The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
They're Back! (Of Course, the Neocons Never Actually Went Away)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the NYT:

The Next Act of the Neocons

Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?

By JACOB HEILBRUNN JULY 5, 2014

WASHINGTON — AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement’s interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.

Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.

… Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department.

Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute;

Of course, Robert Kagan’s brother Fred Kagan is at AEI.

Meanwhile, Robert Kagan’s wife, the foreign policy adventuress Victoria Nuland, is Our Woman in Kiev for the State Department, which Heilbrunn doesn’t mention, probably because it would make his story of a Neocon Comeback less newsy-sounding because the truth is the neocons never really went away.

instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)

A digression: Strobe Talbott (1946-)? Are we to be ruled forever by guys lucky enough to have been born in the first year of the Baby Boom? People like Talbott, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were born right after a decade and a half-long Birth Dearth so they went through life without much competition from slightly older men and being able to claim to be in touch with the masses of Today’s Youth growing up younger than them.

Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan’s careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”

If you want a vision of the future of American foreign policy debate, imagine Max Boot stamping on a human face – forever.

And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.

It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.

Obama already has Mrs. Robert Kagan on board.

… Far from ending, then, the neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who championed the early neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as representing “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” Despite the partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little has changed.

Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of the National Interest and the author of “They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.”

Here are some interesting excerpts from Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right:

“The neocons claim to be an intellectual movement with no ethnic component to speak of. But neoconservatism is as much a reflection of Jewish immigrant social resentments and status anxiety as a legitimate movement of ideas. Indeed, however much they may deny it, neoconservatism is in a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon, reflecting a subset of Jewish concerns. …

“As the children of immigrants who came to the United States from Central and Eastern Europe, the original neoconservatives were steeped in the ideological feuds of the past and present. As Jews, they were exquisitely attuned to the social exclusion and WASP snobbery that their fathers experienced in the early part of the twentieth century — an attitude they carried with them through the debates of the cold war and the halls of power after 9/11. …

“At the same time, the neocons are apoplectic about the allegiance of American Jews to liberalism. Irving Kristol made a useful distinction in 1979, trying to account for why so many American Jews, as he saw it, retained lingering socialist sympathies. His explanation was that they were drawn to the prophetic mode of Judaism rather than the rational one that emphasized adherence to orthodox laws. Socialism became a secular prophecy, the new civic religion of American Jews, who embraced secular humanism. … But Kristol’s conceit can also be turned on the very movement that he himself has headed for several decades. The neoconservatives themselves have veered between the prophetic and the rational schools. A good case could be made that they have now gone astray in indulging their own prophetic tendencies. …

“That [neoconservative] mentality is ineluctably Jewish, immigrant, and conditioned by a highly selective and moralistic view of history as a drama of salvation and idolatry. …

“[N]eoconservatives are less intellectuals than prophets. They tend to be men (and women) of an uncompromising temperament who use (and treat) ideas as weapons in a moral struggle, which is why the political class in each party regards them with a mixture of appreciation and apprehension, even loathing.

“That temperament is hardly confined to Jews, and it is often objected that not all neocons are Jewish. That is, of course, quite true. … Despite the fervent protestations of its founders and adherents, then, it is anything but an anti-Semitic canard to label neoconservatism a largely Jewish movement. I hope it’s clear, however, that I am talking about a cultural proclivity specific to America Jews of a certain generation not about something that is “essentially” Jewish in either a religious or a racial sense.

Well, but neoconservatism is remarkably hereditary: the Kagan brothers, for example, are sons of historian Donald Kagan who managed to rewrite even Athens’ misadventure in Sicily during the Peloponnesian War according to neocon emotions. There are also the Podhoretzes, Kristols, Perles, Feiths, etc. The Netanyahus are a distant branch that wound up in Israel after years in America.

Some of this generational continuity is racial in the sense that IQ is partly hereditary and very much subject to regression toward the mean, and Jews tend to regress toward a higher IQ mean. But a lot of it is via dominance of The Narrative. History is written less by the victors than by the people who most want to write the history, so our contemporary picture of the past is bizarrely influenced by carefully nurtured grievances over great-grandpa having to start his own country club.

The best way to understand the phenomenon may be to focus on neoconservatism as an uneasy, controversial, and tempestuous drama of Jewish immigrant assimilation — a very American story. At bottom, it is about an unresolved civil war between a belligerent, upstart ethnic group and a staid, cautious American foreign policy establishment that lost its way after the Vietnam War.”

 
Hide 92 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website

    Neocons are merely the strongarm or NKVD-wing of American Zionist power(most of which is Democratic).

    They play on white gentile conservatism but their main loyalty is to their own tribal power.

    Applebaum, Nuland, Jennifer Rubin, and etc.

    I mean, ain’t it obvious enough?

    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/theyre-back-of-course-the-neocons-never-actually-went-away/#comment-594536
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website

    “At bottom, it is about an unresolved civil war between a belligerent, upstart ethnic group and a staid, cautious American foreign policy establishment that lost its way after the Vietnam War.”

    Neocon success cannot be explained without the support of the media and academia controlled by Liberal Jews. It was the Liberal Jews in the media who favored and hired neocon Jews as the new voice of Conservatism.

    Neocons are like homos in this sense. Homo power would be nowhere without Jewish support.

    If Liberal Jews really opposed neoconism, neocons wouldn’t have gotten so powerful. Instead, they were allowed to flourish and rise as the new voice of the American Right(even as they set about destroying the Old Right).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. syonredux says:

    Born in Dayton, Ohio, to Jo and Nelson Strobridge “Bud” Talbott II, Talbott attended the Hotchkiss School in Connecticut and graduated from Yale University in 1968, where he was chairman of the Yale Daily News, a position whose previous incumbents include Henry Luce, William F. Buckley, and Joe Lieberman. He was also a member of the Scholar of the House program in 1967–68, and belonged to a society of juniors and seniors called Saint Anthony Hall. He became friends with former President Bill Clinton when both were Rhodes Scholars at the University of Oxford;[1] during his studies there he translated Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs into English.[1]

    Career[edit]
    In 1972 Strobe Talbott, along with his friends Robert Reich (a fellow Rhodes Scholar) and 2nd Lt. David E. Kendall, rallied to his friends Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton to help them in their Texas campaign to elect George McGovern president of the United States. Through the 1980s he was Time magazine’s principal correspondent on Soviet-American relations, and his work for the magazine was cited in the three Overseas Press Club Awards won by Time in the 1980s.[2] Talbott also wrote several books on disarmament.

