger plan of remaking the ME. What most Americans don’t realize is that rather than protecting Americans after the 9/11 attacks, the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was really launched to protect the people of Israel. According to Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”

    Even so, in 2006 during Israel’s bombing campaign against Lebanon, Condoleezza Rice confirmed the PNAC strategy thus: “What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing — the birth pangs of a new Middle East.”

    The Israel Lobby has cultivated influence in the U.S. over many decades. We propose to return the special relationship to a more normal footing. Follow us at Council for the National Interest, and look for our Liberty from the Lobby page (under construction) at the CNI website.
     

     

    Israel is not calling the tune if you look closely.

    HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE. For foreign aid, Israeli leaders have been forced to subordinate their country’s national interests to Washington’s whims…

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/clinton-two-state-solution-still-possible-for-israel-palestinians-1.320369

    It is official US policy for Arabs in the West Bank to have a state created for them, and if that does not happen and they stay where they are, Israel will cease to be a Jewish state. John Mearsheimer and Ron Unz have both said as much: the US has locked Israel into a unsustainable position.

    It is far from clear that Bush the younger’s destruction of Iraq (which he reportedly said God told him to do) was beneficial to Israel. Thanks to Germany, Norway ect Israel has nuclear weapons and the most powerful army in the regions. Sure, the neocons said they were doing something good for Israel, but really Iraq was a third world peasant country and not a substantial threat, unlike the West Bank Arabs. If the Israel lobby were not so concerned with their own personal aggrandizement and fanatically Zionist they would advocate Meir Kahane’s policies, which as Ron Unz has said are the only think that can save Israel in a continuation of the current situation:

    There appear to be only two possible outcomes to this conflict. Israel may eventually choose to follow the path of the outlawed Kach Movement, and exterminate or expel virtually all Palestinians from both Israel proper and the West Bank, whether or not they are long-time Israeli citizens. Or… the collapse of the Jewish state within another generation or so.http://www.ronunz.org/2002/01/01/israels-future-kachism-or-nothing-2/

    Mearsheimer called the current Israeli strategy unsustainable over time. “Think about that , because he is no great pal of Israel. The current support of Israel may well be greater than Ilana allows, but US aid to Israel is totally conditional on Israel playing along with the US’s process towards a Palestinian state, which is a game Israel cannot win in the end

    Mearsheimer:“This situation, however, is unsustainable over time. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Greater Israel is a reality, the righteous Jews will have two choices: support apartheid or work to help create a democratic bi-national state. I believe that almost all of them will opt for the latter option, in large part because of their deep-seated commitment to liberal values, which renders any apartheid state abhorrent to them.”

    Commentators as different as Mearsheimer and Unz have converged on much the same conclusion as Ilana . The only difference is she sees a way out for Israel and the US.

    Israeli leaders have been forced to subordinate their country’s national interests to Washington’s whims. This is bad for both allies. Those of us who want the U.S. to stay solvent—and out of the affairs of others—recognize that sovereign nation-states that resist, not enable, our imperial impulses, are the best hindrance to hegemonic overreach. Patriots for a sane U.S. foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends, especially Israel, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours.

    I think that rings true, and if the US keeps out the internal affairs of Israel and ceases to prop up a family dictatorship in the already existing Palestinian state (Jordan) people will end up where they belong, which will be the best outcome. At present, Israel is not calling the tune, if you look closely. The neocons think first and mainly of themselves and they are bringing Israel ever closer to disaster, which will also spell trouble for the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ilana mercer
    Political philosophy is not like sexual orientation: You don't just come out to the world, call yourself a thinker, and expect to be get embraced. You shouldn't get away with that, although some try.

    You do the bloody hard work, day-in, day-out. You write, you think; you get pelted or praised; and you get up and do it again the next day.

    You can't just come out every day and proclaim, 'I'm a perfect paleolibertarian, I believe everything Rothbard said. Look at me, ain't I neat, unlike Mercer," not having written a coherent systematic sentence in your life.

    And by systematic I mean, don't just parrot the greats! The work involves, yes, applying philosophy as you see it to the political reality, doing it in fresh, new ways.

    You can't sit on the fence, lazily, proclaiming your purity; forever suspended between what "is" and what "out to be," and revel in your immaculate conception (while throwing stones at me, as so many in this community have done).

    In a word, you can't be lazy, smug; an intellectual nullity that tears the hard-working down (love split infinitives).

    As to The Mercer Image: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

    Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at Unz Review. Ridiculous!

    The point of the essay is simple. My work over 2 decades (voluminous) speaks for itself. Good or bad.

    It is systematic; it is paleolibertarian. Any scholar of substance would locate it squarely in the paleolibertarian tradition. Such a scholar might also distinguish a salient thing that sets this thought apart from some of those surveyed in the volume under discussion. As I wrote in defense of John Derb (http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=647):


    I cop to Western man’s individualist disdain—could it be his weakness?—for race as an organizing principle. For me, the road to freedom lies in beating back the state, so that individuals may regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.
     
    As for Israel: Why not ask the Ron Paul 2007 campaign why it commissioned a think piece from me and adhered to its tenets pretty well throughout the campaign---until someone likely told Paul or handlers that Mercer was unkosher; and until someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer?

    "Unshackling Israel," cited in "Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?," was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect.
    http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=601

    “As to The Mercer Image: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

    Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at Unz Review. Ridiculous!”

    So, what’s the provenance of the picture? Google shows only this use at Unz Review. And I don’t see it among the first dozen in the “Gallery” on your website. Did you not send it to UR?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian

    So, what’s the provenance of the picture? Google shows only this use at Unz Review. And I don’t see it among the first dozen in the “Gallery” on your website. Did you not send it to UR?
     
    Stop the presses! Special edition! Picturegate!

    OK, you have a right to know the provenance of the picture. I took it, on special assignment from unz.com. I concealed myself in the shrubbery across the street from chez Mercerwith my 1000 mm telephoto, and I caught this image when she came out of her house last Saturday morning to let her dog back in after, you know, doing his necessary dog business. So now you know what she looks like at home, on the weekend. Think she's hot in that picture? If I could've gotten her to sit formally in my portraiture studio, with her face on and everything, then you'd really be impressed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Agent76
    Mar 12, 2013 Milton Friedman on Classical Liberalism

    What is Classical Liberalism? According to a Classical Liberal, what is the proper role of government in a free society?

    http://youtu.be/QmeeMYrnweg

    I knew Milton Friedman when I was a grad student at Chicago, and I consider him a great man. However, the history of ideas was by no means his strong suit, as illustrated by this film clip. John Stuart Mill was hardly a classical liberal, but rather the father of “modern liberalism,” which is in reality a form of democratic socialism (in Joseph Schumpeter’s analysis). In his famous essay, Mill states that liberty and individual autonomy may be even more endangered by “society” than by the state, by the pressures to conform to authority and tradition. As the scholar Linda Raeder has shown, this was part of Mill’s program to replace traditional religious faith by a new Religion of Humanity, the faith of the new Millian Man, who devotes his life to furthering the collective welfare of all mankind. In contrast, I very much enjoyed the panel discussion on Murray Rothbard, who, incidentally, had some very trenchant criticisms of Friedman’s policy views.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Agent76 says:
    @Sean
    "What s the proper role of government in a free society?" begs the question because there is not one universal society, but a world of societies. Rothbard's thinking developed. Bryan Caplan said "I lost a lot of respect for Rothbard around 1990 when he reversed his lifelong support for free immigration". While debating with Ron Unz, Caplan made it clear he is a utilitarian universalist, and not particularly interested in the people of the society in which he lives:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UpKRUcyO0I

    You are on the right track. JUNE 10, 2014 The Real Jobs Report: “Free Trade” Kills American Manufacturing

    In May, the economy added an estimated 217,000 jobs and the unemployment rate stayed at 6.3%. According to the lie the mainstream media tells we should be happy because we have finally recovered to the number of jobs that we had before the recession began.

    http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-real-jobs-report-free-trade-kills-american-manufacturing

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Mark Green says: • Website
    @ilana mercer
    It's all well and good if you suffer a disability and can't read, research or digest written material, but don't pretend you've based your libel here on even a remote familiarity (research or reading) of my positions. Lying is disgusting. It's despicable.
    http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_search.php?Search+by+Category=Search+by+Category

    Ms. Mercer- “Lying is disgusting”? Yes. “It’s despicable”. OK. And your point is… ?

    Your fake ideology is a ruse. And what you’re selling we’re not buying.

    I’ve committed some kind of “libel” against you? Ha! See you in court.

    I’ve read you sufficiently to understand where your loyalties lie. In familiar fashion, you’re hiding behind an ideological label, calling yourself a ‘paleolibertarian’. This fits a pattern.

    Other Israelis hide behind the ideology of ‘neoconservatism’. And I bet you all get along rather well. Earlier, members of your tribe rode into town proclaiming the imminent perfection of humankind under a system called communism. The canards never end.

    So please stop dissembling. You are an Israeli and you write very much like Israelis do when they address an American audience. As a ‘paleolibertarian’ you’re just adjusting various ideological markers to mask your agenda. It’s fascinating to observe.

    Below are some observations I made after reading a previous diatribe of yours that appeared on Unz.com on 11/23/15. As always, you attempted to whitewash Israeli criminality.

    How did an Israeli propagandist [Ilana Mercer] worm her way onto this site?

    Aren’t there enough forums devoted to Israel-centric advocacy already? What about Fox news or the Weekly Standard?

    Is an op-ed by Charles Krauthammer coming next?

    Ms. Mercer will be happy to know that, as it turns out, the Israelis enjoy a very comfortable upper hand in this struggle–though you’d never know it by reading her breathless screed.

    Sadly, innocent people are dying on both sides. But it is the Palestinians who are doing most of the suffering and most of the dying. In fact, the long-term kill ratio favors Israel by at least eight to one. Even so, the economic and political disparity favoring Israel is still greater since these revealing numbers do not reflect the death toll of crypto-Israeli militarism such as Washington’s destruction of Iraq and Libya.

    So please quit clouding the issue with your anti-Muslim rants. Theology is incidental to the struggle in Israel/Palestine. The conflict is more about ancestry and identity. These terrible ‘Muslims’ could just as easily be Palestinian-born Christians or Hindus or atheists, since all non-Jews are equally unwelcome living inside the Jewish State. They interfere with what Israel is all about: Jewish safety, Jewish cohesion, Jewish identity and Jewish separation.

    What we have in Israel/Palestine is a war between Jews from anywhere and gentiles from one place. In a normal world, America would be neutral in this conflict. But our nation’s policies have been hijacked. This is both perplexing and worrisome. After all, the US government cannot in any way express religious preference within our borders. So why are we expressing religious preference outside of our borders? I attribute this distortion to the pressures of one ethnic lobby.

    This entrenched favoritism is not consistent with Constitutional principles. And on a more practical level, Washington’s love affair with the Jewish state is perilous.

    Indeed, it was the imposition in 1948 of a Jews Only state in a land inhabited primarily by non-Jews that sparked and sustains this region’s most-enduring struggle. Christians, Jews and Muslims were living in relative harmony in pre-Zionist Palestine. The establishment of Israel put an end to that. Formal lines were drawn. Foreign invasions were launched. Wars have since skyrocketed. America has needlessly taken sides.

    Israel’s preemptive war in 1967 added more fuel to the fire. The Six Day War not only provided Israel with more territory, but a larger, non-Jewish population to rule over. These non-Jews have been living under Israeli military occupation for nearly half a century. This subjugation is the near-equivalent of a ‘life sentence’ for hundreds of thousands of ordinary civilians.

    And if it wasn’t for uninterrupted (and unconditional) US aid given to Israel ever since LBJ, the Jewish State’s iron grip on the region would not survive. Yet it does. Hey, there’s a headline right there! Care to comment, Ms. Mercer?

    Why not weigh in on the political repercussions of ‘Israeli influence in Washington’?

    Huge? Significant?–or of no importance whatsoever?

    Any opinion? Please let us know!

    Israel, America, and the entire Middle East have some very ugly problems going forward. Choices must be made. Hard choices. The status quo must be altered. It’s poison. Even the vaunted, decades-long ‘peace process’ turned out to be a mirage. It turns out that Israel can simply say “NO” indefinitely (and build Jews Only settlements in Palestine)–and there’s no penalty and virtually no consequences. Who’s fooling whom?

    In the meantime, the Palestinian people remain stateless, powerless, vulnerable and impoverished. They know what’s going on: conquest. It’s a state of war. No wonder they’re carrying out ‘terrorist acts’. Their backs are to the wall. Israel is marching into Palestine and mercilessly squeezing them out. What would you do in their situation?

    Unfortunately, all these puny Palestinians can do is launch a protest, throw stones, pray for an Israeli concession, or go on a suicide mission. The result is invariably the same: continued disenfranchisement, less and less leverage.

    These facts speaks to a resounding imbalance of power there that favors Israel. Am I wrong about this, Ms. Mercer?

    If America was half the sovereign superpower it’s supposed to be, this would be the deal:

    Washington suspends all aid to Israel unless the Israelis either 1) end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to develop their own independent and contiguous state approximating their 1967 borders, or 2) annex the Occupied Territories and give all the gentiles living there equal rights and equal citizenship with Jews inside greater Israel. One democratic state for all?

    How’s that for democratic values? So which shall it be?

    Israel’s answer: Neither.

    Israel will never ‘jeopardize’ its Jewish character nor give up the land that it snatched in 1967. Those wonderful Zionists would rather let the Palestinians live under the worst conditions imaginable than achieve lasting peace though concession.

    What the Israelis secretly want is for the Palestinians to give up and crawl away. Am I wrong about this? What’s your solution to this conundrum, Ms. Mercer?–more negotiations?

    What should Israel’s precise borders be?

    Oddly, we Americans are expected to always root for the Israelis and always subsidize them. How come? Is this Fantasyland?–or a bad dream?

    But the ‘evasive’ peace in Israel/Palestine is very achievable. It is also entirely in Israel’s hands.

    Israel has all the political and economic and military power. Israel also controls the land. Israel can hold the Palestinian people hostage. Affluent, nuclear Israel is basically holding all the cards.

    Palestinians on the other hand are holding all the sling-shots. The Palestinians have nothing to bargain with, besides resistance. But even this does not faze super-powerful Israel. The Israelis could care less. They want the Palestinians living in Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon or anywhere besides inside Israel or next to the Jewish state.

    Therefore, Israel’s long term goal is gradual (or sudden) expulsion. As Meir Kahane prophetically declared: “They Must Go”. Bibi agrees. Palestinian society must collapse or fold up its tent and disappear. After that, Israel gets the land that God promised the Jews.

    All the agreements and all the accords and all the ceremonial pomp involving the ‘peace process’ blah blah blah over the past 40 years have basically been a ruse. They bought Israel time. Now the game is over and it’s war through attrition.

    So don’t fib to us, Ms. Mercer, about poor righteous Israel being under siege. That’s kosher baloney you’re selling. Israel is clearly in the driver’s seat.

    I say: let the Zionists fight their own battles. America has no vital, national interest in maintaining the supremacy of one, tiny ethno-state. What’s in it for us? What’s in it for humanity?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "What we have in Israel/Palestine is a war between Jews from anywhere and gentiles from one place. In a normal world, America would be neutral in this conflict."

    Not possible since US played an instrumental role in creating Israel.

    Once US intervenes in some part of the world, it gets 'stuck'. It is still stuck in Korea. Still stuck in Somalia. (Damn that Bush I)
    US created the new order in the Pacific and still has bases all over Japan, Philippines.

    US created the new order in Europe and still militarily patrols and dominates that area.

    US played role of empire since end of WWII. So, US bias for Israel is hardly abnormal.

    In the long run though, the Pallies gotta be given something. They did suffer a tragedy.

    The best solution would be send all Jews in West Bank to Israel and send all Arabs in Israel to West Bank. All Jewish Israel, all Arab West Bank.

    Homogeneity is so nicer.
    , @Lost american
    geokat62 and Mark Green- very much appreciate your reviews here. Americans have very short memories.
    Michael Scheurer is retired CIA who headed the Bin Laden unit. I believe he was made to retire some 10 years ago when he did not speak up in favor of Israel. It has been years since I read his book (believe it is named Imperial Hubris) but he made it clear that Bin Laden would continue his tactics against the USA as long as Israel continued to steal Palestinian land and persecute innocent Palestinians (yes, false flags are a favorite tactic of the Mossad).
    One does not have to read a book to know as many who have had their boots on the ground that many used mortars and other projectiles lying among Palestinian bodies and housing rubble have indications of "Made in USA " markings.
    It is clear from the actions of our House and Senate in the USA that the majority of these elected officials are bought by Israel.
    I enjoy reading the stories and comments here but it still comes down to the terror inflicted on a people. Most Americans are oblivious to the sufferings of Palestinians. Except for service members exposed to IEDs and other explosives, most Americans have no idea what it feels like to have one's eardrums blown out or have lifelong tinnitus and other problems due to massive artillery and mortar barrages. Also, it is obvious how one would feel to see their apartment blown apart and their children lying in puddles of blood.
    , @Stan d Mute

    I say: let the Zionists fight their own battles. America has no vital, national interest in maintaining the supremacy of one, tiny ethno-state. What’s in it for us? What’s in it for humanity?
     
    What's in it for "us"? Depends on who the "us" includes. If it's the 100,000,000 American fanatic Evangelical bible thumpers *certain* their fairytale sky fairy will arrive any second now, then it's crucial to the plot of their fairytale book. If it's the 100,000,000 Americans who are big fans of the fairytale, but not quite convinced it will all come true tomorrow, then it's still pretty important. And for the politicians elected by these fanatics and fairytale fiction fans, financed by Israeli Zionist donors, well, you can do that math.

    In other words, I do so tire of the Jew blaming without applying equal blame to the snake handlers and tongue speakers along with the Catholic and Lutheran civilization busters who vote for Israel while importing every third world savage they can find into America. As the fairytale says, remove first the log from your own eye before worrying about the mote in the jew's eye.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:

    It is official US policy for Arabs in the West Bank to have a state created for them

    The framework of the two-state solution has been set out in UN resolutions since 1974. I know, I know, a solution is just around the corner, trust us. People need to be just a little more patient, for heaven’s sake.