    Following Bill Clinton’s election as President, Talbott was invited into government where he served at first managing the consequences of the Soviet breakup as Ambassador-at-Large and Special Adviser to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher on the New Independent States. After leaving government, he was for a period Director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.[3] He is currently the president of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[4]

    At Brookings he is responsible for formulating and setting policies, recommending projects, approving publications and selecting staff. He brings to Brookings the experience of his careers spanning journalism, government service and academe, and his expertise in U.S. foreign policy[5] with specialties on Europe, Russia,[6] South Asia and nuclear arms control.[7] Talbott currently sits on DC non-profit America Abroad Media’s advisory board.[8]

    Criticism and controversies[edit]

    Talbott with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev whilst the latter was on a visit to the United States in April 2010.
    The former Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) operative Sergei Tretyakov claimed that SVR considered Talbott a source of intelligence information and classified him as “a special unofficial contact”, although “he was not a Russian spy”.[9] These unproven allegations center on Talbott’s relationship with Russian ambassador Georgiy Mamedov, who called the allegations “blatant lies”.[9] Talbott himself has similarly rejected the accusations, calling them “erroneous and/or misleading in several fundamental aspects…[T]here was never a presumption that what we (he and Mamedov) said to each other in our one-to-one sessions would remain private”.[10] Furthermore, Talbott has noted that his meetings with Mamedov advanced U.S. objectives, such as getting Russia to accept NATO enlargement and help end the Kosovo conflict.[9]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Wasn’t neoconservativism also about domestic policy? Whatever happened to that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "time it is today"] says:

    With neo-cons being so rich and powerful, time to call them nouveau-cons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website

    Intellectuals? Prophets?

    No, essentially salesmen and con-men.

    Watch David Mamet movies to know the type.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Hmm, I expect a President Hillary would throw the neocons an occasional piece of red meat, but not really buy into their crap. She voted neocon as senator for instrumental more than core-belief reasons, as far as I can tell. Obama pretty much let her run foreign policy when she was Sec of State, and even after she left retained influence, eg on the decision to accept the Russian proposal to let Syria decommission chemical weapons. Judging by Ukraine Kerry, being dumber & weaker than her, is actually more of a neocon tool than she is.
    I wouldn’t expect a Hillary Clinton presidency to mark much of a foreign policy shift from the Obama presidency – not great, but not John McCain style insanity either. No invading Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Luke Lea says:

    A foreign policy debate between Hillary and Jim Webb would be interesting during the Democratic primaries.

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

    Wow, I had no idea that Nethanyahus were Mileikowskys by way of the USA.

    Thanks for bringing that up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    When in doubt blame the jews

    Read More
    • Replies: @Average Joe
    Who said anything about doubt?
    , @Noah172
    When in doubt, accuse others of anti-Semitism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. countenance says: • Website

    Robert L. Bartley was the editorial page editor who signed off on and probably outright wrote the infamous “there shall be open borders” editorial of 30 years ago this past Thursday.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    The WSJ editors used to have a weekly TV show (on PBS, I think). One episode featured a debate between Bartley and Robert Reich. Reich mopped the floor with him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. This is from Commentary magazines self description:

    “Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.”

    Note the heavy and exclusive emphasis on Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world. The neocons themselves don’t bother to pretend that they’re not focused on the well-being of Jews first and foremost, but nobody else is allowed to notice it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @countenance
    Robert L. Bartley was the editorial page editor who signed off on and probably outright wrote the infamous "there shall be open borders" editorial of 30 years ago this past Thursday.

    The WSJ editors used to have a weekly TV show (on PBS, I think). One episode featured a debate between Bartley and Robert Reich. Reich mopped the floor with him.

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

    As Jews, they were exquisitely attuned to the social exclusion and WASP snobbery that their fathers experienced in the early part of the twentieth century

    Then why did they come to the USA, and why did the remain if the WASPs were so bad? Couldn’t they have immigrated to any one of the vibrant countries of Latin America where they would have been welcome at the finest golf clubs?

    Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler;wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.

    That appears to be the gist of neoconservatism. Read these two great quotes at Mondoweiss from two of the grandfathers of neoconservatism. It basically tells you what their focus is.

    Irving Kristol (1973)

    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.

    Norman Podhoretz (1979)

    There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. SFG says:

    Hillary? Neocons? Now I have two excuses to vote Republican for the first time since 1997.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Retired says:

    I cannot see any US boots on the ground for the forseeable future barring some kind of cataclysmic war. Americans have spilled enough blood and treasure to support another invasion. Watch for huge blowback if the Iraqi’s kill any US “advisors.” Neocons may still be writing articles but they have been effectively defanged by the high cost of their policies.

    As for Obama, he was slapped down forcefully when he wanted to put troops into Syria.
    As for HRC, no one will outside of Susan Rice will want to join her in discussing foreign policy as they won’t want to be tarred the the brush of her terrible overseas failures. HRC has no guiding principles beyond statism and will have to do a lot of backtracking to hide her basic foreign policy instinct: Only intervene when the US has no national interest in the situation, a la Libya or Syria. “Never interfere when your enemies are destroying themselves.”

    Steve, watch it on the subliminal anti semitism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Jefferson says:

    I am going to take a page out of Jeff Foxworthy.

    If you call yourself a Republican yet you feel more passionate about getting involved in another war with Iraq than you do about securing our U.S border from being flooded with Illegals, you might be a RINO.

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

    I’m ashamed to say that Max Boot graduated from Berkeley. On the other hand, he’s a perfect representative of the anti-journalism Daily Californian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Domestically the neo-cons saw a lot of their policy implemented Dave so it was only naturally they changed their focus. Also most of the second generation neos where influenced by and often the children of mostly the foreign policy neo-cons so that further shifted the center of gravity. For whatever reason Nathan Glazer and Irving Kristol didn’t inspire much of a following. Even Kristol’s son gravitated to the Straussian/Kagan branch of neoconservatism. Also the 2nd generation tended to be more consciously Jewish so Irving Kristol’s appreciation for the moral and religious (following Weber’s Protestant thesis) basis tended to fall by the way side so they didn’t really have much to add.

    Irving Kristol was a genuinely brilliant thinker and it’s a shame that the paleos have a Pavlovian response to all things neo-conservative because he makes a series of sophisficated critiques of “amoral capitalism” that desperately need to be restated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. For the record kagan does not actually do what Steve accuses him of. He is clear that the expedition was a disaster that end forever Athenian hegemony. Now maybe steve takes issue with kagan’s hypothetical theorizing about what might have changed the outcome, but that’s a strange position for a guy that posted three times last year about that hypothetical soviet invasion novel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Rob says:

    It’s a matter of who’s going to screw America over the more. Some politicians are invade-the-world only, some invite-the-world only. The neocons promise a good helping of both.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website

    If the likes of Nuland are already working with Obama, how is it news that Neocons are sleeping with the ‘enemy’?

    Also, the notion that Obama hasn’t given what the Zionists want is just so much BS.

    Libya?

    Syria? Sure, US didn’t directly intervene, but that nation has been destroyed because US sent indirect aid to the rebels and gave green light to nations like Saudi Arabia.

    And Ukraine? And Obama’s silence about the ‘settlements’ in the West Bank?

    This is how neocons play the game. They get what they want but still bitch and whine that it’s not enough.

    Nothing is ever enough for them. They are like high-IQ infants who are crying all the time for milk.

    Of course, Hillary’s policy will be just like Obama. She talk tough but as president, will use indirect means to cause problems to any nation that Jews don’t like.

    Besides, Obama has ‘failed to act’ not only because he doesn’t really want to but because even most Conservatives are tired of war and don’t support new ones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Rob says:

    Sorry, off topic, but…

    “It showcases who we are as a brand,” says Fernando Machado, senior vice president of global brand management at Burger King.

    What does? The Pride Whopper.

    Note that the word “gay”, “trans”, etc. has become superfluous – what other kind of pride could there be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Retired
    I just lost my appetite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Retired says:
    @Rob
    Sorry, off topic, but...

    "It showcases who we are as a brand," says Fernando Machado, senior vice president of global brand management at Burger King.

    What does? The Pride Whopper.

    Note that the word "gay", "trans", etc. has become superfluous - what other kind of pride could there be?

    I just lost my appetite.

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

    I’d like us to continue to support Israel but not overthrow anymore secular Arab dictators.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Big Bill says:

    I just watched the documentary on Jason Swartz: “The Internet’s Own Boy”. It was about the legal struggle between Stephen Heymann (son of neocon, Zionist and HLS prof Phil Heymann) and and Jason Swartz (Jewish liberationist Progressive).

    Over eighty percent of the interviewees were Jewish liberals, (as compared to 2% of the population at large) and yet no one mentioned the obvious, just like no one mentioned the Kagan/Nudelman connection you noted.

    A giant left/right Jewish power struggle for the soul of America between the tikkun olam-ist lefties versus the hard-core Zionist righties, yet no one is permitted to notice. I felt like a black Rhodesian must have felt reading the (then all white) Rhodesian newspapers forty years ago: it’s like we don’t exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Lot says:

    My local BK is full of bums ordering a small coffee and a $1 chicken sandwich, paying with pennies and nickels, then talking up a four person booth all day, and making the adjoining booths smelly no-go zones.

    I hope this catches on and it gets gay gentrified.

    I question how long corporate pandering to gays can stay as simple as slapping a rainbow and the word pride on a regular hamberger. At some point they’re going to have to invest in grass fed beef and aioli. Wendy’s has a brioche hamberger bun now, at least in San Diego.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. “Wasn’t neoconservativism also about domestic policy? Whatever happened to that?”

    Neocons were always clever about not distinguishing domestic from foreign policy. They took up the Progressives’ war on drugs, for example, precisely because it afforded them an excuse to keep us involved all over the world. When it came to locking up Americans for drug infractions, they were still enthusiastic but not in the way the Progressives were/are.

    This way, they could slide in and take over the controls of the GOP without too big a shock to the voter base; instead, they transitioned the back-end machinery to service their goal of never-ending interventionism.

    Not to say that individual Neocons didn’t have any pet domestic issues they were passionate about. David Horowitz, for example, had his reparations cause.

    @Sebastian:

    I’d always understood Commentary magazine to be a Jewish publication, interested primarily in Jewish/Israeli issues. Is this not something they’re up front about?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. And even if Billary loses, we’ve still got a Chelsea in the chamber (if you’ll pardon the expression), for the glorious future of the USA. Her father-in-law not only served our great republic, he also pleaded guilty to over 30 felony charges. That’s pretty impressive!

    A great example of assortative mating.

    Someone’s got to do a count of felons present at the future Clinton inaugurations ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Robinson says:

    Didn’t the Neos lose a big constituency when Harold Camping’s failed prediction made discussing “The Rapture” an embarrassment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Pangur says: • Website

    Two other commenters say:
    ***********
    Anon says:
    July 6, 2014 at 6:26 pm
    When in doubt blame the jews
    ***********
    Retired says:
    July 6, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    Steve, watch it on the subliminal anti semitism.
    ***********

    Sigh. I always try to remember that the best defense is a good offense when dealing with people for whom the mildest form of criticism of jewish interests in the US is a stone’s throw from loading people into cattle cars. Far better to cast aspersions than to have to deal with the unpleasant reality that jewish interests in this country are often at odds with the white majority. How else to explain the actions of American jews?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Retired
    "Far better to cast aspersions than to have to deal with the unpleasant reality that jewish interests in this country are often at odds with the white majority. How else to explain the actions of American jews?"

    So what if the jewish special interest group is at odds with non-jews? Make your argument with facts and persuasion. Don't break out the dog whistles. I am 100% goy and disagree with my jewish contemporaries on most everything political. (No, make that on most everything period. But I can still get along with them.) Including the elimination of all foreign aid to Israel and almost all other countries. I do agree with many jews on the right of Israel to be left alone to defend herself like every other nation. If you don't like the jewish lobby go make one of your own. (to paraphrase Skoop Nisker)

    And what's with the comments throttle?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. wren says:

    Her father-in-law not only served our great republic, he also pleaded guilty to over 30 felony charges. That’s pretty impressive!

    A great example of assortative mating.

    I guess this demonstrates my ignorance, but why haven’t I seen that anywhere else before now?

    And m-i-l was the congress woman who cast the deciding vote on Clinton’s tax package.

    Plus, it wasn’t just your average run of the mill ponzi that took dad down, he was “involved in a series of Nigerian e-mail scams” in an effort to hit a home run.