    It is far from clear that Bush the younger’s destruction of Iraq (which he reportedly said God told him to do) was beneficial to Israel.

    Tell that the Palestinians, especially after every time Israel “mows the lawn.”

    The current support of Israel may well be greater than Ilana allows, but US aid to Israel is totally conditional on Israel playing along with the US’s process towards a Palestinian state, which is a game Israel cannot win in the end

    That one made me chuckle. Do you recall what Bush Sr. said when he tried to delay loan guarantees for the “settlements” for a whopping 120 days: “I heard today there was something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question. We’ve got one lonely little guy down here doing it.”

    At present, Israel is not calling the tune, if you look closely.

    Perhaps if I make use of Lawrence Berkeley National Labs $27 million electron microscope.

    Now you know why I keep using the term “dumb goy.” As this post clearly demonstrates, you guys truly think you can pull the wool over the dumb goy’s eyes… In the words of the late Rodney Dangerfield, we “get no respect.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • iffen says:

    Sometimes I want to know how the sausage is made and sometimes I just want to enjoy the sausage. I don’t know anything about editing and publishing and in the lingua franca of the times, “What difference at this point does it make”?

    I still see subtle sarcasm.

    The right is supposedly different from the left.

    The real conservatives, the paleo conservatives and libertarians are supposedly different from the NR and the Foxes.

    However, we have an instance of where an “authentic conservative paleo libertarian” was left out of a book that covered almost everyone except her.

    The point of the photo is that if we were like the “others” we could use our looks instead of our brains to advance our views. But we are not like that. We value the intellect, the work. But then when we rely upon our work for recognition, we get left out. We could use our looks like the others, but we don’t do that. But we understand it.

    Anyway, I am sure that we will have glamour photos of our other favorite columnists in the days ahead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    And do you expect we'll be able to purchase autographed copies, such as this UR-exclusive The Mercer Image?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Mark Green
    Ilana Mercer is a talented, conservative writer. And she's pretty hot, too.

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don't think so.

    Then again, the very definition of that term needs revision. And updating.

    After all, the cold war is over. And domestic conditions in America have changed radically. I see Ms. Mercer as yet another crypto-Israeli poseur.

    Is America's ongoing, unconditional commitment to that state of Israel a paleoconservative value?

    Definitely not.

    Has Ms. Mercer addressed this political crisis forthrightly?

    No.

    Ilena Mercer is a rebellious neocon dressed up as some kind of bulwark against... what?

    Political correctness?

    BFD.

    Why do we need her?

    I have no idea. She's taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I've observed.--(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there's been an incremental takeover of American 'conservativism' by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don’t think so.

    I gave the piece a pretty careful reading, and saw not a single instance of Ms. Mercer describing herself as a “peleoconservative,” or even a paleoconservative. She represented herself, instead, as a paleolibertarian. “Libertarian” and “conservative” not being the same, it seems reasonable that prefixing these terms with a common “paleo-” does not result in an identity of the resulting compound terms, either.

    … She’s taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I’ve observed.–(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there’s been an incremental takeover of American ‘conservativism’ by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?

    AWOL: a military initialism for “absent without leave.” I don’t think Ms. Mercer’s in your army, nor in any other, as far as I know. Free people write about subjects of their own choosing. Deal with it.

    Yes, Ilana Mercer can be fairly described as a Zionist. I am not — indeed, much the contrary. That doesn’t mean that reading her writing, on the Zionist project or on any other subject, is dangerous to me. I read her the same way I read anyone else: taking her viewpoints into account. I don’t read only writers with whom I’m in complete agreement; sadly, the only person in this world with whom I agree completely is … me. I guess I could save a lot of reading time if I read only my own writing. Don’t think I’ll start, though.

    By all means, find Ms. Mercer guilty of ARH (Alt-Right Heterodoxy) and purge her work from this site. Make a safe space for yourself, where you don’t have to worry about reading anything that might trigger you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    Forgive me for the unintentional misnomer. I wasn't really paying much attention to Mercer's dishonest political labels. I was laughing too hard. But Mercer's pretending to a paleo-libertarian is even more of a whopper that her claiming to be a paleo-conservative. It's really quite funny (in a pathetic way).

    Unfortunately, Mercer is an Israeli-based lobbyist. And the foreign lobby that she represents promotes policies that actually 1) diminish liberty in America and 2) incite preemptive US-Israeli aggression in the Middle East.

    Zionist advocacy is also a war-promoting extension of state power.

    What's worse, US-based Zionists are devoted to the 'security' of a foreign entity. But paleolibertarians historically reject foreign entanglements. This value is central and basic.

    But Mercer's prevarications get even worse. She actually is the antithesis in many ways of being a genuine paleolibertarianism. Questions:

    Are we to believe that Zionist machinations in Washington reduce the size of government?

    Does Zionist advocacy improve the lives of average Americans?

    Does Zionism in Washington makes average American citizens freer?

    Safer?

    Does Zionist advocacy in Washington reduces our taxes?

    Does it promote peace and domestic tranquility? Does it even advance Free Speech?

    'NO' on all counts

    The Zionist project is militarily aggressive, hugely expensive, concerned with extra-national agendas, race-based, highly censorious, and absolutely non-essential to US defense. It is political parasitism.

    Are we to believe that 'paleolibertarian' Mercer hasn't noticed these stunning contradictions?--or is she actually an Israeli operative hiding behind a fake ideology?

    No wonder Mercer wasn't included in this book about paleolibertarians. She doesn't deserve to be there. She should be writing for a Israeli newspaper.

    OK, Mercer does admittedly qualify as a Zio-libertarian. But her ideology marketed here is an invitation for aggressive wars and foreign entanglement. Thus, she is no paleolibertarian. Not of the American variety. Not even close.

    For a Zio-libertarian to succeed in America, deception, demagoguery and subversion are essential. This is where Mercer excels.

    But there is no brand of political activism in the US that is more dangerous than Zionism since it relies on corruption. And it's objective is conquest--but not on America's rivals, but Israel's! Zionism is damaging America and endangering millions outside our borders.

    Indeed, the presence of entrenched Zionists in Washington was a necessary condition for the launch of Zio-Washington's wars on both Iraq and Libya. Mercer might attempt to deny this but it's now accepted fact (except by certain Israeli shills).

    This is why AIPAC and countless other pro-Israeli (and crypto-Zionist) lobbies inject so much money into America's political process. They are buying influence.

    Boatloads of Zionist money is the only way for Israel to impose such influence upon our nation's electoral process. Washington's 'special relationship' with Israel is synthetic.

    Mercer's Zionist brand of 'paleolibertarianism' is therefore anathema to real libertarianism. It necessarily enlarges and corrupts Washington's already-bloated military footprint. And it does so on behalf of a rogue nuclear power. Shame on her for claiming otherwise.

    Entrenched Israeli parasitism in Washingtonn diminishes our freedom as surely as it is increases the already-massive toll of death and suffering among people in states that border Israel. Zio-libertarianism is anathema to genuine paleolibertarian objectives. We must turn our backs on Elana Mercer.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @anonymous
    "As to The Mercer Image: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

    Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at Unz Review. Ridiculous!"

    So, what's the provenance of the picture? Google shows only this use at Unz Review. And I don't see it among the first dozen in the "Gallery" on your website. Did you not send it to UR?

    So, what’s the provenance of the picture? Google shows only this use at Unz Review. And I don’t see it among the first dozen in the “Gallery” on your website. Did you not send it to UR?

    Stop the presses! Special edition! Picturegate!

    OK, you have a right to know the provenance of the picture. I took it, on special assignment from unz.com. I concealed myself in the shrubbery across the street from chez Mercerwith my 1000 mm telephoto, and I caught this image when she came out of her house last Saturday morning to let her dog back in after, you know, doing his necessary dog business. So now you know what she looks like at home, on the weekend. Think she’s hot in that picture? If I could’ve gotten her to sit formally in my portraiture studio, with her face on and everything, then you’d really be impressed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Nice jousting, Mr. WhiteKnight. But I prefer to hear from your paleo-crush on this one, especially after she has in the meantime tried to intimidate with an accusation of “libel” another commenter who challenged her here.

    Ms. Mercer in reply to commenters found the question of who selected her photo important enough to warrant two carefully crafted paragraphs, complete with her standard alliteration-as-style. Shouldn’t she now make the point plain? If she was dissembling about that, I want to know it, as should anyone else whom she would have consider her assertions about more important things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    @Mark Green
    Ms. Mercer- "Lying is disgusting"? Yes. "It's despicable". OK. And your point is... ?

    Your fake ideology is a ruse. And what you're selling we're not buying.

    I've committed some kind of "libel" against you? Ha! See you in court.

    I've read you sufficiently to understand where your loyalties lie. In familiar fashion, you're hiding behind an ideological label, calling yourself a 'paleolibertarian'. This fits a pattern.

    Other Israelis hide behind the ideology of 'neoconservatism'. And I bet you all get along rather well. Earlier, members of your tribe rode into town proclaiming the imminent perfection of humankind under a system called communism. The canards never end.

    So please stop dissembling. You are an Israeli and you write very much like Israelis do when they address an American audience. As a 'paleolibertarian' you're just adjusting various ideological markers to mask your agenda. It's fascinating to observe.

    Below are some observations I made after reading a previous diatribe of yours that appeared on Unz.com on 11/23/15. As always, you attempted to whitewash Israeli criminality.

    How did an Israeli propagandist [Ilana Mercer] worm her way onto this site?

    Aren’t there enough forums devoted to Israel-centric advocacy already? What about Fox news or the Weekly Standard?

    Is an op-ed by Charles Krauthammer coming next?

    Ms. Mercer will be happy to know that, as it turns out, the Israelis enjoy a very comfortable upper hand in this struggle–though you’d never know it by reading her breathless screed.

    Sadly, innocent people are dying on both sides. But it is the Palestinians who are doing most of the suffering and most of the dying. In fact, the long-term kill ratio favors Israel by at least eight to one. Even so, the economic and political disparity favoring Israel is still greater since these revealing numbers do not reflect the death toll of crypto-Israeli militarism such as Washington’s destruction of Iraq and Libya.

    So please quit clouding the issue with your anti-Muslim rants. Theology is incidental to the struggle in Israel/Palestine. The conflict is more about ancestry and identity. These terrible ‘Muslims’ could just as easily be Palestinian-born Christians or Hindus or atheists, since all non-Jews are equally unwelcome living inside the Jewish State. They interfere with what Israel is all about: Jewish safety, Jewish cohesion, Jewish identity and Jewish separation.

    What we have in Israel/Palestine is a war between Jews from anywhere and gentiles from one place. In a normal world, America would be neutral in this conflict. But our nation’s policies have been hijacked. This is both perplexing and worrisome. After all, the US government cannot in any way express religious preference within our borders. So why are we expressing religious preference outside of our borders? I attribute this distortion to the pressures of one ethnic lobby.

    This entrenched favoritism is not consistent with Constitutional principles. And on a more practical level, Washington’s love affair with the Jewish state is perilous.

    Indeed, it was the imposition in 1948 of a Jews Only state in a land inhabited primarily by non-Jews that sparked and sustains this region’s most-enduring struggle. Christians, Jews and Muslims were living in relative harmony in pre-Zionist Palestine. The establishment of Israel put an end to that. Formal lines were drawn. Foreign invasions were launched. Wars have since skyrocketed. America has needlessly taken sides.

    Israel’s preemptive war in 1967 added more fuel to the fire. The Six Day War not only provided Israel with more territory, but a larger, non-Jewish population to rule over. These non-Jews have been living under Israeli military occupation for nearly half a century. This subjugation is the near-equivalent of a ‘life sentence’ for hundreds of thousands of ordinary civilians.

    And if it wasn’t for uninterrupted (and unconditional) US aid given to Israel ever since LBJ, the Jewish State’s iron grip on the region would not survive. Yet it does. Hey, there’s a headline right there! Care to comment, Ms. Mercer?

    Why not weigh in on the political repercussions of ‘Israeli influence in Washington’?

    Huge? Significant?–or of no importance whatsoever?

    Any opinion? Please let us know!

    Israel, America, and the entire Middle East have some very ugly problems going forward. Choices must be made. Hard choices. The status quo must be altered. It’s poison. Even the vaunted, decades-long ‘peace process’ turned out to be a mirage. It turns out that Israel can simply say “NO” indefinitely (and build Jews Only settlements in Palestine)–and there’s no penalty and virtually no consequences. Who’s fooling whom?

    In the meantime, the Palestinian people remain stateless, powerless, vulnerable and impoverished. They know what’s going on: conquest. It’s a state of war. No wonder they’re carrying out ‘terrorist acts’. Their backs are to the wall. Israel is marching into Palestine and mercilessly squeezing them out. What would you do in their situation?

    Unfortunately, all these puny Palestinians can do is launch a protest, throw stones, pray for an Israeli concession, or go on a suicide mission. The result is invariably the same: continued disenfranchisement, less and less leverage.

    These facts speaks to a resounding imbalance of power there that favors Israel. Am I wrong about this, Ms. Mercer?

    If America was half the sovereign superpower it’s supposed to be, this would be the deal:

    Washington suspends all aid to Israel unless the Israelis either 1) end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to develop their own independent and contiguous state approximating their 1967 borders, or 2) annex the Occupied Territories and give all the gentiles living there equal rights and equal citizenship with Jews inside greater Israel. One democratic state for all?

    How’s that for democratic values? So which shall it be?

    Israel’s answer: Neither.

    Israel will never ‘jeopardize’ its Jewish character nor give up the land that it snatched in 1967. Those wonderful Zionists would rather let the Palestinians live under the worst conditions imaginable than achieve lasting peace though concession.

    What the Israelis secretly want is for the Palestinians to give up and crawl away. Am I wrong about this? What’s your solution to this conundrum, Ms. Mercer?–more negotiations?

    What should Israel’s precise borders be?

    Oddly, we Americans are expected to always root for the Israelis and always subsidize them. How come? Is this Fantasyland?–or a bad dream?

    But the ‘evasive’ peace in Israel/Palestine is very achievable. It is also entirely in Israel’s hands.

    Israel has all the political and economic and military power. Israel also controls the land. Israel can hold the Palestinian people hostage. Affluent, nuclear Israel is basically holding all the cards.

    Palestinians on the other hand are holding all the sling-shots. The Palestinians have nothing to bargain with, besides resistance. But even this does not faze super-powerful Israel. The Israelis could care less. They want the Palestinians living in Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon or anywhere besides inside Israel or next to the Jewish state.

    Therefore, Israel’s long term goal is gradual (or sudden) expulsion. As Meir Kahane prophetically declared: “They Must Go”. Bibi agrees. Palestinian society must collapse or fold up its tent and disappear. After that, Israel gets the land that God promised the Jews.

    All the agreements and all the accords and all the ceremonial pomp involving the ‘peace process’ blah blah blah over the past 40 years have basically been a ruse. They bought Israel time. Now the game is over and it’s war through attrition.

    So don’t fib to us, Ms. Mercer, about poor righteous Israel being under siege. That’s kosher baloney you’re selling. Israel is clearly in the driver’s seat.

    I say: let the Zionists fight their own battles. America has no vital, national interest in maintaining the supremacy of one, tiny ethno-state. What’s in it for us? What’s in it for humanity?

    “What we have in Israel/Palestine is a war between Jews from anywhere and gentiles from one place. In a normal world, America would be neutral in this conflict.”

    Not possible since US played an instrumental role in creating Israel.

    Once US intervenes in some part of the world, it gets ‘stuck’. It is still stuck in Korea. Still stuck in Somalia. (Damn that Bush I)
    US created the new order in the Pacific and still has bases all over Japan, Philippines.

    US created the new order in Europe and still militarily patrols and dominates that area.

    US played role of empire since end of WWII. So, US bias for Israel is hardly abnormal.

    In the long run though, the Pallies gotta be given something. They did suffer a tragedy.

    The best solution would be send all Jews in West Bank to Israel and send all Arabs in Israel to West Bank. All Jewish Israel, all Arab West Bank.

    Homogeneity is so nicer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Nice jousting, Mr. WhiteKnight. But I prefer to hear from your paleo-crush on this one, especially after she has in the meantime tried to intimidate with an accusation of “libel” another commenter who challenged her here.

    Ms. Mercer in reply to commenters found the question of who selected her photo important enough to warrant two carefully crafted paragraphs, complete with her standard alliteration-as-style. Shouldn’t she now make the point plain? If she was dissembling about that, I want to know it, as should anyone else whom she would have consider her assertions about more important things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @Mark Green
    Ms. Mercer- "Lying is disgusting"? Yes. "It's despicable". OK. And your point is... ?

    Your fake ideology is a ruse. And what you're selling we're not buying.

    I've committed some kind of "libel" against you? Ha! See you in court.

    I've read you sufficiently to understand where your loyalties lie. In familiar fashion, you're hiding behind an ideological label, calling yourself a 'paleolibertarian'. This fits a pattern.

    Other Israelis hide behind the ideology of 'neoconservatism'. And I bet you all get along rather well. Earlier, members of your tribe rode into town proclaiming the imminent perfection of humankind under a system called communism. The canards never end.

    So please stop dissembling. You are an Israeli and you write very much like Israelis do when they address an American audience. As a 'paleolibertarian' you're just adjusting various ideological markers to mask your agenda. It's fascinating to observe.

    Below are some observations I made after reading a previous diatribe of yours that appeared on Unz.com on 11/23/15. As always, you attempted to whitewash Israeli criminality.

    How did an Israeli propagandist [Ilana Mercer] worm her way onto this site?

    Aren’t there enough forums devoted to Israel-centric advocacy already? What about Fox news or the Weekly Standard?

    Is an op-ed by Charles Krauthammer coming next?