    When Chelsea recently “rocked” a pair of tight leather jeans while pregnant (and claiming that she tried to care about money, but couldn’t) I felt like puking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. I heard an interview with Andrew Bacevich a few weeks ago on NPR’s “Here and Now.” The host asked him, “What do you make of the reemergence in recent weeks of the neoconservatives who were instrumental in getting us into Iraq eleven years ago, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer, Bill Kristol, even former vice president Dick Cheney?”

    Bacevich answered, “I’m struck by their collective shamelessness. They take to the airwaves and the op-ed pages and they point fingers at President Obama and say everything that has gone wrong is supposedly Obama’s fault and there is no acknowledgment–and this is the part that many people find distressing–there is no acknowledgment of the role that they played in advocating the unnecessary and misguided intervention in Iraq in the first place. So there’s an astonishing shamelessness on their part.”

    Of course, what alternative do they have to shamelessness and blame-shifting? For them to truly accept responsibility would require that they commit seppuku or spend the rest of their lives ministering to lepers. What else could possible express adequate contrition? As Joseph Sobran observed early in the Iraq debacle, “After a certain number of people get killed it’s too late to say, ‘Oops.’”

    Bacevitch continued, “The bigger question, though, is why do the op-ed pages of major American newspapers open themselves up to the commentary of these people who were so wrong? Why do the Sunday talk shows on the major TV networks invite people like Wolfowitz or William Kristol to pontificate on what we should do now?”

    That is a good question, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @J
    America's mood reminds me of England and France in the nineteen thirties. A desperate longing to be left alone and in peace. But it never works: France lost its independence and England couldnt avoid having to fight for its very survival.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Average Joe says: • Website
    @Anon
    When in doubt blame the jews

    Who said anything about doubt?

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

    Steve, this is nonsense and I’m shocked you fell for NYT boob-bait. Or failed to see the article for what it was, which is the Obama Admin discrediting and destroying Hillary! and her campaign.

    1. Hillary! is going nowhere. Did you not fail to see how the media played up her “I’m not as rich as other people because I only have $100 million?” and “We struggled after leaving the Presidency with only about $10 million in the bank?”

    Or Chelsea “I tried to care about money but couldn’t” statement? How THAT got played up big in the media. Orders from the Magical President.

    Really you missed that?

    Hillary is going nowhere. The Dems will nominate someone Obama wants: Cory Booker, or Oprah, or Valerie Jarrett. Someone to turn out the Black ladies and Black guys to vote five or six times each; plus Latinos. No White person need apply.

    2. The Neocons were not primarily Jewish; rather they were WASPy guys like Victor Davis Hanson trying to reconcile PC and Diversity and other idiocy things they believe in (which yes, even Hanson believes in to “prove he’s not a racist”) with their belief in military strength. Other prominent Neocons include:

    *GWB
    *Dick Cheney
    *Donald Rumsfeld
    *Condeleeza Rice

    None of whom are Jewish.

    Does Military force work? Yes, very often. Ask President Putin, ask Ayatollah Khameni, ask President Xi Jinping. They believe it works as it HAS worked for them, very well.

    Neocons believed, delusionally, that Arab/Muslim masses yearned to breathe free, as they subscribed to a lunatic post-Christian universalism that is endemic among WASPs, alongside a stupid moralism and rampant individualism and moral status mongering (found oddly enough among Jews who view themselves morally superior to their Israeli cousins, more on that in another comment).

    This has been a lunatic movement, combining something sane and proven from Machiavelli to Sun Tzu to Clausewitz with … Post Christian Universalism Utopian Moralism. Its as insane as staffing the Big Red One with Unitarian Universalism ministers as officers.

    3. The efficacy of deterrence, with Ike’s model of military strength versus say, Truman’s provocative unilateral disarmament, has made a comeback.

    The best war is the one never fought; because the enemy was deterred by your nation’s strength.

    Ike viewed this as the only sane course, I know this because in his introduction to Crusade in Europe which is available in your public library he covers this in some detail. As did Churchill in his memoirs and De Gaulle in his memoirs, also available at your public library.

    Obama HAS BEEN WEAK. He has allowed Chinese vs. Japanese/Korean/Filipino/Thai/Vietnamese rivalry to get out of hand. He’s abandoned the security guarantee to Israel, with dangerous (nuke first) results. Obama wanted to run away HARD from Iraq and has left ISIS constructing a Caliphate encompassing parts of Syria and Iraq, with ambitions to conquer Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Yes the Saudis left to their own devices constructed a Frankenstein monster in ISIS which is now threatening THEM. But last time I checked the US depends on cheap gas for social peace, so it is a vital US interest to keep the oil flowing out of the Gulf. Of course Obama has compounded his idiocy by leaving US forces essentially hostage in Afghanistan with no way out and vulnerable to an Elphenstone level catastrophe — with a withdrawal there in danger of a rout to annihilation of our men there. Look at a map — we cannot get into Afghanistan by sea and provide amphibious landing capability like Inchon to Anzio (itself a near-run thing).

    Steve the whole thing is Obama’s people (the NYT is nothing but an Obama propaganda operation) telling Dem Primary Voters that Hillary! is a bad person for consorting with “militarists.”

    The neocons are over. So is Hillary! But Military force remains an eternal truth.

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

    OT: It was nice to see a link to Steve at Instapundit via Powerline a few days ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Retired says:
    @Pangur
    Two other commenters say:
    ***********
    Anon says:
    July 6, 2014 at 6:26 pm
    When in doubt blame the jews
    ***********
    Retired says:
    July 6, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    Steve, watch it on the subliminal anti semitism.
    ***********

    Sigh. I always try to remember that the best defense is a good offense when dealing with people for whom the mildest form of criticism of jewish interests in the US is a stone's throw from loading people into cattle cars. Far better to cast aspersions than to have to deal with the unpleasant reality that jewish interests in this country are often at odds with the white majority. How else to explain the actions of American jews?

    “Far better to cast aspersions than to have to deal with the unpleasant reality that jewish interests in this country are often at odds with the white majority. How else to explain the actions of American jews?”

    So what if the jewish special interest group is at odds with non-jews? Make your argument with facts and persuasion. Don’t break out the dog whistles. I am 100% goy and disagree with my jewish contemporaries on most everything political. (No, make that on most everything period. But I can still get along with them.) Including the elimination of all foreign aid to Israel and almost all other countries. I do agree with many jews on the right of Israel to be left alone to defend herself like every other nation. If you don’t like the jewish lobby go make one of your own. (to paraphrase Skoop Nisker)

    And what’s with the comments throttle?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Allen
    @Retired
    "if you don't like the jewish lobby go make one of your own"

    The point is that a culture of Ellis Island fraternity lobbies is inimical to modern Democratic government. That is, the point is not to stoop to the level of petty tribal politics and reduce the state to an institutional weapon to be used against one's tribal enemies, as Jews, Cubans, Armenians, and other immigrant populations are wont to do.

    It seems strange that, in a forum like iSteve where the pernicious role of ethnic special interest lobbying is well known, Neocons and other ethnocentric Jews in the United States could be seen as deserving anything other than scorn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Mr. Anon says:

    The only part of “neoconservative” that neocons are willing to compromise on is the “conservative” part.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Whiskey says: • Website

    What people don’t get about Jews, and I’d include Steve in this, is that they are no longer Jews, at least in the US.

    Jews are not Jews. Rather they ARE WASPs. That is the irony, like the surviving members of Monty Python turning into the guys they mocked in their twenties (seriously, take a gander at Michael Palin for example). Or guys like Joss Whedon in Hollywood lamenting “the man” when in fact, THEY ARE THE MAN!

    Caroline Glick has the insight Ari Shavit and American Jewry’s views on Israel which are to put it mildly, not positive:

    “For the past decade, AIPAC made convincing the White House and Congress to pass sanctions against Iran its primary goal. But when President Barack Obama told AIPAC to stop lobbying for further sanctions after he signed the interim nuclear deal with Iran last November, AIPAC folded like a deck of cards. Israel and the Republicans on Capitol Hill that had pushed the legislation were left high and try.

    Defending Israel to an unsympathetic president from the Democratic Party is apparently too much to ask most pro-Israel American Jews to do.

    And this is where Shavit’s book comes in.

    By portraying Israel as a country that is morally deficient, Shavit gave the American Jewish community two gifts. First he gave them a way to feel morally superior, and therefore patronizing towards Israel. Israel, they can say, committed a massacre – and did so because its founding ideology is poisonous. American Jews would never do such a thing. But out of the kindness of their hearts, like Shavit, they will continue to love this unworthy cousin.

    The second gift Shavit gave the American Jewish community was the ability to feel comfortable refusing to be inconvenienced for Israel. Clearly – given Israel’s moral failings as portrayed by Shavit – American Jews should have no interest in picking up and making aliyah. But beyond that, since Israel is a morally lacking country, there is no reason for them to take a serious stand on its behalf. There is no reason for them to object to the galloping anti-Semitism on college campuses. The BDS people may be over the top, but according to Shavit, they have a point.

    There is no reason for them to stand up to Obama. He is using “tough love” to make Israel free itself of sin and atone for its past crimes – like the one it committed in Lydda.

    The success of Shavit’s book reveals the rupture in the relationship between the American Jewish community and Israel. A generation ago, being pro-Israel meant believing in the justness and morality of Israel and being willing to be inconvenienced a little or even a lot to defend the Jewish state.

    Today, being pro-Israel means that you support Israel despite its immorality because you are forgiving. And supporting Israel means you’ll help Israel so long as it doesn’t inconvenience you in any way or make you feel uncomfortable about anything at all.”
    ———————-

    And this is what I mean by Jews are no longer Jews. American Jews don’t ask themselves “Is this good for the Jews?” Revealed preference shows they ask themselves, “Is this good for my moral standing as a moralizer in a diverse, majority non-White nation?” Jews are atomized and obsessed with moral status and standing and Christian or Post-Christian concepts of “National Original Sin” regarding Israel (name me a nation not founded in violence and “sin” and I will give you — Liechenstein). Jews are indistinguishable from WASPs in behavior: subscribing to the same old SWPL status mongering and unwilling to take social opprobrium to stand up for their cousins in Israel which is a sea change in Jewish behavior. It is in fact a radical change, among Jews, right here, visible, and almost no one grasps the implication.

    Which is that even actual survival friendly things (like having a nation to escape to if non-White America turns distinctly unfriendly to Jews which given the Minneapolis to Mogadishu trend in Minnesota seems a definite possibility) are overcome by status mongering and the need to conform to WASP/SWPL standards. Not even something as obvious as cousin-saving is able to compete with WASP-driven social standing and a desire to gain the good opinion of the NYT editorial board.

    This probably explains the SWPL crowd’s belief in transforming NAMs into good SWPL ers who shop at Trader Joes and listen to NPR. Because it worked among White “ethnic” class people: Jews, Italians, Irish, Poles, etc. If it worked among Jews, the thinking is, it will work among Mexicans. And Salvadorans. And Nigerians.

    Forgetting that high-IQ, successful, socially savvy, WHITE (is there a Whiter guy than Jerry Seinfeld? Larry David maybe) Jews are not Nigerians. Nor are they Mexicans.

    This is the fundamental truth Steve and much of his readers have not grasped: Jews are no longer Jews. American Jews don’t care very much about Israel (not enough to risk social condemnation by fighting the Magical Black Guy President) over Iran and Israel. They don’t care about their cousins in Israel and have adopted the view that Israel was guilty of Original National Sin and as such probably should not exist (and neither should America either in that SWPL thinking). Most Jews in America probably accept Pacifica/NPR (National Palestinian Radio) views on the ME. And THAT transformation: from cousin-protecting, Israel supporting, Jews of say thirty years ago to SWPL conformers today, is frightening.

    If SWPL can do that to Jews, what White people can they NOT do this to? Or is this Janissary conversion only a function of Wealth and will it collapse as Whites move downwards the economic/social ladder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    Whiskey: "And this is what I mean by Jews are no longer Jews. American Jews don’t ask themselves “Is this good for the Jews?” Revealed preference shows they ask themselves, “Is this good for my moral standing as a moralizer in a diverse, majority non-White nation?”

    In its national survey Pew Research asked Jews:

    Are you proud of being Jewish? (94%)
    Do you have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people? (76%)
    Do you feel a special responsibility to help Jews in need? (63%)
    (Weighted by religious types)

    www.pewforum.org/2013/12/03/infographic-survey-of-jewish-americans/

    What group would you like to compare this too? With "Whites", we would have to reverse the polarities of the questions:

    Are you ashamed of being White?
    Do you have a strong commitment to anti-racism?
    Do you feel a special responsibility to end White racial identity?

    No one asks the question of White subgroups like Irish, because they don't register. So no, Jews have not assimilated in that way.