    Ms. Mercer will be happy to know that, as it turns out, the Israelis enjoy a very comfortable upper hand in this struggle–though you’d never know it by reading her breathless screed.

    Sadly, innocent people are dying on both sides. But it is the Palestinians who are doing most of the suffering and most of the dying. In fact, the long-term kill ratio favors Israel by at least eight to one. Even so, the economic and political disparity favoring Israel is still greater since these revealing numbers do not reflect the death toll of crypto-Israeli militarism such as Washington’s destruction of Iraq and Libya.

    So please quit clouding the issue with your anti-Muslim rants. Theology is incidental to the struggle in Israel/Palestine. The conflict is more about ancestry and identity. These terrible ‘Muslims’ could just as easily be Palestinian-born Christians or Hindus or atheists, since all non-Jews are equally unwelcome living inside the Jewish State. They interfere with what Israel is all about: Jewish safety, Jewish cohesion, Jewish identity and Jewish separation.

    What we have in Israel/Palestine is a war between Jews from anywhere and gentiles from one place. In a normal world, America would be neutral in this conflict. But our nation’s policies have been hijacked. This is both perplexing and worrisome. After all, the US government cannot in any way express religious preference within our borders. So why are we expressing religious preference outside of our borders? I attribute this distortion to the pressures of one ethnic lobby.

    This entrenched favoritism is not consistent with Constitutional principles. And on a more practical level, Washington’s love affair with the Jewish state is perilous.

    Indeed, it was the imposition in 1948 of a Jews Only state in a land inhabited primarily by non-Jews that sparked and sustains this region’s most-enduring struggle. Christians, Jews and Muslims were living in relative harmony in pre-Zionist Palestine. The establishment of Israel put an end to that. Formal lines were drawn. Foreign invasions were launched. Wars have since skyrocketed. America has needlessly taken sides.

    Israel’s preemptive war in 1967 added more fuel to the fire. The Six Day War not only provided Israel with more territory, but a larger, non-Jewish population to rule over. These non-Jews have been living under Israeli military occupation for nearly half a century. This subjugation is the near-equivalent of a ‘life sentence’ for hundreds of thousands of ordinary civilians.

    And if it wasn’t for uninterrupted (and unconditional) US aid given to Israel ever since LBJ, the Jewish State’s iron grip on the region would not survive. Yet it does. Hey, there’s a headline right there! Care to comment, Ms. Mercer?

    Why not weigh in on the political repercussions of ‘Israeli influence in Washington’?

    Huge? Significant?–or of no importance whatsoever?

    Any opinion? Please let us know!

    Israel, America, and the entire Middle East have some very ugly problems going forward. Choices must be made. Hard choices. The status quo must be altered. It’s poison. Even the vaunted, decades-long ‘peace process’ turned out to be a mirage. It turns out that Israel can simply say “NO” indefinitely (and build Jews Only settlements in Palestine)–and there’s no penalty and virtually no consequences. Who’s fooling whom?

    In the meantime, the Palestinian people remain stateless, powerless, vulnerable and impoverished. They know what’s going on: conquest. It’s a state of war. No wonder they’re carrying out ‘terrorist acts’. Their backs are to the wall. Israel is marching into Palestine and mercilessly squeezing them out. What would you do in their situation?

    Unfortunately, all these puny Palestinians can do is launch a protest, throw stones, pray for an Israeli concession, or go on a suicide mission. The result is invariably the same: continued disenfranchisement, less and less leverage.

    These facts speaks to a resounding imbalance of power there that favors Israel. Am I wrong about this, Ms. Mercer?

    If America was half the sovereign superpower it’s supposed to be, this would be the deal:

    Washington suspends all aid to Israel unless the Israelis either 1) end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to develop their own independent and contiguous state approximating their 1967 borders, or 2) annex the Occupied Territories and give all the gentiles living there equal rights and equal citizenship with Jews inside greater Israel. One democratic state for all?

    How’s that for democratic values? So which shall it be?

    Israel’s answer: Neither.

    Israel will never ‘jeopardize’ its Jewish character nor give up the land that it snatched in 1967. Those wonderful Zionists would rather let the Palestinians live under the worst conditions imaginable than achieve lasting peace though concession.

    What the Israelis secretly want is for the Palestinians to give up and crawl away. Am I wrong about this? What’s your solution to this conundrum, Ms. Mercer?–more negotiations?

    What should Israel’s precise borders be?

    Oddly, we Americans are expected to always root for the Israelis and always subsidize them. How come? Is this Fantasyland?–or a bad dream?

    But the ‘evasive’ peace in Israel/Palestine is very achievable. It is also entirely in Israel’s hands.

    Israel has all the political and economic and military power. Israel also controls the land. Israel can hold the Palestinian people hostage. Affluent, nuclear Israel is basically holding all the cards.

    Palestinians on the other hand are holding all the sling-shots. The Palestinians have nothing to bargain with, besides resistance. But even this does not faze super-powerful Israel. The Israelis could care less. They want the Palestinians living in Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon or anywhere besides inside Israel or next to the Jewish state.

    Therefore, Israel’s long term goal is gradual (or sudden) expulsion. As Meir Kahane prophetically declared: “They Must Go”. Bibi agrees. Palestinian society must collapse or fold up its tent and disappear. After that, Israel gets the land that God promised the Jews.

    All the agreements and all the accords and all the ceremonial pomp involving the ‘peace process’ blah blah blah over the past 40 years have basically been a ruse. They bought Israel time. Now the game is over and it’s war through attrition.

    So don’t fib to us, Ms. Mercer, about poor righteous Israel being under siege. That’s kosher baloney you’re selling. Israel is clearly in the driver’s seat.

    I say: let the Zionists fight their own battles. America has no vital, national interest in maintaining the supremacy of one, tiny ethno-state. What’s in it for us? What’s in it for humanity?

    geokat62 and Mark Green- very much appreciate your reviews here. Americans have very short memories.
    Michael Scheurer is retired CIA who headed the Bin Laden unit. I believe he was made to retire some 10 years ago when he did not speak up in favor of Israel. It has been years since I read his book (believe it is named Imperial Hubris) but he made it clear that Bin Laden would continue his tactics against the USA as long as Israel continued to steal Palestinian land and persecute innocent Palestinians (yes, false flags are a favorite tactic of the Mossad).
    One does not have to read a book to know as many who have had their boots on the ground that many used mortars and other projectiles lying among Palestinian bodies and housing rubble have indications of “Made in USA ” markings.
    It is clear from the actions of our House and Senate in the USA that the majority of these elected officials are bought by Israel.
    I enjoy reading the stories and comments here but it still comes down to the terror inflicted on a people. Most Americans are oblivious to the sufferings of Palestinians. Except for service members exposed to IEDs and other explosives, most Americans have no idea what it feels like to have one’s eardrums blown out or have lifelong tinnitus and other problems due to massive artillery and mortar barrages. Also, it is obvious how one would feel to see their apartment blown apart and their children lying in puddles of blood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Reactionary Utopian

    So, what’s the provenance of the picture? Google shows only this use at Unz Review. And I don’t see it among the first dozen in the “Gallery” on your website. Did you not send it to UR?
     
    Stop the presses! Special edition! Picturegate!

    OK, you have a right to know the provenance of the picture. I took it, on special assignment from unz.com. I concealed myself in the shrubbery across the street from chez Mercerwith my 1000 mm telephoto, and I caught this image when she came out of her house last Saturday morning to let her dog back in after, you know, doing his necessary dog business. So now you know what she looks like at home, on the weekend. Think she's hot in that picture? If I could've gotten her to sit formally in my portraiture studio, with her face on and everything, then you'd really be impressed.

    Nice jousting, Mr. WhiteKnight. But I prefer to hear from your paleo-crush on this one, especially after she has in the meantime tried to intimidate with an accusation of “libel” another commenter who challenged her here.

    Ms. Mercer in reply to commenters found the question of who selected her photo important enough to warrant two carefully crafted paragraphs, complete with her standard alliteration-as-style. Shouldn’t she now make the point plain? If she was dissembling about that, I want to know it, as should anyone else whom she would have consider her assertions about more important things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Mark Green says: • Website
    @Reactionary Utopian

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don’t think so.
     
    I gave the piece a pretty careful reading, and saw not a single instance of Ms. Mercer describing herself as a "peleoconservative," or even a paleoconservative. She represented herself, instead, as a paleolibertarian. "Libertarian" and "conservative" not being the same, it seems reasonable that prefixing these terms with a common "paleo-" does not result in an identity of the resulting compound terms, either.

    ... She’s taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I’ve observed.–(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there’s been an incremental takeover of American ‘conservativism’ by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?
     

    AWOL: a military initialism for "absent without leave." I don't think Ms. Mercer's in your army, nor in any other, as far as I know. Free people write about subjects of their own choosing. Deal with it.

    Yes, Ilana Mercer can be fairly described as a Zionist. I am not -- indeed, much the contrary. That doesn't mean that reading her writing, on the Zionist project or on any other subject, is dangerous to me. I read her the same way I read anyone else: taking her viewpoints into account. I don't read only writers with whom I'm in complete agreement; sadly, the only person in this world with whom I agree completely is ... me. I guess I could save a lot of reading time if I read only my own writing. Don't think I'll start, though.

    By all means, find Ms. Mercer guilty of ARH (Alt-Right Heterodoxy) and purge her work from this site. Make a safe space for yourself, where you don't have to worry about reading anything that might trigger you.

    Forgive me for the unintentional misnomer. I wasn’t really paying much attention to Mercer’s dishonest political labels. I was laughing too hard. But Mercer’s pretending to a paleo-libertarian is even more of a whopper that her claiming to be a paleo-conservative. It’s really quite funny (in a pathetic way).

    Unfortunately, Mercer is an Israeli-based lobbyist. And the foreign lobby that she represents promotes policies that actually 1) diminish liberty in America and 2) incite preemptive US-Israeli aggression in the Middle East.

    Zionist advocacy is also a war-promoting extension of state power.

    What’s worse, US-based Zionists are devoted to the ‘security’ of a foreign entity. But paleolibertarians historically reject foreign entanglements. This value is central and basic.

    But Mercer’s prevarications get even worse. She actually is the antithesis in many ways of being a genuine paleolibertarianism. Questions:

    Are we to believe that Zionist machinations in Washington reduce the size of government?

    Does Zionist advocacy improve the lives of average Americans?

    Does Zionism in Washington makes average American citizens freer?

    Safer?

    Does Zionist advocacy in Washington reduces our taxes?

    Does it promote peace and domestic tranquility? Does it even advance Free Speech?

    ‘NO’ on all counts

    The Zionist project is militarily aggressive, hugely expensive, concerned with extra-national agendas, race-based, highly censorious, and absolutely non-essential to US defense. It is political parasitism.

    Are we to believe that ‘paleolibertarian’ Mercer hasn’t noticed these stunning contradictions?–or is she actually an Israeli operative hiding behind a fake ideology?

    No wonder Mercer wasn’t included in this book about paleolibertarians. She doesn’t deserve to be there. She should be writing for a Israeli newspaper.

    OK, Mercer does admittedly qualify as a Zio-libertarian. But her ideology marketed here is an invitation for aggressive wars and foreign entanglement. Thus, she is no paleolibertarian. Not of the American variety. Not even close.

    For a Zio-libertarian to succeed in America, deception, demagoguery and subversion are essential. This is where Mercer excels.

    But there is no brand of political activism in the US that is more dangerous than Zionism since it relies on corruption. And it’s objective is conquest–but not on America’s rivals, but Israel’s! Zionism is damaging America and endangering millions outside our borders.

    Indeed, the presence of entrenched Zionists in Washington was a necessary condition for the launch of Zio-Washington’s wars on both Iraq and Libya. Mercer might attempt to deny this but it’s now accepted fact (except by certain Israeli shills).

    This is why AIPAC and countless other pro-Israeli (and crypto-Zionist) lobbies inject so much money into America’s political process. They are buying influence.

    Boatloads of Zionist money is the only way for Israel to impose such influence upon our nation’s electoral process. Washington’s ‘special relationship’ with Israel is synthetic.

    Mercer’s Zionist brand of ‘paleolibertarianism’ is therefore anathema to real libertarianism. It necessarily enlarges and corrupts Washington’s already-bloated military footprint. And it does so on behalf of a rogue nuclear power. Shame on her for claiming otherwise.

    Entrenched Israeli parasitism in Washingtonn diminishes our freedom as surely as it is increases the already-massive toll of death and suffering among people in states that border Israel. Zio-libertarianism is anathema to genuine paleolibertarian objectives. We must turn our backs on Elana Mercer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    You have some legit points, but if the majority of Jews and Jewish elites were like Ilana Mercer, would we have a problem with Jews?

    I don't think so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    @Mark Green
    Forgive me for the unintentional misnomer. I wasn't really paying much attention to Mercer's dishonest political labels. I was laughing too hard. But Mercer's pretending to a paleo-libertarian is even more of a whopper that her claiming to be a paleo-conservative. It's really quite funny (in a pathetic way).

    Unfortunately, Mercer is an Israeli-based lobbyist. And the foreign lobby that she represents promotes policies that actually 1) diminish liberty in America and 2) incite preemptive US-Israeli aggression in the Middle East.

    Zionist advocacy is also a war-promoting extension of state power.

    What's worse, US-based Zionists are devoted to the 'security' of a foreign entity. But paleolibertarians historically reject foreign entanglements. This value is central and basic.

    But Mercer's prevarications get even worse. She actually is the antithesis in many ways of being a genuine paleolibertarianism. Questions:

    Are we to believe that Zionist machinations in Washington reduce the size of government?

    Does Zionist advocacy improve the lives of average Americans?

    Does Zionism in Washington makes average American citizens freer?

    Safer?

    Does Zionist advocacy in Washington reduces our taxes?

    Does it promote peace and domestic tranquility? Does it even advance Free Speech?

    'NO' on all counts

    The Zionist project is militarily aggressive, hugely expensive, concerned with extra-national agendas, race-based, highly censorious, and absolutely non-essential to US defense. It is political parasitism.

    Are we to believe that 'paleolibertarian' Mercer hasn't noticed these stunning contradictions?--or is she actually an Israeli operative hiding behind a fake ideology?

    No wonder Mercer wasn't included in this book about paleolibertarians. She doesn't deserve to be there. She should be writing for a Israeli newspaper.

    OK, Mercer does admittedly qualify as a Zio-libertarian. But her ideology marketed here is an invitation for aggressive wars and foreign entanglement. Thus, she is no paleolibertarian. Not of the American variety. Not even close.

    For a Zio-libertarian to succeed in America, deception, demagoguery and subversion are essential. This is where Mercer excels.

    But there is no brand of political activism in the US that is more dangerous than Zionism since it relies on corruption. And it's objective is conquest--but not on America's rivals, but Israel's! Zionism is damaging America and endangering millions outside our borders.

    Indeed, the presence of entrenched Zionists in Washington was a necessary condition for the launch of Zio-Washington's wars on both Iraq and Libya. Mercer might attempt to deny this but it's now accepted fact (except by certain Israeli shills).

    This is why AIPAC and countless other pro-Israeli (and crypto-Zionist) lobbies inject so much money into America's political process. They are buying influence.

    Boatloads of Zionist money is the only way for Israel to impose such influence upon our nation's electoral process. Washington's 'special relationship' with Israel is synthetic.

    Mercer's Zionist brand of 'paleolibertarianism' is therefore anathema to real libertarianism. It necessarily enlarges and corrupts Washington's already-bloated military footprint. And it does so on behalf of a rogue nuclear power. Shame on her for claiming otherwise.

    Entrenched Israeli parasitism in Washingtonn diminishes our freedom as surely as it is increases the already-massive toll of death and suffering among people in states that border Israel. Zio-libertarianism is anathema to genuine paleolibertarian objectives. We must turn our backs on Elana Mercer.

    You have some legit points, but if the majority of Jews and Jewish elites were like Ilana Mercer, would we have a problem with Jews?

    I don’t think so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... if the majority of Jews and Jewish elites were like Ilana Mercer, would we have a problem with Jews?

    I don’t think so.
     

    Priss, and you accuse me of using gumbic logic?

    Here's a comment I recently posted on another thread:


    Unfortunately, most Zionists initially believed they could have their cake and eat it too… but the trillions of dollars spent and all the lives lost the past 15 years of remaking the ME has made things painfully obvious… even to most of the dumb goy – i.e., it has become much harder to conceal the fact that the Lobby is doing massive damage to the interests of the average American.

    But something tells me that most of the community are still in denial, thinking that most dumb goy are still enthralled by the hasbara continually being spewed by MSM. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I’m not hopeful about the future as I believe the Lobby has struck a Faustian bargain with Killary – i.e., she will become the first female POTUS in exchange for taking the special relationship to the next level.
     

    I think so, Priss.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:

    Mark Green is spot on:

    Mercer’s Zionist brand of ‘paleolibertarianism’ is therefore anathema to real libertarianism.

    If Ms. Mercer is a genuine paleolibertarian, why don’t you ask her whether she endorses or repudiates the following quote by Irving Kristol:

    Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    She is Jewish, so her Paleo-libertarianism is laced with Jewish concerns.

    Similarly, a white paleo-libertarian would be invested in white concerns.

    There is no single Paleolibertarian. It depends on identity.

    I would think a Palestinian Paleolibertarian would be pro-Pallie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    @geokat62
    @Reactionary Utopian

    Mark Green is spot on:


    Mercer’s Zionist brand of ‘paleolibertarianism’ is therefore anathema to real libertarianism.
     
    If Ms. Mercer is a genuine paleolibertarian, why don't you ask her whether she endorses or repudiates the following quote by Irving Kristol:

    Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel... Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.
     

    She is Jewish, so her Paleo-libertarianism is laced with Jewish concerns.

    Similarly, a white paleo-libertarian would be invested in white concerns.

    There is no single Paleolibertarian. It depends on identity.

    I would think a Palestinian Paleolibertarian would be pro-Pallie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    There is no single Paleolibertarian. It depends on identity.
     