    Whiskey: "American Jews don’t care very much about Israel (not enough to risk social condemnation by fighting the Magical Black Guy President) over Iran and Israel. They don’t care about their cousins in Israel and have adopted the view that Israel was guilty of Original National Sin and as such probably should not exist (and neither should America either in that SWPL thinking)"

    U.S. support for Israel Jews White
    Too Much 11 24
    Not Enough 31 21
    About Right 54 46
    No Opinion 3 9

    www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/

    So, Jews are about 0.4 SD more Zionist than the typical White, despite being super progressive.

    Try again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Mr. Anon says:

    “Dave Pinsen says:
    July 6, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Wasn’t neoconservativism also about domestic policy? Whatever happened to that?”

    They moved out of their old neighborhoods or the blacks moved out, so they didn’t have to worry much about being mugged anymore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Two can play that game Harry Baldwin. Where was the shame from people like Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan after their wildly incorrect predictions of catastrophe before the first Gulf War. Moreover, the anti-war left was caught completely off guard by the struggles in Iraq so it’s hard for them to really claim vindication. After all their argument boiled down to America is a rouge state no wars for oil not this war is unwise strategically . This is less true of the Paleocons who did focus on the prudence and long term implications of the invasion, but again that makes them one for two same record as the neo-cons. There is no eluding the fact that Iraq was stabilized when bush left office. It is perfectly legitimate for neo-cons to point that out and criticize Obama for Iraq’s instability.

    I think it’s pretty shameful the way the left that often made the argument that the Iraq war was bad because America was so much stronger than Iraq now tries to claim some kind of prescience. If I spend a week before the big game saying that our opponent is weak there is no need to practice I don’t get to turn around and say coach should be fired for not working them hard enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    Sam Hayson:
    " There is no eluding the fact that Iraq was stabilized when bush left office. It is perfectly legitimate for neo-cons to point that out and criticize Obama for Iraq’s instability."

    No, the paleocons and other sensible people always knew that any stability would be temporary at best, more likely an illusion. The neocons wrecked Iraq, wrecked America's post-9/11 moral standing, heavily damaged the US financially, got thousands of Americans killed, many tens of thousands of Americans mutilated, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. And they made Al Qaeda and global Jihadism vastly stronger. Given that they support open borders for the US & West in general, and seem to be fine with the importation of proto-Jihadis into Western nations, there's not much they can't be condemned for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Mr. Anon says:

    ” The Goy says:

    A giant left/right Jewish power struggle for the soul of America between the tikkun olam-ist lefties versus the hard-core Zionist righties, yet no one is permitted to notice. I felt like a black Rhodesian must have felt reading the (then all white) Rhodesian newspapers forty years ago: it’s like we don’t exist.”

    In the run-up to Obama-care, I remember a brief snippet I caught while channel-surfing. It was on either CNN or FOX (can’t remember which – doesn’t really matter anyway): a segment on Obama-care featuring a non-debate between Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and Ezra Klein (who ostensibly was a journalist at the time, but essentially became a brazen, shamelees administration flack for Obama-care). I remember thinking: Gee, two Jews telling me what to think – the opinion of a mere gentile really doesn’t matter much anymore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Whiskey says: • Website

    Let me add, two of America’s most highly rated Presidents, both Republicans, who avoided any big wars, were big devotees of Military Strength as deterrence.

    Ike launched “Operation Chrome Dome” which had nuclear bombers orbiting the North Pole ready to strike at the USSR at a moment’s notice. He also had a massive ICBM building program. This had the dual goal of not engaging in a draining infantry land war with casualties that was bound to be unpopular in a democracy (voters don’t like their relatives getting killed or wounded). While unmistakably signaling to the Russians that the US would and could respond to any attack with overwhelming force: America was not weak. Rather, it was unmistakably strong and no Kremlin general could argue that America would not respond and collapse under attack.

    Thus war was avoided.

    Reagan launched Star Wars with destabilizing spending on missile defense, that the USSR with collapsing oil revenues could not match. Thus, the US with a vastly also increased Navy (Reagan raised it to 700 ships or so, compared to less than 200 today under Obama the Magic Black guy President) showed the Kremlin Generals that there was no point in trying to compete with the US militarily, it was a game they could not win.

    While Reagan had a few minor adventures, some bad: Central America, Iran-Contra, Lebanon, overall his strategy of copying Ike and spending a LOT of money of military hardware, especially the Navy and Air Force, proved a winning strategy. Again, neither Ike nor Reagan had to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan because attacks were deterred. Therefore there was no 9/11, or Kuwait invasion, to answer.

    In passing, it is worth noting that Libya and Khadaffi are alleged to be part of an elimination of an embarrassing paymaster. The arrest of Sarkozy for taking money from Khadaffi is provocative. Some have alleged that the strange desire by Obama to suddenly get rid of Khadaffi was a response to Khadaffi threatening to expose if deposed all his funneling cash not just to Sarko but to Obama and perhaps Cameron.

    Hence the combined French, British, and American attacks on Libya and Khadaffis’ escaping column of vehicles specifically, with British and then American bombers attacking, and reputedly a French spy amongst the Libyan rebels shooting and killing Khadaffi when he surrendered. Khadaffi being dead could no longer embarrass Sarkozy, and perhaps Obama too.

    That would certainly explain a lot about Libya. What the goals really were.

    And I would contrast that shoddy, shameful, dark, “who knows what happened” stuff with Ike and Reagan’s approach: relying on US technology, engineers, scientists, and military men in a proven manner of strength.

    Which model would you prefer: Lockheed Skunkworks or the Chicago Way meets Libya?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Mr. Anon says:

    “Retired says:

    Steve, watch it on the subliminal anti semitism.”

    You mean………noticing things? Yeah, that’s real bad form.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Mr. Anon says:

    “Skyislander says:

    Watch David Mamet movies to know the type.”

    Hah. That’s pretty apt.

    You know what you need to sell a war in the middle-east?

    You need brass-balls to sell a war in the middle-east.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Yes, neoconservativism has been disastrous for the United States, and, as the architects of the worst war that this country has ever fought, they ought to be banished from the political discourse.

    And yes, neoconservative has got a lot of Jews. It might even be mostly Jewish (though I’m not going to take your word for it. You and Unz both have a charming habit of over counting Jews in invidious positions and undercounting gentiles in those same positions.)

    But, I am interested on your theory – if you have one – of why this movement is so Jewish. How is neoconservativism, other than support of Israel, in the interest of Jewish Americans? We’re in the same boat as other whites! What’s bad for America is bad for American Jewry (at least, that’s what I naively think).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Steve, watch it on the subliminal anti semitism.