    That's all well and good, Priss.

    But what is a paleolibertarian with concerns for Israel doing advising the Ron Paul campaign? Why aren't you demanding that all advisors to US presidential candidates must be paleolibertarians with concerns exclusively for America?

    , @Mark Green
    Then Ms. Mercer must be honest and open about her special attachment to Israel. But Jews don't get this kind of treatment or face this kind of scrutiny. It's 'anti-Semitic'! Ironically, it's the Jews who are now a privileged class in America.

    Indeed, too many whites on a jury threatens color-blind 'justice'. But never too many Jews on an editorial board.

    Thus, Mercer gets to write about Arabs and Palestine and Zionism and 'terrorism' as if she's a disinterested observer. This is inappropriate and absurd. There's real bias here. Americans have been hoodwinked.

    Mercer should remind her American readers that she is Jewish and that she lives in Israel, which is a segregated state. Marriage, for instance, between Jews and Arabs is forbidden there. Most Americans do not know this fact about 'democratic' Israel.

    As a self-proclaimed paleolibertarian, Ms. Mercer should then advocate for this right of white people to self-identity as 'white' and to be permitted to self-segregate along racial/ancestral lines, just as her people do. Has she done this?

    Of course not.

    Leveling the playing field would undermine the galaxy of double-standards that now empower Jews like Mercer.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Priss Factor
    You have some legit points, but if the majority of Jews and Jewish elites were like Ilana Mercer, would we have a problem with Jews?

    I don't think so.

    … if the majority of Jews and Jewish elites were like Ilana Mercer, would we have a problem with Jews?

    I don’t think so.

    Priss, and you accuse me of using gumbic logic?

    Here’s a comment I recently posted on another thread:

    Unfortunately, most Zionists initially believed they could have their cake and eat it too… but the trillions of dollars spent and all the lives lost the past 15 years of remaking the ME has made things painfully obvious… even to most of the dumb goy – i.e., it has become much harder to conceal the fact that the Lobby is doing massive damage to the interests of the average American.

    But something tells me that most of the community are still in denial, thinking that most dumb goy are still enthralled by the hasbara continually being spewed by MSM. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I’m not hopeful about the future as I believe the Lobby has struck a Faustian bargain with Killary – i.e., she will become the first female POTUS in exchange for taking the special relationship to the next level.

    I think so, Priss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Your silly gumbic sensibility just doesn't get it.

    Look, all libertarians are disingenuous, and that includes Mercer too.

    Now, they are all honest to some degree. They do value individual liberty and all that stuff that they talk about. And there are some naive libertarians who would like to be 100% libertarian and wish the entire world was without borders and without identity. Everyone would be a total cosmo-consumerist individualist without borders. A cosmosumerist.
    But such is an impossible vision.

    Most libertarians are into identity + individuality. This is esp true of Right-Libertarians.
    Left-Libertarians like Bill Maher are for individual freedom in lifestyle and speech, but they want more government to make sure everyone can enjoy life and have basic goodies and more.
    The true-blue libertarians reject identity of right-libers and material statism of left-libers. I think Bryan Caplan is a true-blue liber. A nut.

    Ilana Mercer is a right-liber. Since she's Jewish, she's into Jewish/Zionist interests.
    But then, white right libers are for white nationalism.
    So, all these right-libers are not gonna see eye-to-eye.
    Given Mercer is a Jewish right-liber, she wants her national agenda supported. But she seems to be genuinely interested in protecting and preserving western civ apart from third world barbarism, and that is good.
    But because of their libertarianism, there is some effort on their --- Jewish, white nationalist, Asian, whatever --- to mask or rationalize their politics of identity.

    Now, the ONLY TRULY honest person is none other than myself. Why? Because I go for neo-fascism. It must be NEO-fascism as opposed to classic fascism cuz old fascism of duce-and-fuhrer worship was bad stuff. We need something like mea-fascism or My Fascism.
    Old Fascism was about individuals giving up their liberty and autonomy to mindlessly praise the Duce or mindlessly obey Fuhrer. How did that turn out? WWII, Holocaust, and a total tragedy for Europe.
    If the Duce and Fuhrer offered one good lesson for humanity, it was "I did it my way."
    Mussolini did it his way, Hitler did it his way. So, a true neo-fascist must do it his or her way. He or she must existentially and ethnically arrive at his or her own sense of truth than just act like a dog before Duce or Fuhrer(or Chairman). There is no single correct fascism. Every neo-fascist must arrive at his or her own blend. It's like everyone must choose his or her own blend of coffee.

    Why is Neo-facism or mea-fascism better than libertarian? It is just more honest. In the end, individualism is about here and now. It is too impermanent and transient. An individual lasts just several decades. So, even as we must value individualism, we cannot put the individual at the center of society and history. Individual is a torch-bearer of something bigger than himself/herself. He or she inherits a heritage, works upon it, preserves it, changes & improves it where it needs to be changed, and then passes it down to his/her kids and future members of her race/nation.

    Right-Libertarianism is for identity but still puts individuality over identity.
    Neo-fascism is for individuality but puts identity above individuality.
    It has a sounder basis for political movement.

    So, your gumbic self need to reassess things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Priss Factor
    She is Jewish, so her Paleo-libertarianism is laced with Jewish concerns.

    Similarly, a white paleo-libertarian would be invested in white concerns.

    There is no single Paleolibertarian. It depends on identity.

    I would think a Palestinian Paleolibertarian would be pro-Pallie.

    There is no single Paleolibertarian. It depends on identity.

    That’s all well and good, Priss.

    But what is a paleolibertarian with concerns for Israel doing advising the Ron Paul campaign? Why aren’t you demanding that all advisors to US presidential candidates must be paleolibertarians with concerns exclusively for America?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Mark Green says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    She is Jewish, so her Paleo-libertarianism is laced with Jewish concerns.

    Similarly, a white paleo-libertarian would be invested in white concerns.

    There is no single Paleolibertarian. It depends on identity.

    I would think a Palestinian Paleolibertarian would be pro-Pallie.

    Then Ms. Mercer must be honest and open about her special attachment to Israel. But Jews don’t get this kind of treatment or face this kind of scrutiny. It’s ‘anti-Semitic’! Ironically, it’s the Jews who are now a privileged class in America.

    Indeed, too many whites on a jury threatens color-blind ‘justice’. But never too many Jews on an editorial board.

    Thus, Mercer gets to write about Arabs and Palestine and Zionism and ‘terrorism’ as if she’s a disinterested observer. This is inappropriate and absurd. There’s real bias here. Americans have been hoodwinked.

    Mercer should remind her American readers that she is Jewish and that she lives in Israel, which is a segregated state. Marriage, for instance, between Jews and Arabs is forbidden there. Most Americans do not know this fact about ‘democratic’ Israel.

    As a self-proclaimed paleolibertarian, Ms. Mercer should then advocate for this right of white people to self-identity as ‘white’ and to be permitted to self-segregate along racial/ancestral lines, just as her people do. Has she done this?

    Of course not.

    Leveling the playing field would undermine the galaxy of double-standards that now empower Jews like Mercer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Why does it matter if she is a Zionist or not as long as she doesn’t want the US to fund it? Her wikipedia concerning Israel doesn’t look like someone who is a neoconservative to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer#On_Israel

    Her response in her Wikipedia regarding the Gaza war shows that she sees Palestinians as human beings. Unless you guys have some quotes from her that show her inner Likud I’m calling this discussion racism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Why does it matter if she is a Zionist or not as long as she doesn’t want the US to fund it? Her wikipedia concerning Israel doesn’t look like someone who is a neoconservative to me:
     
    Her Wikipedia also states:

    Mercer responded to Pat Buchanan's argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative "cabal" advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S., by noting that in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was "seeing causal connections where none exist" while failing to note the influence upon Bush by inner-circle gentile neocons such as Condoleezza Rice and William Bennett.
     
    Has paleolibertarian Mercer spoken out against the "special relationship" that not only provides funding to the Zionist entity, but also diplomatic and military support? Her Wikipedia remains silent on this issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Johnny F. Ive
    Why does it matter if she is a Zionist or not as long as she doesn't want the US to fund it? Her wikipedia concerning Israel doesn't look like someone who is a neoconservative to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer#On_Israel

    Her response in her Wikipedia regarding the Gaza war shows that she sees Palestinians as human beings. Unless you guys have some quotes from her that show her inner Likud I'm calling this discussion racism.

    Why does it matter if she is a Zionist or not as long as she doesn’t want the US to fund it? Her wikipedia concerning Israel doesn’t look like someone who is a neoconservative to me:

    Her Wikipedia also states:

    Mercer responded to Pat Buchanan’s argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative “cabal” advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S., by noting that in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was “seeing causal connections where none exist” while failing to note the influence upon Bush by inner-circle gentile neocons such as Condoleezza Rice and William Bennett.

    Has paleolibertarian Mercer spoken out against the “special relationship” that not only provides funding to the Zionist entity, but also diplomatic and military support? Her Wikipedia remains silent on this issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny F. Ive
    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, etc aren't Jewish. The Neocons have a large responsibility for the war in Iraq. If she doesn't agree with that then she is wrong and would have an uphill battle trying to deflect the solid proof that we have. I think in the quoted text that you provided that she is saying don't just blame the Jews, blame everyone who supported that awful war. Interesting enough Sharon was more interested in Americans killing Iranians for him than Iraqis. Has she spoken for the special relationship? She is against the US funding Israel. The relationship can't be that special to her if she doesn't want Israel to continue getting its welfare check.
    , @Sean
    If Israel runs the show why did they feel it was necessary to ban the Kach Movement? Israel knows US support is conditional on it not taking effective action to end the conflict, which is slowly but surely going the Arabs' way.

    Bryan Caplan supports open borders for the whole world including Israel. Ilana Mercer is not that kind of paleolibertarian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @geokat62

    Why does it matter if she is a Zionist or not as long as she doesn’t want the US to fund it? Her wikipedia concerning Israel doesn’t look like someone who is a neoconservative to me:
     
    Her Wikipedia also states:

    Mercer responded to Pat Buchanan's argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative "cabal" advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S., by noting that in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was "seeing causal connections where none exist" while failing to note the influence upon Bush by inner-circle gentile neocons such as Condoleezza Rice and William Bennett.
     
    Has paleolibertarian Mercer spoken out against the "special relationship" that not only provides funding to the Zionist entity, but also diplomatic and military support? Her Wikipedia remains silent on this issue.

    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, etc aren’t Jewish. The Neocons have a large responsibility for the war in Iraq. If she doesn’t agree with that then she is wrong and would have an uphill battle trying to deflect the solid proof that we have. I think in the quoted text that you provided that she is saying don’t just blame the Jews, blame everyone who supported that awful war. Interesting enough Sharon was more interested in Americans killing Iranians for him than Iraqis. Has she spoken for the special relationship? She is against the US funding Israel. The relationship can’t be that special to her if she doesn’t want Israel to continue getting its welfare check.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    I think in the quoted text that you provided that she is saying don’t just blame the Jews, blame everyone who supported that awful war.

    Take a closer look at the words in bold:

    in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was “seeing causal connections where none exist”
     
    To be clear, she is not attacking Buchanon for saying the neocons are exclusively Jewish, she was attacking his "argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative “cabal” advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S...."

    Has she spoken for the special relationship? She is against the US funding Israel. The relationship can’t be that special to her if she doesn’t want Israel to continue getting its welfare check.
     
    As I pointed out above, the special relationship is comprised of 3 components:

    Financial support
    Diplomatic support
    Military support

    Just because she has spoken out against the first of these, doesn't necessarily mean she opposes the other two.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Johnny F. Ive
    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, etc aren't Jewish. The Neocons have a large responsibility for the war in Iraq. If she doesn't agree with that then she is wrong and would have an uphill battle trying to deflect the solid proof that we have. I think in the quoted text that you provided that she is saying don't just blame the Jews, blame everyone who supported that awful war. Interesting enough Sharon was more interested in Americans killing Iranians for him than Iraqis. Has she spoken for the special relationship? She is against the US funding Israel. The relationship can't be that special to her if she doesn't want Israel to continue getting its welfare check.

    I think in the quoted text that you provided that she is saying don’t just blame the Jews, blame everyone who supported that awful war.

    Take a closer look at the words in bold:

    in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was “seeing causal connections where none exist”

    To be clear, she is not attacking Buchanon for saying the neocons are exclusively Jewish, she was attacking his “argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative “cabal” advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S….”

    Has she spoken for the special relationship? She is against the US funding Israel. The relationship can’t be that special to her if she doesn’t want Israel to continue getting its welfare check.

    As I pointed out above, the special relationship is comprised of 3 components:

    Financial support
    Diplomatic support
    Military support

    Just because she has spoken out against the first of these, doesn’t necessarily mean she opposes the other two.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny F. Ive
    I agree she is denying the Neocon's major role. I read it as "please don't blame the Jews." The Iraq war wasn't just for Israel. It was the America Empire's unipolar moment. Here is the article in question: http://www.wnd.com/2003/03/17817/

    It was written right when the war started. Does she still hold those views? That was 13 years ago.

    If she doesn't say if she supports or opposes something then why should it matter to us unless she starts going Jennifer Rubin on us? She may very well want the US to save Israel at the UN and want the US to come to Israel's rescue militarily. I don't know. I would like more quotes from her and let them speak for themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @geokat62

    Why does it matter if she is a Zionist or not as long as she doesn’t want the US to fund it? Her wikipedia concerning Israel doesn’t look like someone who is a neoconservative to me:
     
    Her Wikipedia also states:

    Mercer responded to Pat Buchanan's argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative "cabal" advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S., by noting that in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was "seeing causal connections where none exist" while failing to note the influence upon Bush by inner-circle gentile neocons such as Condoleezza Rice and William Bennett.
     
    Has paleolibertarian Mercer spoken out against the "special relationship" that not only provides funding to the Zionist entity, but also diplomatic and military support? Her Wikipedia remains silent on this issue.

    If Israel runs the show why did they feel it was necessary to ban the Kach Movement? Israel knows US support is conditional on it not taking effective action to end the conflict, which is slowly but surely going the Arabs’ way.

    Bryan Caplan supports open borders for the whole world including Israel. Ilana Mercer is not that kind of paleolibertarian

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    If Israel runs the show....
     
    Are you seriously suggesting that, since Israel cannot genocide or forcibly transfer the indigenous population of Palestine, the Lobby is ineffectual?

    Here are just a few stats:

    39, the number of UN resolutions the US has vetoed on Israel's behalf http://www.wrmea.org/2005-may-june/an-updated-list-of-vetoes-cast-by-the-united-states-to-shield-israel-from-criticism-by-the-u.n.-security-council.html

    $120B, the amount of treasure the US has paid in tribute to Israel since 1949 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

    14, the number of Muslim countries the US has bombed or occupied since 1980 https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/


    If that isn't power, I don't know what is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Mark Green
    Ms. Mercer- "Lying is disgusting"? Yes. "It's despicable". OK. And your point is... ?

    Your fake ideology is a ruse. And what you're selling we're not buying.

    I've committed some kind of "libel" against you? Ha! See you in court.

    I've read you sufficiently to understand where your loyalties lie. In familiar fashion, you're hiding behind an ideological label, calling yourself a 'paleolibertarian'. This fits a pattern.

    Other Israelis hide behind the ideology of 'neoconservatism'. And I bet you all get along rather well. Earlier, members of your tribe rode into town proclaiming the imminent perfection of humankind under a system called communism. The canards never end.

    So please stop dissembling. You are an Israeli and you write very much like Israelis do when they address an American audience. As a 'paleolibertarian' you're just adjusting various ideological markers to mask your agenda. It's fascinating to observe.

    Below are some observations I made after reading a previous diatribe of yours that appeared on Unz.com on 11/23/15. As always, you attempted to whitewash Israeli criminality.

    How did an Israeli propagandist [Ilana Mercer] worm her way onto this site?

    Aren’t there enough forums devoted to Israel-centric advocacy already? What about Fox news or the Weekly Standard?

    Is an op-ed by Charles Krauthammer coming next?

    Ms. Mercer will be happy to know that, as it turns out, the Israelis enjoy a very comfortable upper hand in this struggle–though you’d never know it by reading her breathless screed.

    Sadly, innocent people are dying on both sides. But it is the Palestinians who are doing most of the suffering and most of the dying. In fact, the long-term kill ratio favors Israel by at least eight to one. Even so, the economic and political disparity favoring Israel is still greater since these revealing numbers do not reflect the death toll of crypto-Israeli militarism such as Washington’s destruction of Iraq and Libya.

    So please quit clouding the issue with your anti-Muslim rants. Theology is incidental to the struggle in Israel/Palestine. The conflict is more about ancestry and identity. These terrible ‘Muslims’ could just as easily be Palestinian-born Christians or Hindus or atheists, since all non-Jews are equally unwelcome living inside the Jewish State. They interfere with what Israel is all about: Jewish safety, Jewish cohesion, Jewish identity and Jewish separation.

    What we have in Israel/Palestine is a war between Jews from anywhere and gentiles from one place. In a normal world, America would be neutral in this conflict. But our nation’s policies have been hijacked. This is both perplexing and worrisome. After all, the US government cannot in any way express religious preference within our borders. So why are we expressing religious preference outside of our borders? I attribute this distortion to the pressures of one ethnic lobby.

    This entrenched favoritism is not consistent with Constitutional principles. And on a more practical level, Washington’s love affair with the Jewish state is perilous.

    Indeed, it was the imposition in 1948 of a Jews Only state in a land inhabited primarily by non-Jews that sparked and sustains this region’s most-enduring struggle. Christians, Jews and Muslims were living in relative harmony in pre-Zionist Palestine. The establishment of Israel put an end to that. Formal lines were drawn. Foreign invasions were launched. Wars have since skyrocketed. America has needlessly taken sides.

    Israel’s preemptive war in 1967 added more fuel to the fire. The Six Day War not only provided Israel with more territory, but a larger, non-Jewish population to rule over. These non-Jews have been living under Israeli military occupation for nearly half a century. This subjugation is the near-equivalent of a ‘life sentence’ for hundreds of thousands of ordinary civilians.

    And if it wasn’t for uninterrupted (and unconditional) US aid given to Israel ever since LBJ, the Jewish State’s iron grip on the region would not survive. Yet it does. Hey, there’s a headline right there! Care to comment, Ms. Mercer?

    Why not weigh in on the political repercussions of ‘Israeli influence in Washington’?

    Huge? Significant?–or of no importance whatsoever?

    Any opinion? Please let us know!

    Israel, America, and the entire Middle East have some very ugly problems going forward. Choices must be made. Hard choices. The status quo must be altered. It’s poison. Even the vaunted, decades-long ‘peace process’ turned out to be a mirage. It turns out that Israel can simply say “NO” indefinitely (and build Jews Only settlements in Palestine)–and there’s no penalty and virtually no consequences. Who’s fooling whom?

    In the meantime, the Palestinian people remain stateless, powerless, vulnerable and impoverished. They know what’s going on: conquest. It’s a state of war. No wonder they’re carrying out ‘terrorist acts’. Their backs are to the wall. Israel is marching into Palestine and mercilessly squeezing them out. What would you do in their situation?

    Unfortunately, all these puny Palestinians can do is launch a protest, throw stones, pray for an Israeli concession, or go on a suicide mission. The result is invariably the same: continued disenfranchisement, less and less leverage.

    These facts speaks to a resounding imbalance of power there that favors Israel. Am I wrong about this, Ms. Mercer?

    If America was half the sovereign superpower it’s supposed to be, this would be the deal:

    Washington suspends all aid to Israel unless the Israelis either 1) end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to develop their own independent and contiguous state approximating their 1967 borders, or 2) annex the Occupied Territories and give all the gentiles living there equal rights and equal citizenship with Jews inside greater Israel. One democratic state for all?

    How’s that for democratic values? So which shall it be?

    Israel’s answer: Neither.

    Israel will never ‘jeopardize’ its Jewish character nor give up the land that it snatched in 1967. Those wonderful Zionists would rather let the Palestinians live under the worst conditions imaginable than achieve lasting peace though concession.

    What the Israelis secretly want is for the Palestinians to give up and crawl away. Am I wrong about this? What’s your solution to this conundrum, Ms. Mercer?–more negotiations?

    What should Israel’s precise borders be?

    Oddly, we Americans are expected to always root for the Israelis and always subsidize them. How come? Is this Fantasyland?–or a bad dream?

    But the ‘evasive’ peace in Israel/Palestine is very achievable. It is also entirely in Israel’s hands.

    Israel has all the political and economic and military power. Israel also controls the land. Israel can hold the Palestinian people hostage. Affluent, nuclear Israel is basically holding all the cards.

    Palestinians on the other hand are holding all the sling-shots. The Palestinians have nothing to bargain with, besides resistance. But even this does not faze super-powerful Israel. The Israelis could care less. They want the Palestinians living in Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon or anywhere besides inside Israel or next to the Jewish state.

    Therefore, Israel’s long term goal is gradual (or sudden) expulsion. As Meir Kahane prophetically declared: “They Must Go”. Bibi agrees. Palestinian society must collapse or fold up its tent and disappear. After that, Israel gets the land that God promised the Jews.

    All the agreements and all the accords and all the ceremonial pomp involving the ‘peace process’ blah blah blah over the past 40 years have basically been a ruse. They bought Israel time. Now the game is over and it’s war through attrition.

    So don’t fib to us, Ms. Mercer, about poor righteous Israel being under siege. That’s kosher baloney you’re selling. Israel is clearly in the driver’s seat.

    I say: let the Zionists fight their own battles. America has no vital, national interest in maintaining the supremacy of one, tiny ethno-state. What’s in it for us? What’s in it for humanity?

    I say: let the Zionists fight their own battles. America has no vital, national interest in maintaining the supremacy of one, tiny ethno-state. What’s in it for us? What’s in it for humanity?

    What’s in it for “us”? Depends on who the “us” includes. If it’s the 100,000,000 American fanatic Evangelical bible thumpers *certain* their fairytale sky fairy will arrive any second now, then it’s crucial to the plot of their fairytale book. If it’s the 100,000,000 Americans who are big fans of the fairytale, but not quite convinced it will all come true tomorrow, then it’s still pretty important. And for the politicians elected by these fanatics and fairytale fiction fans, financed by Israeli Zionist donors, well, you can do that math.

    In other words, I do so tire of the Jew blaming without applying equal blame to the snake handlers and tongue speakers along with the Catholic and Lutheran civilization busters who vote for Israel while importing every third world savage they can find into America. As the fairytale says, remove first the log from your own eye before worrying about the mote in the jew’s eye.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Sean
    If Israel runs the show why did they feel it was necessary to ban the Kach Movement? Israel knows US support is conditional on it not taking effective action to end the conflict, which is slowly but surely going the Arabs' way.

    Bryan Caplan supports open borders for the whole world including Israel. Ilana Mercer is not that kind of paleolibertarian

    If Israel runs the show….

    Are you seriously suggesting that, since Israel cannot genocide or forcibly transfer the indigenous population of Palestine, the Lobby is ineffectual?

    Here are just a few stats:

    39, the number of UN resolutions the US has vetoed on Israel’s behalf http://www.wrmea.org/2005-may-june/an-updated-list-of-vetoes-cast-by-the-united-states-to-shield-israel-from-criticism-by-the-u.n.-security-council.html

    $120B, the amount of treasure the US has paid in tribute to Israel since 1949 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

    14, the number of Muslim countries the US has bombed or occupied since 1980 https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/

    If that isn’t power, I don’t know what is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The banning of the Kach Movement suggests otherwise. It was proposing something that would alienate the US, which Israel apparently doesn't dare do even though Israel cannot survive and US objectives in the middle East as it is Ron Unz, John Mearsheimer and Martin Van Creveld have all more or less said the West Bank Arabs will destroy Israeli as a Jewish state. By far the most dangerous enemy is within, and not Iraq, Syria, or Iran. The neocons wail about the difficulty of creating a new Palestinian state but this cannot go on for ever and unless Israel withdraws from the west bank the only option for the survival of the Jewish state is the one the neocons don't dare think about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen
    Sometimes I want to know how the sausage is made and sometimes I just want to enjoy the sausage. I don’t know anything about editing and publishing and in the lingua franca of the times, “What difference at this point does it make”?

    I still see subtle sarcasm.

    The right is supposedly different from the left.

    The real conservatives, the paleo conservatives and libertarians are supposedly different from the NR and the Foxes.

    However, we have an instance of where an “authentic conservative paleo libertarian” was left out of a book that covered almost everyone except her.

    The point of the photo is that if we were like the “others” we could use our looks instead of our brains to advance our views. But we are not like that. We value the intellect, the work. But then when we rely upon our work for recognition, we get left out. We could use our looks like the others, but we don’t do that. But we understand it.

    Anyway, I am sure that we will have glamour photos of our other favorite columnists in the days ahead.

    And do you expect we’ll be able to purchase autographed copies, such as this UR-exclusive The Mercer Image?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • woodNfish says:
    @Mark Green
    Ilana Mercer is a talented, conservative writer. And she's pretty hot, too.

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don't think so.

    Then again, the very definition of that term needs revision. And updating.

    After all, the cold war is over. And domestic conditions in America have changed radically. I see Ms. Mercer as yet another crypto-Israeli poseur.

    Is America's ongoing, unconditional commitment to that state of Israel a paleoconservative value?

    Definitely not.

    Has Ms. Mercer addressed this political crisis forthrightly?

    No.

    Ilena Mercer is a rebellious neocon dressed up as some kind of bulwark against... what?

    Political correctness?

    BFD.

    Why do we need her?

    I have no idea. She's taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I've observed.--(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there's been an incremental takeover of American 'conservativism' by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?

    You seem to have a reading comprehension problem Mark, and apparently so do those who agree with you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @geokat62

    If Israel runs the show....
     
    Are you seriously suggesting that, since Israel cannot genocide or forcibly transfer the indigenous population of Palestine, the Lobby is ineffectual?

    Here are just a few stats:

    39, the number of UN resolutions the US has vetoed on Israel's behalf http://www.wrmea.org/2005-may-june/an-updated-list-of-vetoes-cast-by-the-united-states-to-shield-israel-from-criticism-by-the-u.n.-security-council.html

    $120B, the amount of treasure the US has paid in tribute to Israel since 1949 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

    14, the number of Muslim countries the US has bombed or occupied since 1980 https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/


    If that isn't power, I don't know what is.

    The banning of the Kach Movement suggests otherwise. It was proposing something that would alienate the US, which Israel apparently doesn’t dare do even though Israel cannot survive and US objectives in the middle East as it is Ron Unz, John Mearsheimer and Martin Van Creveld have all more or less said the West Bank Arabs will destroy Israeli as a Jewish state. By far the most dangerous enemy is within, and not Iraq, Syria, or Iran. The neocons wail about the difficulty of creating a new Palestinian state but this cannot go on for ever and unless Israel withdraws from the west bank the only option for the survival of the Jewish state is the one the neocons don’t dare think about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    By far the most dangerous enemy is within, and not Iraq, Syria, or Iran.
     
    No argument, there. Do you remember how kids used to behave in the playground? There would invariably be a bully who would pick on some runt, unless the runt was fortunate enough to be surrounded by several friends who were willing to protect him. The bully would spend his day dreaming of finding a way to get his hands on the runt, when he was alone.

    Well, that same story applies to the ME: the bully (Israel) was dying to get his hands on the runt (the Palestinians) but couldn't do so as long as the runt's several friends (Iraq, Syria, Iran) were willing to protect him. So what does the bully decide to do? Why he decides to get the giant clod (the US) to take care of (via the GWOT) the runt's friends so that the bully could take care of the runt.


    The banning of the Kach Movement suggests otherwise.
     
    Now, the fact that the Zionists have been reluctant to implement the extreme solution up until now doesn't mean the US is calling the shots. It just means the Zionists know that world opinion is still staunchly against massive population transfers. They know the conditions are not yet ripe to pull this off. Not yet. But I'm sure they're busy scheming of ingenious ways to make this "solution" more palatable to the dumb goy. All they need is a little more time... and a giant clod to help them out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    @geokat62

    ... if the majority of Jews and Jewish elites were like Ilana Mercer, would we have a problem with Jews?

    I don’t think so.
     

    Priss, and you accuse me of using gumbic logic?

    Here's a comment I recently posted on another thread:


    Unfortunately, most Zionists initially believed they could have their cake and eat it too… but the trillions of dollars spent and all the lives lost the past 15 years of remaking the ME has made things painfully obvious… even to most of the dumb goy – i.e., it has become much harder to conceal the fact that the Lobby is doing massive damage to the interests of the average American.

    But something tells me that most of the community are still in denial, thinking that most dumb goy are still enthralled by the hasbara continually being spewed by MSM. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I’m not hopeful about the future as I believe the Lobby has struck a Faustian bargain with Killary – i.e., she will become the first female POTUS in exchange for taking the special relationship to the next level.
     

    I think so, Priss.

    Your silly gumbic sensibility just doesn’t get it.

    Look, all libertarians are disingenuous, and that includes Mercer too.

    Now, they are all honest to some degree. They do value individual liberty and all that stuff that they talk about. And there are some naive libertarians who would like to be 100% libertarian and wish the entire world was without borders and without identity. Everyone would be a total cosmo-consumerist individualist without borders. A cosmosumerist.
    But such is an impossible vision.

    Most libertarians are into identity + individuality. This is esp true of Right-Libertarians.
    Left-Libertarians like Bill Maher are for individual freedom in lifestyle and speech, but they want more government to make sure everyone can enjoy life and have basic goodies and more.
    The true-blue libertarians reject identity of right-libers and material statism of left-libers. I think Bryan Caplan is a true-blue liber. A nut.

    Ilana Mercer is a right-liber. Since she’s Jewish, she’s into Jewish/Zionist interests.
    But then, white right libers are for white nationalism.
    So, all these right-libers are not gonna see eye-to-eye.
    Given Mercer is a Jewish right-liber, she wants her national agenda supported. But she seems to be genuinely interested in protecting and preserving western civ apart from third world barbarism, and that is good.
    But because of their libertarianism, there is some effort on their — Jewish, white nationalist, Asian, whatever — to mask or rationalize their politics of identity.

    Now, the ONLY TRULY honest person is none other than myself. Why? Because I go for neo-fascism. It must be NEO-fascism as opposed to classic fascism cuz old fascism of duce-and-fuhrer worship was bad stuff. We need something like mea-fascism or My Fascism.
    Old Fascism was about individuals giving up their liberty and autonomy to mindlessly praise the Duce or mindlessly obey Fuhrer. How did that turn out? WWII, Holocaust, and a total tragedy for Europe.
    If the Duce and Fuhrer offered one good lesson for humanity, it was “I did it my way.”
    Mussolini did it his way, Hitler did it his way. So, a true neo-fascist must do it his or her way. He or she must existentially and ethnically arrive at his or her own sense of truth than just act like a dog before Duce or Fuhrer(or Chairman). There is no single correct fascism. Every neo-fascist must arrive at his or her own blend. It’s like everyone must choose his or her own blend of coffee.

    Why is Neo-facism or mea-fascism better than libertarian? It is just more honest. In the end, individualism is about here and now. It is too impermanent and transient. An individual lasts just several decades. So, even as we must value individualism, we cannot put the individual at the center of society and history. Individual is a torch-bearer of something bigger than himself/herself. He or she inherits a heritage, works upon it, preserves it, changes & improves it where it needs to be changed, and then passes it down to his/her kids and future members of her race/nation.

    Right-Libertarianism is for identity but still puts individuality over identity.
    Neo-fascism is for individuality but puts identity above individuality.
    It has a sounder basis for political movement.

    So, your gumbic self need to reassess things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    A problem with Libertarianism is it calls for individual freedom, liberty, reason, and self-control but champions the sort of behavior that undermines the power of will, agency, and rationality.
    While I can go along with pot legalization, surely there are drugs that are so addictive that people who use them are very likely to lose their self-control. They become mind-slaves craving that next high. It's like sex addicts and porn addicts cannot stop their behavior. Their entire lives revolve around more and more indulgence. And gambling is an addictive degeneracy that robs people not only of their money but self-control as their pleasure derives in the vice of throwing hard-earned money away in the fantasy of winning big bucks, which is all a sham.

    To be free as a human means to have self-control and favor reason and moderation over wild abandonment to animal pleasure.
    But so many things that libertarians champion turn us into animals addicted to base orgasmo-drives. Libertarians say it's about choice, but once a person becomes addicted to something, does he or she really have any choice left? Addiction means sensual enslavement to a certain drug, indulgence, or habit. Craving for that pleasure means the person is helpless to the addiction that may well be harmful to her health and soul.
    When people become addicted to heroin or meth, are they free anymore in any meaningful sense? Libertarian indulgence destroys the very thing that Libertarians claim to prize so much: agency, reason, self-control, and etc.
    , @geokat62

    Your silly gumbic sensibility just doesn’t get it... So, your gumbic self need to reassess things.
     
    What can I say, teach. I'm struggling mightily to keep up with all these permutations and combinations as they pertain to the various ideological categories. Could we just start over again with the story about the monkey with the two dicks? I was able to follow that story pretty well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    Your silly gumbic sensibility just doesn't get it.

    Look, all libertarians are disingenuous, and that includes Mercer too.

    Now, they are all honest to some degree. They do value individual liberty and all that stuff that they talk about. And there are some naive libertarians who would like to be 100% libertarian and wish the entire world was without borders and without identity. Everyone would be a total cosmo-consumerist individualist without borders. A cosmosumerist.
    But such is an impossible vision.

    Most libertarians are into identity + individuality. This is esp true of Right-Libertarians.
    Left-Libertarians like Bill Maher are for individual freedom in lifestyle and speech, but they want more government to make sure everyone can enjoy life and have basic goodies and more.
    The true-blue libertarians reject identity of right-libers and material statism of left-libers. I think Bryan Caplan is a true-blue liber. A nut.

    Ilana Mercer is a right-liber. Since she's Jewish, she's into Jewish/Zionist interests.
    But then, white right libers are for white nationalism.
    So, all these right-libers are not gonna see eye-to-eye.
    Given Mercer is a Jewish right-liber, she wants her national agenda supported. But she seems to be genuinely interested in protecting and preserving western civ apart from third world barbarism, and that is good.
    But because of their libertarianism, there is some effort on their --- Jewish, white nationalist, Asian, whatever --- to mask or rationalize their politics of identity.

    Now, the ONLY TRULY honest person is none other than myself. Why? Because I go for neo-fascism. It must be NEO-fascism as opposed to classic fascism cuz old fascism of duce-and-fuhrer worship was bad stuff. We need something like mea-fascism or My Fascism.
    Old Fascism was about individuals giving up their liberty and autonomy to mindlessly praise the Duce or mindlessly obey Fuhrer. How did that turn out? WWII, Holocaust, and a total tragedy for Europe.
    If the Duce and Fuhrer offered one good lesson for humanity, it was "I did it my way."
    Mussolini did it his way, Hitler did it his way. So, a true neo-fascist must do it his or her way. He or she must existentially and ethnically arrive at his or her own sense of truth than just act like a dog before Duce or Fuhrer(or Chairman). There is no single correct fascism. Every neo-fascist must arrive at his or her own blend. It's like everyone must choose his or her own blend of coffee.

    Why is Neo-facism or mea-fascism better than libertarian? It is just more honest. In the end, individualism is about here and now. It is too impermanent and transient. An individual lasts just several decades. So, even as we must value individualism, we cannot put the individual at the center of society and history. Individual is a torch-bearer of something bigger than himself/herself. He or she inherits a heritage, works upon it, preserves it, changes & improves it where it needs to be changed, and then passes it down to his/her kids and future members of her race/nation.