    I think we’re all quite overt at this point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. J says: • Website
    @Harry Baldwin
    I heard an interview with Andrew Bacevich a few weeks ago on NPR's "Here and Now." The host asked him, "What do you make of the reemergence in recent weeks of the neoconservatives who were instrumental in getting us into Iraq eleven years ago, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer, Bill Kristol, even former vice president Dick Cheney?"

    Bacevich answered, "I'm struck by their collective shamelessness. They take to the airwaves and the op-ed pages and they point fingers at President Obama and say everything that has gone wrong is supposedly Obama's fault and there is no acknowledgment--and this is the part that many people find distressing--there is no acknowledgment of the role that they played in advocating the unnecessary and misguided intervention in Iraq in the first place. So there's an astonishing shamelessness on their part."

    Of course, what alternative do they have to shamelessness and blame-shifting? For them to truly accept responsibility would require that they commit seppuku or spend the rest of their lives ministering to lepers. What else could possible express adequate contrition? As Joseph Sobran observed early in the Iraq debacle, "After a certain number of people get killed it's too late to say, 'Oops.'"

    Bacevitch continued, "The bigger question, though, is why do the op-ed pages of major American newspapers open themselves up to the commentary of these people who were so wrong? Why do the Sunday talk shows on the major TV networks invite people like Wolfowitz or William Kristol to pontificate on what we should do now?"

    That is a good question, isn't it?

    America’s mood reminds me of England and France in the nineteen thirties. A desperate longing to be left alone and in peace. But it never works: France lost its independence and England couldnt avoid having to fight for its very survival.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Where was the shame from people like Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan after their wildly incorrect predictions of catastrophe before the first Gulf War.

    The consequences of them being inaccurate then were far less consequential that were the consequences of the neocons being wrong later. Staying out of an unnecessary war is better than plunging into one.

    There is no eluding the fact that Iraq was stabilized when Bush left office. It is perfectly legitimate for neo-cons to point that out and criticize Obama for Iraq’s instability.

    It was a fake stability. It was bound to collapse after we left, despite eight years of training Iraqi forces. Most of us knew all along that that would happen without a massive presence of American troops, just as it is bound to happen in Afghanistan. The neocons are responsible for the chaos that has developed in the Middle East. I can’t see any reason why they should be accorded a respectful hearing. They won’t even acknowledge their errors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. @ Sam Haysom

    Yes Sam, America is a Rouge State. And Proud of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Pangur says:

    “So what if the jewish special interest group is at odds with non-jews?”

    A question so obtuse as to be baffling. Let me put it simply: the influence of much mainstream jewish thought (including, but not limited to, a contentious and legalistic sense of right and wrong as well as extreme ethnic chauvinism, a trait not permitted in whites in this country) has been and is corrosive to the fabric of the culture of the country. Couple that with outsized influence in law, finance, media and academia, you have a problem, namely an essentially hostile and minority elite who don’t have the best interests of the country in mind. This is a problem.

    “Don’t break out the dog whistles.”

    Like I said, the best defense is a good offense. There are worse places to start than controlling discourse, as you’re trying to do here.

    “I am 100% goy and disagree with my jewish contemporaries on most everything political. ”

    Uh, okay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Retired
    "Couple that with outsized influence in law, finance, media and academia, you have a problem, namely an essentially hostile and minority elite who don’t have the best interests of the country in mind. This is a problem."

    Sounds like the Democratic party, let by the progressive vanguard and stupidly followed by the garden variety Democratic voter.

    Or the RINO's with their open borders policy.

    Guys like me can't talk about our ethnic pride without being run out of town.

    You must be a lib, salting your comments with stuff like "controlling discourse" and "contentious and legalistic sense of right and wrong."

    Essentially I agree with you but I state my biases in a more subtle way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. nano says:

    “to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement’s interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.”

    They’re so shameless. They caused Ukraine by funding the coup and they caused Iraq by funding Isis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. nano says:

    “If the likes of Nuland are already working with Obama, how is it news that Neocons are sleeping with the ‘enemy’?”

    I don’t think they are. They’re running their own foreign policy to try and bounce the rest of the government into acting by creating media crises/pageants through stirring the pot e.g. Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Isis.

    They’re still trying to work through their original list – it’s just taking a lot longer.

    .

    “Neocons may still be writing articles but they have been effectively defanged by the high cost of their policies.”

    Nah, the fangs are US funded proxies – by however many degrees of separation – but they’re still there.

    .

    “Hmm, I expect a President Hillary would throw the neocons an occasional piece of red meat, but not really buy into their crap.”

    Maybe once but the problem now is the banking mafia may need these wars to stop the dollar collapsing so their interests may now align with the neocons which means campaign donations may align also.

    .

    “But, I am interested on your theory – if you have one – of why this movement is so Jewish.”

    You tell us. The neocons are (mostly) both very Jewish and very not i.e. they seem to be a distinct minority among Jews – so it’s odd. A lot of them are supposed to be literally the children and grand-children of Trotskyists so maybe it’s a personality thing. What kind of personality traits would lead to someone getting hot for permanent revolution baby?

    Psycho liberals?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. I’d always understood Commentary magazine to be a Jewish publication, interested primarily in Jewish/Israeli issues. Is this not something they’re up front about?

    Sure, they’re very upfront about it. The point is that the self-described “flagship of neoconservatism” IS quite upfront about its pro-Jewish bias, but for some reason the rest of us are still supposed to act as if the Jewish/neoconservative connection is merely an unproven hypothesis at best, and an anti-Jewish slur at worst.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. “Where was the shame from people like Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan after their wildly incorrect predictions of catastrophe before the first Gulf War.

    The consequences of them being inaccurate then were far less consequential that were the consequences of the neocons being wrong later. Staying out of an unnecessary war is better than plunging into one.”

    This is pure special pleading. The argument isn’t about harm, but about who does and doesn’t have the right to make their opinion heard. Becevitch could have made your argument, but he didn’t. “The bigger question, though, is why do the op-ed pages of major American newspapers open themselves up to the commentary of these people who were so wrong? ”

    His argument revolved around the idea that being wrong means one loses the right to be accorded a hearing. Frankly, I am very happy this principle doesn’t exist because it means that Pat B was welcome to keep offering his opinions despite being wrong about Iraq and Vietnam albeit as a dove in the former and as a hawk in the later.