    Right-Libertarianism is for identity but still puts individuality over identity.
    Neo-fascism is for individuality but puts identity above individuality.
    It has a sounder basis for political movement.

    So, your gumbic self need to reassess things.

    A problem with Libertarianism is it calls for individual freedom, liberty, reason, and self-control but champions the sort of behavior that undermines the power of will, agency, and rationality.
    While I can go along with pot legalization, surely there are drugs that are so addictive that people who use them are very likely to lose their self-control. They become mind-slaves craving that next high. It’s like sex addicts and porn addicts cannot stop their behavior. Their entire lives revolve around more and more indulgence. And gambling is an addictive degeneracy that robs people not only of their money but self-control as their pleasure derives in the vice of throwing hard-earned money away in the fantasy of winning big bucks, which is all a sham.

    To be free as a human means to have self-control and favor reason and moderation over wild abandonment to animal pleasure.
    But so many things that libertarians champion turn us into animals addicted to base orgasmo-drives. Libertarians say it’s about choice, but once a person becomes addicted to something, does he or she really have any choice left? Addiction means sensual enslavement to a certain drug, indulgence, or habit. Craving for that pleasure means the person is helpless to the addiction that may well be harmful to her health and soul.
    When people become addicted to heroin or meth, are they free anymore in any meaningful sense? Libertarian indulgence destroys the very thing that Libertarians claim to prize so much: agency, reason, self-control, and etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • an astonishing outburst of feminine spite and vanity. First of all, Issacsohn, you are not all that important: perhaps an eventual footnote in the GALACTIC REVIEW OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Vol. XXXIV, p. 642, dealing with “Zionist Fakery”. Alzo, certain political-racial (anti-White) pecadillos during your South African salad days may finally have come home to roost. If not, they will

    Read More
    • Replies: @ilana mercer
    Dare I say it, but the "The Curious Case Of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian" is a
    beautifully written piece that strikes the right tone and corrects serious omissions. The self-cannibalizing paleo community might be a small fishpond, but it's our small fishpond, and it should behave with intellectual honestly. And, if not, by golly it'll be shamed into so doing. If a book about antiwar writers, written by gentlemen quite a bit younger than this writer, has space for history-from-below---riffs by anon housewives---these young editors ought to have found a page or two for my fabulous anti-war oeuvre that swayed many. As for you, Haxo Angmark, time to slither back to the dank corner whence you crawled.
    Your note is ad hominem, not argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Sean
    The banning of the Kach Movement suggests otherwise. It was proposing something that would alienate the US, which Israel apparently doesn't dare do even though Israel cannot survive and US objectives in the middle East as it is Ron Unz, John Mearsheimer and Martin Van Creveld have all more or less said the West Bank Arabs will destroy Israeli as a Jewish state. By far the most dangerous enemy is within, and not Iraq, Syria, or Iran. The neocons wail about the difficulty of creating a new Palestinian state but this cannot go on for ever and unless Israel withdraws from the west bank the only option for the survival of the Jewish state is the one the neocons don't dare think about.

    By far the most dangerous enemy is within, and not Iraq, Syria, or Iran.

    No argument, there. Do you remember how kids used to behave in the playground? There would invariably be a bully who would pick on some runt, unless the runt was fortunate enough to be surrounded by several friends who were willing to protect him. The bully would spend his day dreaming of finding a way to get his hands on the runt, when he was alone.

    Well, that same story applies to the ME: the bully (Israel) was dying to get his hands on the runt (the Palestinians) but couldn’t do so as long as the runt’s several friends (Iraq, Syria, Iran) were willing to protect him. So what does the bully decide to do? Why he decides to get the giant clod (the US) to take care of (via the GWOT) the runt’s friends so that the bully could take care of the runt.

    The banning of the Kach Movement suggests otherwise.

    Now, the fact that the Zionists have been reluctant to implement the extreme solution up until now doesn’t mean the US is calling the shots. It just means the Zionists know that world opinion is still staunchly against massive population transfers. They know the conditions are not yet ripe to pull this off. Not yet. But I’m sure they’re busy scheming of ingenious ways to make this “solution” more palatable to the dumb goy. All they need is a little more time… and a giant clod to help them out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Iran or Iraq or even Egypt could not have done anything against Israel alone, which the Germans and Norwegians and French helped get nukes. Anyway Israel could only benefit from an Arab attack, and the US has said it would crush any country that attacked Israel. Israel could have easily expelled the West Bank Arabs in 1967 when it occupied during a war. It would need another war and attack by Arabs for there to be a further such opportunity.

    MARCH 31, 2016 BY MARTIN VAN CREVELD
    The killing last week by an Israeli soldier of a wounded Palestinian terrorist who was lying helplessly on his back has sent the country into a turmoil. No sooner was the picture published on the Net then the Israeli media mounted a wave of protest. Taking up from there, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Yeelon, and chief of staff Eisenkot quickly denounced the deed and promised that the soldier in question would be put on trial and punished. This was followed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attorney general’s announcement that the charge would be murder. [...] Sun Tzu, in the first chapter of his celebrated On War, says that victory will go to the side who keeps the favor of heaven—meaning, the moral advantage—by formulating rules of behavior and sticking to them. I agree. For those of you who have never read my best-known book, The Transformation of War, or who have forgotten its contents, here is what I wrote about this topic a quarter century ago:

    “[Suppose a war] where one belligerent is much stronger than the other. Under such circumstances, the conduct of war can become problematic even as a matter of definition… Over the long run… fighting the weak demeans those who engage in it, and therefore undermines its own purpose. He who loses out to the weak loses; he who triumphs over the weak also loses. In such an enterprise there can be neither profit nor honor. Provided only the exercise is repeated often enough, as surely as night follows day the point will come when enterprise collapses… Since the very act of fighting the weak invites excess, in fact is excess, it obliges the strong to impose controls in the forms of laws, regulations, and rules of engagement… The net effect of such regulations is to demoralize the troops who are prevented from operating freely and using their initiative. They are contrary to sound command practice if they are observed and subversive of fighting discipline of they are not. Hence Clausewitz’s dictum, plainly observable in every low-intensity conflict fought since World War I, that regular troops combating a Volkskrieg are like robots to men.

    A sword, plunged into salt water, will rust…A strong force made to confront the weak for any length of time will violate its own regulations and commit crimes, some inadvertent and others not. Forced to lie in order to conceal its crimes, it will find the system of military justice undermined, the process of command distorted, and a credibility gap opening up at its feet. In such a process there are neither heroes nor villains, but only victims: whom the gods want to destroy, they first strike blind.”
     
    Mr. Netanyahu, are you listening? For God’s sake, GET OUT OF THE TERRITORIES!!!http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=594
     
    Assad is using ISIS as a cats paw against the his southerly neighbouring family dictatorship in Hashemite Jordan, which backed the original uprising against Assad.. With his Russki condor legion blasting the Free Syrian Army rebels of the Southern front Assad might have created the possibility of crypto ISIS or other radical Sunni infiltration of Jordan, but the US is desperately trying to stop this, see here and here. The US is doing its utmost to keep the war out away from the existing Palestinian state of Jordan, which is the only place that is relevant.

    Benny Morris :-

    When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all: Lod and Acre and Jaffa.
     
    The Palestinians think Mearsheimer, Unz and Van Creveld are correct in the prediction that Israel has no way out. Official US policy is for the creation of a new Palestinian state, and the actual US actions are freezing the situation. Israel banned Kach, and it's US lobby are not altering the course of events so as to create an opportunity to do anything along the lines of what the movement advocated. Quite the opposite, the Syrian situation is being quarenteened
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Your silly gumbic sensibility just doesn't get it.

    Look, all libertarians are disingenuous, and that includes Mercer too.

    Now, they are all honest to some degree. They do value individual liberty and all that stuff that they talk about. And there are some naive libertarians who would like to be 100% libertarian and wish the entire world was without borders and without identity. Everyone would be a total cosmo-consumerist individualist without borders. A cosmosumerist.
    But such is an impossible vision.

    Most libertarians are into identity + individuality. This is esp true of Right-Libertarians.
    Left-Libertarians like Bill Maher are for individual freedom in lifestyle and speech, but they want more government to make sure everyone can enjoy life and have basic goodies and more.
    The true-blue libertarians reject identity of right-libers and material statism of left-libers. I think Bryan Caplan is a true-blue liber. A nut.

    Ilana Mercer is a right-liber. Since she's Jewish, she's into Jewish/Zionist interests.
    But then, white right libers are for white nationalism.
    So, all these right-libers are not gonna see eye-to-eye.
    Given Mercer is a Jewish right-liber, she wants her national agenda supported. But she seems to be genuinely interested in protecting and preserving western civ apart from third world barbarism, and that is good.
    But because of their libertarianism, there is some effort on their --- Jewish, white nationalist, Asian, whatever --- to mask or rationalize their politics of identity.

    Now, the ONLY TRULY honest person is none other than myself. Why? Because I go for neo-fascism. It must be NEO-fascism as opposed to classic fascism cuz old fascism of duce-and-fuhrer worship was bad stuff. We need something like mea-fascism or My Fascism.
    Old Fascism was about individuals giving up their liberty and autonomy to mindlessly praise the Duce or mindlessly obey Fuhrer. How did that turn out? WWII, Holocaust, and a total tragedy for Europe.
    If the Duce and Fuhrer offered one good lesson for humanity, it was "I did it my way."
    Mussolini did it his way, Hitler did it his way. So, a true neo-fascist must do it his or her way. He or she must existentially and ethnically arrive at his or her own sense of truth than just act like a dog before Duce or Fuhrer(or Chairman). There is no single correct fascism. Every neo-fascist must arrive at his or her own blend. It's like everyone must choose his or her own blend of coffee.

    Why is Neo-facism or mea-fascism better than libertarian? It is just more honest. In the end, individualism is about here and now. It is too impermanent and transient. An individual lasts just several decades. So, even as we must value individualism, we cannot put the individual at the center of society and history. Individual is a torch-bearer of something bigger than himself/herself. He or she inherits a heritage, works upon it, preserves it, changes & improves it where it needs to be changed, and then passes it down to his/her kids and future members of her race/nation.

    Right-Libertarianism is for identity but still puts individuality over identity.
    Neo-fascism is for individuality but puts identity above individuality.
    It has a sounder basis for political movement.

    So, your gumbic self need to reassess things.

    Your silly gumbic sensibility just doesn’t get it… So, your gumbic self need to reassess things.

    What can I say, teach. I’m struggling mightily to keep up with all these permutations and combinations as they pertain to the various ideological categories. Could we just start over again with the story about the monkey with the two dicks? I was able to follow that story pretty well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @geokat62
    I think in the quoted text that you provided that she is saying don’t just blame the Jews, blame everyone who supported that awful war.

    Take a closer look at the words in bold:

    in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was “seeing causal connections where none exist”
     
    To be clear, she is not attacking Buchanon for saying the neocons are exclusively Jewish, she was attacking his "argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative “cabal” advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S...."

    Has she spoken for the special relationship? She is against the US funding Israel. The relationship can’t be that special to her if she doesn’t want Israel to continue getting its welfare check.
     
    As I pointed out above, the special relationship is comprised of 3 components:

    Financial support
    Diplomatic support
    Military support

    Just because she has spoken out against the first of these, doesn't necessarily mean she opposes the other two.

    I agree she is denying the Neocon’s major role. I read it as “please don’t blame the Jews.” The Iraq war wasn’t just for Israel. It was the America Empire’s unipolar moment. Here is the article in question: http://www.wnd.com/2003/03/17817/

    It was written right when the war started. Does she still hold those views? That was 13 years ago.

    If she doesn’t say if she supports or opposes something then why should it matter to us unless she starts going Jennifer Rubin on us? She may very well want the US to save Israel at the UN and want the US to come to Israel’s rescue militarily. I don’t know. I would like more quotes from her and let them speak for themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ilana mercer
    After 15 years of principled anti-war writing---no war for any-bloody-one (not for Israeli not for Ukraine not for Syria)---this writer need not answer to libelous dimwits who don't or can't read the good stuff (but read Jennifer Rubin), and have a set of inviolable beliefs about Jews.

    To quote from the antiwar.com link attached, "Ilana is a principled longtime libertarian ..."

    Sometimes an anti-Semite is just an anti-Semite.

    Incidentally, Israel is quite capable of defending itself---as it should.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:

    The Iraq war wasn’t just for Israel. It was the America Empire’s unipolar moment.

    You’ve got your Iraq wars mixed up. Iraq War 1 (1990) was “the America Empire’s unipolar moment.” Iraq War 2 (2003) was for Israel.

    If she doesn’t say if she supports or opposes something then why should it matter to us unless she starts going Jennifer Rubin on us?

    Ah, that’s where you are wrong. Jennifer Rubin is less of a threat because she is blowing her horn as she charges across the battlefield. Ms. Mercer, on the other hand, is stealthily infiltrating the enemy’s camp, in the dead of night.

    I would like more quotes from her and let them speak for themselves.

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny F. Ive
    It could be considered that Iraq war 1 never ended. Anyway around Iraq War 2003 the neocons were talking up the American Empire.

    Are we weak minded enough to let a trojan horse (if you are right) influence us? Aren't we attracted to sites like this because we are interested in ideas instead of yellow journalism. We can open our mind up and not accept what we are told without question (at least I hope). Its self selecting. Its Ron Unz's site. Is this all a nefarious plot to turn us into Likudbots? I'm not going to tar and feather someone for beliefs they may or may not have.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The term “paleolibertarian” is almost never used these days. When’s the last time Lew Rockwell proclaimed himself to be one?

    False modesty is not something you need to worry about, in any case.

    Are you really going to fault Dr. Tom Woods for not including you in his anti-war book? Really? It’s not a big book and the time period of the writers he selected was fairly wide.

    He’s a gentleman. So I’m not surprised he said it was a “regrettable oversight.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @geokat62

    By far the most dangerous enemy is within, and not Iraq, Syria, or Iran.
     
    No argument, there. Do you remember how kids used to behave in the playground? There would invariably be a bully who would pick on some runt, unless the runt was fortunate enough to be surrounded by several friends who were willing to protect him. The bully would spend his day dreaming of finding a way to get his hands on the runt, when he was alone.

    Well, that same story applies to the ME: the bully (Israel) was dying to get his hands on the runt (the Palestinians) but couldn't do so as long as the runt's several friends (Iraq, Syria, Iran) were willing to protect him. So what does the bully decide to do? Why he decides to get the giant clod (the US) to take care of (via the GWOT) the runt's friends so that the bully could take care of the runt.


    The banning of the Kach Movement suggests otherwise.
     
    Now, the fact that the Zionists have been reluctant to implement the extreme solution up until now doesn't mean the US is calling the shots. It just means the Zionists know that world opinion is still staunchly against massive population transfers. They know the conditions are not yet ripe to pull this off. Not yet. But I'm sure they're busy scheming of ingenious ways to make this "solution" more palatable to the dumb goy. All they need is a little more time... and a giant clod to help them out.

    Iran or Iraq or even Egypt could not have done anything against Israel alone, which the Germans and Norwegians and French helped get nukes. Anyway Israel could only benefit from an Arab attack, and the US has said it would crush any country that attacked Israel. Israel could have easily expelled the West Bank Arabs in 1967 when it occupied during a war. It would need another war and attack by Arabs for there to be a further such opportunity.

    [MORE]

    MARCH 31, 2016 BY MARTIN VAN CREVELD
    The killing last week by an Israeli soldier of a wounded Palestinian terrorist who was lying helplessly on his back has sent the country into a turmoil. No sooner was the picture published on the Net then the Israeli media mounted a wave of protest. Taking up from there, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Yeelon, and chief of staff Eisenkot quickly denounced the deed and promised that the soldier in question would be put on trial and punished. This was followed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attorney general’s announcement that the charge would be murder. [...] Sun Tzu, in the first chapter of his celebrated On War, says that victory will go to the side who keeps the favor of heaven—meaning, the moral advantage—by formulating rules of behavior and sticking to them. I agree. For those of you who have never read my best-known book, The Transformation of War, or who have forgotten its contents, here is what I wrote about this topic a quarter century ago:

    “[Suppose a war] where one belligerent is much stronger than the other. Under such circumstances, the conduct of war can become problematic even as a matter of definition… Over the long run… fighting the weak demeans those who engage in it, and therefore undermines its own purpose. He who loses out to the weak loses; he who triumphs over the weak also loses. In such an enterprise there can be neither profit nor honor. Provided only the exercise is repeated often enough, as surely as night follows day the point will come when enterprise collapses… Since the very act of fighting the weak invites excess, in fact is excess, it obliges the strong to impose controls in the forms of laws, regulations, and rules of engagement… The net effect of such regulations is to demoralize the troops who are prevented from operating freely and using their initiative. They are contrary to sound command practice if they are observed and subversive of fighting discipline of they are not. Hence Clausewitz’s dictum, plainly observable in every low-intensity conflict fought since World War I, that regular troops combating a Volkskrieg are like robots to men.

    A sword, plunged into salt water, will rust…A strong force made to confront the weak for any length of time will violate its own regulations and commit crimes, some inadvertent and others not. Forced to lie in order to conceal its crimes, it will find the system of military justice undermined, the process of command distorted, and a credibility gap opening up at its feet. In such a process there are neither heroes nor villains, but only victims: whom the gods want to destroy, they first strike blind.”

    Mr. Netanyahu, are you listening? For God’s sake, GET OUT OF THE TERRITORIES!!!http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=594

    Assad is using ISIS as a cats paw against the his southerly neighbouring family dictatorship in Hashemite Jordan, which backed the original uprising against Assad.. With his Russki condor legion blasting the Free Syrian Army rebels of the Southern front Assad might have created the possibility of crypto ISIS or other radical Sunni infiltration of Jordan, but the US is desperately trying to stop this, see here and here. The US is doing its utmost to keep the war out away from the existing Palestinian state of Jordan, which is the only place that is relevant.

    Benny Morris :-

    When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all: Lod and Acre and Jaffa.

    The Palestinians think Mearsheimer, Unz and Van Creveld are correct in the prediction that Israel has no way out. Official US policy is for the creation of a new Palestinian state, and the actual US actions are freezing the situation. Israel banned Kach, and it’s US lobby are not altering the course of events so as to create an opportunity to do anything along the lines of what the movement advocated. Quite the opposite, the Syrian situation is being quarenteened

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:

    Anyway, there is no argument that Ilana was a voice against the Iraq war, and she is against further ME intervention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Anyway, there is no argument that Ilana was a voice against the Iraq war, and she is against further ME intervention.
     
    If she is a self-professed "unapologetic" Zionist, why would she be against the Iraq war and further ME intervention, both of which promote(d) the interests of her beloved Israel? Makes no sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Correction to typo at http://www.unz.com/imercer/the-curious-case-of-wnds-vanishing-veteran-paleolibertarian/#comment-1390402. I should have written:

    “ought to be” in:

    You can’t sit on the fence, lazily, proclaiming your purity; forever suspended between what “is” and what “ought to be,” and revel in your immaculate conception (while throwing stones at me, as so many in this community have done).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thanks. How about another new pic from The Mercer Image Gallery?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Sean
    Anyway, there is no argument that Ilana was a voice against the Iraq war, and she is against further ME intervention.

    Anyway, there is no argument that Ilana was a voice against the Iraq war, and she is against further ME intervention.

    If she is a self-professed “unapologetic” Zionist, why would she be against the Iraq war and further ME intervention, both of which promote(d) the interests of her beloved Israel? Makes no sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    It makes perfect sense if the Iraq war and calls for further ME intervention (but no objection to the official US policy for a Palestinian state) are the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members. Lots of organisation and movements go that way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ilana mercer
    Correction to typo at http://www.unz.com/imercer/the-curious-case-of-wnds-vanishing-veteran-paleolibertarian/#comment-1390402. I should have written:

    “ought to be” in:

    You can’t sit on the fence, lazily, proclaiming your purity; forever suspended between what “is” and what “ought to be,” and revel in your immaculate conception (while throwing stones at me, as so many in this community have done).
     

    Thanks. How about another new pic from The Mercer Image Gallery?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Miaow!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @geokat62

    The Iraq war wasn’t just for Israel. It was the America Empire’s unipolar moment.
     
    You've got your Iraq wars mixed up. Iraq War 1 (1990) was "the America Empire’s unipolar moment." Iraq War 2 (2003) was for Israel.

    If she doesn’t say if she supports or opposes something then why should it matter to us unless she starts going Jennifer Rubin on us?
     
    Ah, that's where you are wrong. Jennifer Rubin is less of a threat because she is blowing her horn as she charges across the battlefield. Ms. Mercer, on the other hand, is stealthily infiltrating the enemy's camp, in the dead of night.

    I would like more quotes from her and let them speak for themselves.
     
    Don't hold your breath.

    It could be considered that Iraq war 1 never ended. Anyway around Iraq War 2003 the neocons were talking up the American Empire.

    Are we weak minded enough to let a trojan horse (if you are right) influence us? Aren’t we attracted to sites like this because we are interested in ideas instead of yellow journalism. We can open our mind up and not accept what we are told without question (at least I hope). Its self selecting. Its Ron Unz’s site. Is this all a nefarious plot to turn us into Likudbots? I’m not going to tar and feather someone for beliefs they may or may not have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    How about Alex Jones?
     
    Since I don't follow him, I can't comment.
    , @geokat62

    Are we weak minded enough to let a trojan horse (if you are right) influence us?...I’m not going to tar and feather someone for beliefs they may or may not have.
     
    If people realize they are dealing with a Trojan horse, they stand a better chance of resisting their influence. While everyone is entitled to their beliefs, it is important that they clearly articulate them.

    The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the battle of ideas is a fair one.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • How about Alex Jones? He has 9/11 conspiracies and a Jewish wife or ex-wife: https://youtu.be/NmmaU5pL81g (interview with Howard Stern). Is there something nefarious going on there besides attention seeking, schizophrenia, and making money?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Johnny F. Ive
    It could be considered that Iraq war 1 never ended. Anyway around Iraq War 2003 the neocons were talking up the American Empire.

    Are we weak minded enough to let a trojan horse (if you are right) influence us? Aren't we attracted to sites like this because we are interested in ideas instead of yellow journalism. We can open our mind up and not accept what we are told without question (at least I hope). Its self selecting. Its Ron Unz's site. Is this all a nefarious plot to turn us into Likudbots? I'm not going to tar and feather someone for beliefs they may or may not have.

    How about Alex Jones?

    Since I don’t follow him, I can’t comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Johnny F. Ive
    It could be considered that Iraq war 1 never ended. Anyway around Iraq War 2003 the neocons were talking up the American Empire.

    Are we weak minded enough to let a trojan horse (if you are right) influence us? Aren't we attracted to sites like this because we are interested in ideas instead of yellow journalism. We can open our mind up and not accept what we are told without question (at least I hope). Its self selecting. Its Ron Unz's site. Is this all a nefarious plot to turn us into Likudbots? I'm not going to tar and feather someone for beliefs they may or may not have.

    Are we weak minded enough to let a trojan horse (if you are right) influence us?…I’m not going to tar and feather someone for beliefs they may or may not have.

    If people realize they are dealing with a Trojan horse, they stand a better chance of resisting their influence. While everyone is entitled to their beliefs, it is important that they clearly articulate them.

    The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the battle of ideas is a fair one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @ilana mercer
    Political philosophy is not like sexual orientation: You don't just come out to the world, call yourself a thinker, and expect to be get embraced. You shouldn't get away with that, although some try.

    You do the bloody hard work, day-in, day-out. You write, you think; you get pelted or praised; and you get up and do it again the next day.

    You can't just come out every day and proclaim, 'I'm a perfect paleolibertarian, I believe everything Rothbard said. Look at me, ain't I neat, unlike Mercer," not having written a coherent systematic sentence in your life.

    And by systematic I mean, don't just parrot the greats! The work involves, yes, applying philosophy as you see it to the political reality, doing it in fresh, new ways.

    You can't sit on the fence, lazily, proclaiming your purity; forever suspended between what "is" and what "out to be," and revel in your immaculate conception (while throwing stones at me, as so many in this community have done).

    In a word, you can't be lazy, smug; an intellectual nullity that tears the hard-working down (love split infinitives).

    As to The Mercer Image: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

    Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at Unz Review. Ridiculous!

    The point of the essay is simple. My work over 2 decades (voluminous) speaks for itself. Good or bad.

    It is systematic; it is paleolibertarian. Any scholar of substance would locate it squarely in the paleolibertarian tradition. Such a scholar might also distinguish a salient thing that sets this thought apart from some of those surveyed in the volume under discussion. As I wrote in defense of John Derb (http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=647):


    I cop to Western man’s individualist disdain—could it be his weakness?—for race as an organizing principle. For me, the road to freedom lies in beating back the state, so that individuals may regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.
     
    As for Israel: Why not ask the Ron Paul 2007 campaign why it commissioned a think piece from me and adhered to its tenets pretty well throughout the campaign---until someone likely told Paul or handlers that Mercer was unkosher; and until someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer?

    "Unshackling Israel," cited in "Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?," was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect.
    http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=601

    ““Unshackling Israel,” cited in “Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?,” . . .”

    Great title! We care if Ron Paul is good for AMERICA.

    “. . . was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect.”

    Indeed. It was used to such “good effect” that ” . . . someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ilana mercer
    Actually, you dolt, the neoconservatives (in case you haven't noticed, they wield enormous power and can destroy anyone; my own career included) forced Ron Paul into addressing what they perceived as his anti-Israel reputation. Mine was a perfect response for a politician like Paul, who had political ambitions. He, not I, harbored political ambitions. As such, Paul, not myself, needed to make a politically palatable point re Israel. Myself, I do not need to pander, never have, never will. I am not a politician like Paul was. Moreover, the position articulated (see hyperlink) was repeated on the trail. It was never discarded. Its writer was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @geokat62

    Anyway, there is no argument that Ilana was a voice against the Iraq war, and she is against further ME intervention.
     
    If she is a self-professed "unapologetic" Zionist, why would she be against the Iraq war and further ME intervention, both of which promote(d) the interests of her beloved Israel? Makes no sense.

    It makes perfect sense if the Iraq war and calls for further ME intervention (but no objection to the official US policy for a Palestinian state) are the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members. Lots of organisation and movements go that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    It makes perfect sense if the Iraq war and calls for further ME intervention... are the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members.
     
    LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @anonymous
    Thanks. How about another new pic from The Mercer Image Gallery?

    Miaow!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Sean
    It makes perfect sense if the Iraq war and calls for further ME intervention (but no objection to the official US policy for a Palestinian state) are the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members. Lots of organisation and movements go that way.

    It makes perfect sense if the Iraq war and calls for further ME intervention… are the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members.

    LOL

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    .... the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members
     
    Allow me to expand on my previous comment.

    So, according to you, members of the Lobby are not hard at work trying to advance the interests of a foreign country, they are only interested in advancing their own personal interests?

    Here's a little window on how the Lobby works to advance things along... and it ain't only their careers:

    She, [Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List], then explained how congressional candidates’ views on Israel are determined by the need to raise money from pro-Israel Jews.

    I started as a finance director. I worked for candidates in the 90’s as their finance director. And I would come on a congressional race, I am a twenty-something kid who also knows nothing beyond the state borders, let alone overseas, and you thought about where you are going to go to raise the money that you needed to raise to win a race. And you went to labor, you went to the choice community, and you went to the Jewish community. But before you went to the Jewish community, you had a conversation with the lead AIPAC person in your state and they made it clear that you needed a paper on Israel. And so you called all of your friends who already had a paper on Israel – that was designed by AIPAC – and we made that your paper.

    This was before there was a campaign manager, or a policy director or a field director because you got to raise money before you do all of that. I have written more Israel papers that you can imagine. I’m from Montana. I barely knew where Israel was until I looked at a map, and the poor campaign manager would come in, or the policy director, and I’d be like, ‘Here is your paper on Israel. This is our policy.’ We’ve sent it all over the country because this is how we raise money. … This means that these candidates who were farmers, school teachers, or businesswomen, ended up having an Israel position without having any significant conversations with anybody…

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/forward-columnist-and-emilys-list-leader-relate-gigantic-shocking-role-of-jewish-democratic-donors/
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @geokat62

    It makes perfect sense if the Iraq war and calls for further ME intervention... are the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members.
     
    LOL

    …. the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members

    Allow me to expand on my previous comment.

    So, according to you, members of the Lobby are not hard at work trying to advance the interests of a foreign country, they are only interested in advancing their own personal interests?

    Here’s a little window on how the Lobby works to advance things along… and it ain’t only their careers:

    She, [Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List], then explained how congressional candidates’ views on Israel are determined by the need to raise money from pro-Israel Jews.

    I started as a finance director. I worked for candidates in the 90’s as their finance director. And I would come on a congressional race, I am a twenty-something kid who also knows nothing beyond the state borders, let alone overseas, and you thought about where you are going to go to raise the money that you needed to raise to win a race. And you went to labor, you went to the choice community, and you went to the Jewish community. But before you went to the Jewish community, you had a conversation with the lead AIPAC person in your state and they made it clear that you needed a paper on Israel. And so you called all of your friends who already had a paper on Israel – that was designed by AIPAC – and we made that your paper.

    This was before there was a campaign manager, or a policy director or a field director because you got to raise money before you do all of that. I have written more Israel papers that you can imagine. I’m from Montana. I barely knew where Israel was until I looked at a map, and the poor campaign manager would come in, or the policy director, and I’d be like, ‘Here is your paper on Israel. This is our policy.’ We’ve sent it all over the country because this is how we raise money. … This means that these candidates who were farmers, school teachers, or businesswomen, ended up having an Israel position without having any significant conversations with anybody…

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/forward-columnist-and-emilys-list-leader-relate-gigantic-shocking-role-of-jewish-democratic-donors/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    It certainly sounds like an organisation with set views on the particular view of Israeli interests that can help one get on in life. Really get on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @geokat62

    .... the work of an Israel Lobby that is only effective in advancing the careers of its members
     
    Allow me to expand on my previous comment.

    So, according to you, members of the Lobby are not hard at work trying to advance the interests of a foreign country, they are only interested in advancing their own personal interests?

    Here's a little window on how the Lobby works to advance things along... and it ain't only their careers:

    She, [Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List], then explained how congressional candidates’ views on Israel are determined by the need to raise money from pro-Israel Jews.

    I started as a finance director. I worked for candidates in the 90’s as their finance director. And I would come on a congressional race, I am a twenty-something kid who also knows nothing beyond the state borders, let alone overseas, and you thought about where you are going to go to raise the money that you needed to raise to win a race. And you went to labor, you went to the choice community, and you went to the Jewish community. But before you went to the Jewish community, you had a conversation with the lead AIPAC person in your state and they made it clear that you needed a paper on Israel. And so you called all of your friends who already had a paper on Israel – that was designed by AIPAC – and we made that your paper.

    This was before there was a campaign manager, or a policy director or a field director because you got to raise money before you do all of that. I have written more Israel papers that you can imagine. I’m from Montana. I barely knew where Israel was until I looked at a map, and the poor campaign manager would come in, or the policy director, and I’d be like, ‘Here is your paper on Israel. This is our policy.’ We’ve sent it all over the country because this is how we raise money. … This means that these candidates who were farmers, school teachers, or businesswomen, ended up having an Israel position without having any significant conversations with anybody…

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/forward-columnist-and-emilys-list-leader-relate-gigantic-shocking-role-of-jewish-democratic-donors/
     

    It certainly sounds like an organisation with set views on the particular view of Israeli interests that can help one get on in life. Really get on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Cletus Rothschild
    "“Unshackling Israel,” cited in “Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?,” . . ."

    Great title! We care if Ron Paul is good for AMERICA.

    ". . . was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect."

    Indeed. It was used to such "good effect" that " . . . someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer".

    Actually, you dolt, the neoconservatives (in case you haven’t noticed, they wield enormous power and can destroy anyone; my own career included) forced Ron Paul into addressing what they perceived as his anti-Israel reputation. Mine was a perfect response for a politician like Paul, who had political ambitions. He, not I, harbored political ambitions. As such, Paul, not myself, needed to make a politically palatable point re Israel. Myself, I do not need to pander, never have, never will. I am not a politician like Paul was. Moreover, the position articulated (see hyperlink) was repeated on the trail. It was never discarded. Its writer was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Mark Green
    Ilana Mercer is a talented, conservative writer. And she's pretty hot, too.

    Is she really a peleoconservative? I don't think so.

    Then again, the very definition of that term needs revision. And updating.

    After all, the cold war is over. And domestic conditions in America have changed radically. I see Ms. Mercer as yet another crypto-Israeli poseur.

    Is America's ongoing, unconditional commitment to that state of Israel a paleoconservative value?

    Definitely not.

    Has Ms. Mercer addressed this political crisis forthrightly?

    No.

    Ilena Mercer is a rebellious neocon dressed up as some kind of bulwark against... what?

    Political correctness?

    BFD.

    Why do we need her?

    I have no idea. She's taught me nothing and articulated nothing of importance from what I've observed.--(confession: I have not read all of her essays)

    Over the past 40 years, there's been an incremental takeover of American 'conservativism' by US-based Israelis who intend to 1) embroil America in wars of conquest against nations that pose a threat to Israel, and 2) de-ligitimize European-derived Americans from maintaining their stewardship and primacy within the United States of America.

    Where is Ms. Mercer on these two critical subjects?

    AWOL.

    What is Ms. Mercer even doing on this site?

    Are you borderline retarded, Mark Green? You admit that, 1. you have not read much of my work. 2. I have taught you nothing. Avoiding self-contradiction is the touchstone of truth—being mired in self-contradiction, the touchstone of error. To the Greek philosophers, to be mired in self-contradiction was, to quote one wag, to be “less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.”

    Sounds like you, sir. Archives going back to 1999: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_list.php?orderby=dDate

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Johnny F. Ive
    I agree she is denying the Neocon's major role. I read it as "please don't blame the Jews." The Iraq war wasn't just for Israel. It was the America Empire's unipolar moment. Here is the article in question: http://www.wnd.com/2003/03/17817/

    It was written right when the war started. Does she still hold those views? That was 13 years ago.

    If she doesn't say if she supports or opposes something then why should it matter to us unless she starts going Jennifer Rubin on us? She may very well want the US to save Israel at the UN and want the US to come to Israel's rescue militarily. I don't know. I would like more quotes from her and let them speak for themselves.

    After 15 years of principled anti-war writing—no war for any-bloody-one (not for Israeli not for Ukraine not for Syria)—this writer need not answer to libelous dimwits who don’t or can’t read the good stuff (but read Jennifer Rubin), and have a set of inviolable beliefs about Jews.

    To quote from the antiwar.com link attached, “Ilana is a principled longtime libertarian …”

    Sometimes an anti-Semite is just an anti-Semite.

    Incidentally, Israel is quite capable of defending itself—as it should.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... this writer need not answer to libelous dimwits who don’t or can’t read the good stuff (but read Jennifer Rubin), and have a set of inviolable beliefs about Jews.
     
    So we're libelous dimwits because we won't or can't read this good stuff:

    Mercer responded to Pat Buchanan's argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative "cabal" advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S., by noting that in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was "seeing causal connections where none exist"...
     
    I guess the two professors (Mearsheimer and Walt) are also libelous dimwits because they, along with Pat Buchanan, saw "causal connections where none exist"? Here's an excerpt from their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”
     
    So I guess your remark "Sometimes an anti-Semite is just an anti-Semite" applies to these dimwit professors, as well?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Haxo Angmark
    an astonishing outburst of feminine spite and vanity. First of all, Issacsohn, you are not all that important: perhaps an eventual footnote in the GALACTIC REVIEW OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Vol. XXXIV, p. 642, dealing with "Zionist Fakery". Alzo, certain political-racial (anti-White) pecadillos during your South African salad days may finally have come home to roost. If not, they will

    Dare I say it, but the “The Curious Case Of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian” is a
    beautifully written piece that strikes the right tone and corrects serious omissions. The self-cannibalizing paleo community might be a small fishpond, but it’s our small fishpond, and it should behave with intellectual honestly. And, if not, by golly it’ll be shamed into so doing. If a book about antiwar writers, written by gentlemen quite a bit younger than this writer, has space for history-from-below—riffs by anon housewives—these young editors ought to have found a page or two for my fabulous anti-war oeuvre that swayed many. As for you, Haxo Angmark, time to slither back to the dank corner whence you crawled.
    Your note is ad hominem, not argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Ms. Mercer, this reply is as wry as anything of yours I've seen to date.

    And as you've finally found time today to serially address your critics of such a fine article, please do be sure to answer my pending questions about the provenance of your glamorous photo. Otherwise, some may suspect that you have thus far been dissembling about that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ilana mercer
    Dare I say it, but the "The Curious Case Of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian" is a
    beautifully written piece that strikes the right tone and corrects serious omissions. The self-cannibalizing paleo community might be a small fishpond, but it's our small fishpond, and it should behave with intellectual honestly. And, if not, by golly it'll be shamed into so doing. If a book about antiwar writers, written by gentlemen quite a bit younger than this writer, has space for history-from-below---riffs by anon housewives---these young editors ought to have found a page or two for my fabulous anti-war oeuvre that swayed many. As for you, Haxo Angmark, time to slither back to the dank corner whence you crawled.
    Your note is ad hominem, not argument.

    Ms. Mercer, this reply is as wry as anything of yours I’ve seen to date.

    And as you’ve finally found time today to serially address your critics of such a fine article, please do be sure to answer my pending questions about the provenance of your glamorous photo. Otherwise, some may suspect that you have thus far been dissembling about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    pending questions about the provenance of your glamorous photo.

    I said that I didn't care about how the sausage was made but I have changed my mind.

    Did the same person select the Mercer photo that selected the Michelle Fields photo?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @anonymous
    Ms. Mercer, this reply is as wry as anything of yours I've seen to date.

    And as you've finally found time today to serially address your critics of such a fine article, please do be sure to answer my pending questions about the provenance of your glamorous photo. Otherwise, some may suspect that you have thus far been dissembling about that.

    pending questions about the provenance of your glamorous photo.

    I said that I didn’t care about how the sausage was made but I have changed my mind.

    Did the same person select the Mercer photo that selected the Michelle Fields photo?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @ilana mercer
    After 15 years of principled anti-war writing---no war for any-bloody-one (not for Israeli not for Ukraine not for Syria)---this writer need not answer to libelous dimwits who don't or can't read the good stuff (but read Jennifer Rubin), and have a set of inviolable beliefs about Jews.

    To quote from the antiwar.com link attached, "Ilana is a principled longtime libertarian ..."

    Sometimes an anti-Semite is just an anti-Semite.

    Incidentally, Israel is quite capable of defending itself---as it should.

    … this writer need not answer to libelous dimwits who don’t or can’t read the good stuff (but read Jennifer Rubin), and have a set of inviolable beliefs about Jews.

    So we’re libelous dimwits because we won’t or can’t read this good stuff:

    Mercer responded to Pat Buchanan’s argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative “cabal” advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S., by noting that in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was “seeing causal connections where none exist”

    I guess the two professors (Mearsheimer and Walt) are also libelous dimwits because they, along with Pat Buchanan, saw “causal connections where none exist”? Here’s an excerpt from their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”

    So I guess your remark “Sometimes an anti-Semite is just an anti-Semite” applies to these dimwit professors, as well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel

    Exactly how is Iraq a threat to Israel? You spread this shit thinly. Spell it out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @geokat62

    ... this writer need not answer to libelous dimwits who don’t or can’t read the good stuff (but read Jennifer Rubin), and have a set of inviolable beliefs about Jews.
     
    So we're libelous dimwits because we won't or can't read this good stuff:

    Mercer responded to Pat Buchanan's argument that the push to invade Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative "cabal" advising George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than the U.S., by noting that in fingering Jewish neocons specifically, Buchanan was "seeing causal connections where none exist"...
     
    I guess the two professors (Mearsheimer and Walt) are also libelous dimwits because they, along with Pat Buchanan, saw "causal connections where none exist"? Here's an excerpt from their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”
     
    So I guess your remark "Sometimes an anti-Semite is just an anti-Semite" applies to these dimwit professors, as well?

    believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel

    Exactly how is Iraq a threat to Israel? You spread this shit thinly. Spell it out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    You spread this shit thinly. Spell it out.
     
    Dude, what I spread is the truth... and I spread it thickly.

    Hopefully, you and others can and will read this good stuff:

    The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity

    by Philip Weiss on May 19, 2015

    The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates’ embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq?

    Last night Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here’s part of the exchange:

    Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don’t get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

    Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn’t matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence…

    Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there’s a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it’s the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it’s the same group of people that don’t want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don’t want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They’re willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that’s why I have a problem with that thinking. … we’ve got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that’s the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

    What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. (“Errors and Lies,” which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes that Bush and Cheney “wanted a war,” which is just a lie masquerading as a tautology.)

    Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues — the neoconservatives — who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. It’s a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people to share in Israel’s modern economic miracle.

    The evidence for this causation is at every hand.

    It is in the Clean Break plan written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 by leading neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser — all of whom would go into the Bush administration — calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the export of the Palestinian political problem to Jordan.

    It is in the Project for a New American Century letters written to Clinton in 1998 telling him that Saddam’s WMD were a threat to Israel. (A letter surely regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens.)

    It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to “accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power” for the sake of Israel.

    “the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an “Axis of Evil.” Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles — American principles — in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.”

    It is in Netanyahu testifying to Congress in 2002 that he promised there would be “enormous positive reverberations” throughout the region if we only removed Saddam.

    It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.)

    It is in all the neocon tracts, from Perle and Frum’s An End to Evil, to Kristol and Kaplan’s The War Over Saddam, to Berman’s Terror and Liberalism, saying that Saddam’s support for suicide bombers in Israel was a reason for the U.S. to topple him.

    It is in war-supporter Tom Friedman saying that we needed to invade Iraq because of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv— and the importance of conveying to Arabs they couldn’t get away with that.

    It is in the head of the 9/11 Commission, former Bush aide Philip Zelikow, saying Israel was the reason to take on Iraq back in 2002 even though Iraq was no threat to us:

    “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. “And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

    It is in Friedman saying that “elite” neoconservatives created the war in this interview with Ari Shavit back in 2003:

    It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    It is in Tony Judt’s statement about the Israel interest in the war back in 2003:

    For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought favorable to Israel.

    And yes this goes back to rightwing Zionism. It goes back to Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol launching neoconservatism in the 1970s because they said that the dovish policies of the Democratic Party were a direct threat to Israel– an analysis continued in this day by Norman Braman, Marco Rubio’s leading supporter, who says that the U.S. must be a military and economic power in order to “sustain” Israel.

    An Economist blogger wrote several years ago that if you leave out the Zionism you won’t understand the Iraq war:

    Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli government. But it’s entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion. In fact any analysis of the war’s causes that didn’t take these into account would be deficient.
    Many writers, including Joe Klein, Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz, have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake.

    But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war. This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don’t make that terrible mistake again. And yes: this issue is going to play out frankly in the 2016 campaign, thanks in good measure to Matthews.

    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity/#sthash.LvF9G9j6.dpuf

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel

    Exactly how is Iraq a threat to Israel? You spread this shit thinly. Spell it out.

    You spread this shit thinly. Spell it out.

    Dude, what I spread is the truth… and I spread it thickly.

    Hopefully, you and others can and will read this good stuff:

    [MORE]

    The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity

    by Philip Weiss on May 19, 2015

    The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates’ embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq?

    Last night Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here’s part of the exchange:

    Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don’t get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

    Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn’t matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence…

    Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there’s a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it’s the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it’s the same group of people that don’t want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don’t want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They’re willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that’s why I have a problem with that thinking. … we’ve got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that’s the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

    What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. (“Errors and Lies,” which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes that Bush and Cheney “wanted a war,” which is just a lie masquerading as a tautology.)

    Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues — the neoconservatives — who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. It’s a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people to share in Israel’s modern economic miracle.

    The evidence for this causation is at every hand.

    It is in the Clean Break plan written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 by leading neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser — all of whom would go into the Bush administration — calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the export of the Palestinian political problem to Jordan.

    It is in the Project for a New American Century letters written to Clinton in 1998 telling him that Saddam’s WMD were a threat to Israel. (A letter surely regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens.)

    It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to “accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power” for the sake of Israel.

    “the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an “Axis of Evil.” Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles — American principles — in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.”

    It is in Netanyahu testifying to Congress in 2002 that he promised there would be “enormous positive reverberations” throughout the region if we only removed Saddam.

    It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.)

    It is in all the neocon tracts, from Perle and Frum’s An End to Evil, to Kristol and Kaplan’s The War Over Saddam, to Berman’s Terror and Liberalism, saying that Saddam’s support for suicide bombers in Israel was a reason for the U.S. to topple him.

    It is in war-supporter Tom Friedman saying that we needed to invade Iraq because of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv— and the importance of conveying to Arabs they couldn’t get away with that.

    It is in the head of the 9/11 Commission, former Bush aide Philip Zelikow, saying Israel was the reason to take on Iraq back in 2002 even though Iraq was no threat to us:

    “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. “And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

    It is in Friedman saying that “elite” neoconservatives created the war in this interview with Ari Shavit back in 2003:

    It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    It is in Tony Judt’s statement about the Israel interest in the war back in 2003:

    For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought favorable to Israel.

    And yes this goes back to rightwing Zionism. It goes back to Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol launching neoconservatism in the 1970s because they said that the dovish policies of the Democratic Party were a direct threat to Israel– an analysis continued in this day by Norman Braman, Marco Rubio’s leading supporter, who says that the U.S. must be a military and economic power in order to “sustain” Israel.

    An Economist blogger wrote several years ago that if you leave out the Zionism you won’t understand the Iraq war:

    Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli government. But it’s entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion. In fact any analysis of the war’s causes that didn’t take these into account would be deficient.
    Many writers, including Joe Klein, Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz, have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake.

    But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war. This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don’t make that terrible mistake again. And yes: this issue is going to play out frankly in the 2016 campaign, thanks in good measure to Matthews.

    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity/#sthash.LvF9G9j6.dpuf

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    good stuff

    Well, I didn't know that you had all these opinions and speculations on your side. I will definitely give them the consideration that they deserve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @geokat62

    You spread this shit thinly. Spell it out.
     
    Dude, what I spread is the truth... and I spread it thickly.

    Hopefully, you and others can and will read this good stuff:

    The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity

    by Philip Weiss on May 19, 2015

    The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates’ embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq?

    Last night Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here’s part of the exchange:

    Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don’t get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

    Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn’t matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence…

    Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there’s a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it’s the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it’s the same group of people that don’t want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don’t want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They’re willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that’s why I have a problem with that thinking. … we’ve got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that’s the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

    What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. (“Errors and Lies,” which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes that Bush and Cheney “wanted a war,” which is just a lie masquerading as a tautology.)

    Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues — the neoconservatives — who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. It’s a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people to share in Israel’s modern economic miracle.

    The evidence for this causation is at every hand.

    It is in the Clean Break plan written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 by leading neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser — all of whom would go into the Bush administration — calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the export of the Palestinian political problem to Jordan.

    It is in the Project for a New American Century letters written to Clinton in 1998 telling him that Saddam’s WMD were a threat to Israel. (A letter surely regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens.)

    It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to “accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power” for the sake of Israel.

    “the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an “Axis of Evil.” Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles — American principles — in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.”

    It is in Netanyahu testifying to Congress in 2002 that he promised there would be “enormous positive reverberations” throughout the region if we only removed Saddam.

    It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.)

    It is in all the neocon tracts, from Perle and Frum’s An End to Evil, to Kristol and Kaplan’s The War Over Saddam, to Berman’s Terror and Liberalism, saying that Saddam’s support for suicide bombers in Israel was a reason for the U.S. to topple him.

    It is in war-supporter Tom Friedman saying that we needed to invade Iraq because of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv— and the importance of conveying to Arabs they couldn’t get away with that.

    It is in the head of the 9/11 Commission, former Bush aide Philip Zelikow, saying Israel was the reason to take on Iraq back in 2002 even though Iraq was no threat to us:

    “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. “And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

    It is in Friedman saying that “elite” neoconservatives created the war in this interview with Ari Shavit back in 2003:

    It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    It is in Tony Judt’s statement about the Israel interest in the war back in 2003:

    For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought favorable to Israel.

    And yes this goes back to rightwing Zionism. It goes back to Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol launching neoconservatism in the 1970s because they said that the dovish policies of the Democratic Party were a direct threat to Israel– an analysis continued in this day by Norman Braman, Marco Rubio’s leading supporter, who says that the U.S. must be a military and economic power in order to “sustain” Israel.

    An Economist blogger wrote several years ago that if you leave out the Zionism you won’t understand the Iraq war:

    Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli government. But it’s entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion. In fact any analysis of the war’s causes that didn’t take these into account would be deficient.
    Many writers, including Joe Klein, Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz, have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake.

    But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war. This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don’t make that terrible mistake again. And yes: this issue is going to play out frankly in the 2016 campaign, thanks in good measure to Matthews.

    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity/#sthash.LvF9G9j6.dpuf

     

    good stuff

    Well, I didn’t know that you had all these opinions and speculations on your side. I will definitely give them the consideration that they deserve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... all these opinions and speculations...
     
    If you are really interested in the truth, I'd suggest you read the book written by two truth-telling Profs., Mearsheimer and Walt, in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. If you're not inclined to read their thick book, I'd recommend reading their short essay, as a second-best solution. Here it is:

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    good stuff

    Well, I didn't know that you had all these opinions and speculations on your side. I will definitely give them the consideration that they deserve.

    … all these opinions and speculations…

    If you are really interested in the truth, I’d suggest you read the book written by two truth-telling Profs., Mearsheimer and Walt, in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. If you’re not inclined to read their thick book, I’d recommend reading their short essay, as a second-best solution. Here it is:

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    a second-best solution

    OK, I'll give this a look.

    For future reference, there is no "truth." "Truth" is something that we make up as we go along.

    The ingredients for deciding what's the truth: what's in our brain = 99%, new "stuff" = 1%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @geokat62

    ... all these opinions and speculations...
     
    If you are really interested in the truth, I'd suggest you read the book written by two truth-telling Profs., Mearsheimer and Walt, in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. If you're not inclined to read their thick book, I'd recommend reading their short essay, as a second-best solution. Here it is:

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf

    a second-best solution

    OK, I’ll give this a look.

    For future reference, there is no “truth.” “Truth” is something that we make up as we go along.

    The ingredients for deciding what’s the truth: what’s in our brain = 99%, new “stuff” = 1%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    For future reference, there is no “truth.” “Truth” is something that we make up as we go along.
     
    Can I get you to concede that there are indeed facts in this world - e.g., Paris is the capital of France? For future reference, "truth" = "facts."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    a second-best solution

    OK, I'll give this a look.

    For future reference, there is no "truth." "Truth" is something that we make up as we go along.

    The ingredients for deciding what's the truth: what's in our brain = 99%, new "stuff" = 1%.

    For future reference, there is no “truth.” “Truth” is something that we make up as we go along.

    Can I get you to concede that there are indeed facts in this world – e.g., Paris is the capital of France? For future reference, “truth” = “facts.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:

    Can I get you to concede that there are indeed facts in this world – e.g., Paris is the capital of France? For future reference, “truth” = “facts.”

    I will accede to the idea that if you and I agree on a “fact” then we can call it the “truth.”

    e.g., Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Please do put down your jousting spear, read the article provided by geokat62, and then tell us what you think.

    I generally appreciate your contributions. But you sometimes leave the impression that looking like the sharpest pencil in the UR drawer trumps what should be more important: informing, questioning, and challenging the authors and each other in an effort to ascertain the, uh, truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen
    Can I get you to concede that there are indeed facts in this world – e.g., Paris is the capital of France? For future reference, “truth” = “facts.”

    I will accede to the idea that if you and I agree on a "fact" then we can call it the "truth."

    e.g., Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

    Please do put down your jousting spear, read the article provided by geokat62, and then tell us what you think.

    I generally appreciate your contributions. But you sometimes leave the impression that looking like the sharpest pencil in the UR drawer trumps what should be more important: informing, questioning, and challenging the authors and each other in an effort to ascertain the, uh, truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:

    read the article provided by geokat62, and then tell us what you think.

    I have scanned it. Most of it is familiar to me. I know that I have seen quotes and extracts before, likely here at unz. I didn’t see anything that would change my mind. That said, I am going back soon and carefully read starting at page 30 and take a look at the footnotes.

    I generally appreciate your contributions.

    Thanks. I think I appreciate yours as well, although, it can be hard to know when it is you or not. I think you might be the anonymous that engaged with another commenter and explained why you choose the anonymous moniker.

    But you sometimes leave the impression that looking like the sharpest pencil in the UR drawer trumps what should be more important

    It is certainly not my intention, besides, I am definitely not the sharpest pencil here and I am smart enough to know that it shows. I am also smart enough to know that spelling that out is not required. Wait, I think you tricked me into that.

    informing, questioning, and challenging the authors and each other in an effort to ascertain the, uh, truth.

    Absolutely!!! That’s why I like it here at unz.

    I will make an effort to be less jousty and offer clearer and more informed comments and questions.

    I like to find out if a person can think or if they just cut and paste and can’t even tell if some of their pastings are out of order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Current Commenter says:

    Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


     Remember My InformationWhy?
     Email Replies to my Comment
    Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
    Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
    PastClassics
    The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
    What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
    The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
    The evidence is clear — but often ignored