    “I can’t see any reason why they should be accorded a respectful hearing. They won’t even acknowledge their errors.”

    Same applies to Pat vis-a-vis Vietnam and the First Gulf War. I have a hard time believing that you personally don’t hold some views that are on the wrong side of the chimerical “arc of history.” You agree with Bacevitch so this argument seems like a single edged sword, but imagine a Frank Rich weilding it as an excuse to exclude anyone who was wrong about gay marriage, or wrong about Prop 8.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Sorry you feel that way Neil. That said you a sure to miss it when its gone, but that’s kind the dialectic of life isn’t. Juvenal hated a lot of things about Rome, the rouge state of its day, but he sure wouldn’t have been happier living under Alaric.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. Priss Factor [AKA "Cloudy"] says:

    Useful metonymy: ‘Czechoslavkian Rifles’

    Soviet rifles were funneled through Czechoslovakia to the Zionists in 1948 to hide the extent of Soviet support.

    Jews employ a lot of ‘Czechoslovakian rifles’ in the current new world order. What is called something may actually be something else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Priss Factor [AKA "Cloudcastler"] says:

    “What does? The Pride Whopper.”

    ‘Gay’ used to mean a certain style and didn’t apply only to homos. But homos hogged the entire term.

    Now, homos are trying to claim ‘pride’ as synonymous with homosexuality. It’s not even ‘gay pride’–which is bad enough–buy simply PRIDE to designate people who are homo.

    So, even if you hear only ‘pride’, homos immediately come to mind.

    What a bitchy, snitchy, narcissistic, and selfish bunch of homo snots. Yet Jews have decided to promote them as the noblest Americans after the Jews. ‘Gay marriage’ or not, it’s time for us to DIVORCE from the Jews.

    PS. Will homos now demand that they be called ‘prides’?

    I guess that makes us prudes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Priss Factor [AKA "Cloudcastler"] says:

    “Hmm, I expect a President Hillary would throw the neocons an occasional piece of red meat, but not really buy into their crap. ”

    You don’t get it.

    Neocons demand extreme measures knowing that they won’t get everything they ask.

    You see, it’s like bargaining.

    Suppose you expect to get something for $100.

    So, do you offer $100?

    No, you offer $25.

    Then the other side says hell no. It’s worth $200.

    Then you say No Way. You’ll give $50.

    Then the other side says, I’ll give it to you for $150.

    You say $75 is the last offer.

    Other side says no way but… it’s yours for $125.

    Then you both make a lot of noise and settle for $100.

    ——

    So you see, neocons are always yelling $25 and acting like Obama isn’t taking their offer. But in fact, Obama is selling for $100 and that’s pretty much that the neocons expected… and really wanted.

    But by always yelling $25 before and after the sale, neocons always act like they’re the poor wronged and aggrieved party.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Priss Factor [AKA "madame catepillar"] says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Priss Factor [AKA "Cloudcastler"] says:

    It could be some neocons want to distance themselves from the American Right. After all, what do Liberals hate most?

    Conservative ‘racists’. No matter how much Republicans say they love MLK, they are attacked and denounced as closet-KKK ‘racists’ and ‘extremists’.

    So, what does this do for right-wing-ruled Israel to be closely associated with GOP? It gives Israelis a bad rap among Liberals in blue cities who have the power.

    So, for Israel’s reputation to rise among the most powerful and privileged members of ‘blue’ America, Israel has to be disassociated from the American Right that is esp in decline in clout as the tide of color is sweeping over America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Priss Factor [AKA "auntie"] says:

    “Steve, watch it on the subliminal anti-semitism.”

    Why should he?

    As he’s blacklisted by the media, he’s got nothing to lose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @Sam Haysom
    Two can play that game Harry Baldwin. Where was the shame from people like Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan after their wildly incorrect predictions of catastrophe before the first Gulf War. Moreover, the anti-war left was caught completely off guard by the struggles in Iraq so it's hard for them to really claim vindication. After all their argument boiled down to America is a rouge state no wars for oil not this war is unwise strategically . This is less true of the Paleocons who did focus on the prudence and long term implications of the invasion, but again that makes them one for two same record as the neo-cons. There is no eluding the fact that Iraq was stabilized when bush left office. It is perfectly legitimate for neo-cons to point that out and criticize Obama for Iraq's instability.

    I think it's pretty shameful the way the left that often made the argument that the Iraq war was bad because America was so much stronger than Iraq now tries to claim some kind of prescience. If I spend a week before the big game saying that our opponent is weak there is no need to practice I don't get to turn around and say coach should be fired for not working them hard enough.

    Sam Hayson:
    ” There is no eluding the fact that Iraq was stabilized when bush left office. It is perfectly legitimate for neo-cons to point that out and criticize Obama for Iraq’s instability.”

    No, the paleocons and other sensible people always knew that any stability would be temporary at best, more likely an illusion. The neocons wrecked Iraq, wrecked America’s post-9/11 moral standing, heavily damaged the US financially, got thousands of Americans killed, many tens of thousands of Americans mutilated, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. And they made Al Qaeda and global Jihadism vastly stronger. Given that they support open borders for the US & West in general, and seem to be fine with the importation of proto-Jihadis into Western nations, there’s not much they can’t be condemned for.

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

    A ne0-conservative writes:

    For neo-conservatism is a quintessentially Jewish project: a re-sanctification in everyday life of the core values of western civilisation, and the achievement of human potential through virtuous practice. The neo-cons’ crucial insight is that public signals through law, custom and tradition are the key to getting people to behave well. And that is a Jewish insight. — Melanie Phillips

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Jewish Conservative Race Realist:
    “How is neoconservativism, other than support of Israel, in the interest of Jewish Americans?”

    It’s not. Neoconservatism is a Trotskyite heresy that is inimical to regular American Jews and all other American citizens. Jewish support for Neoconservatism seems very meagre, far less than for Obama style Left-Liberalism. Jewish intellectuals are not openly hostile to regular Jews the way most white non-Jewish intellectuals are hostile to regular whites, but they certainly don’t operate in actual Jewish interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. dearieme says:

    ” the foreign policy adventuress Victoria Nuland” is very good, Steve: she sounds just the sort to turn up in a new episode of the Sherlock Holmes telly series.

    “Donald Kagan who managed to rewrite even Athens’ misadventure in Sicily during the Peloponnesian War according to neocon emotions”: that’s so good I laughed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @Retired
    "Far better to cast aspersions than to have to deal with the unpleasant reality that jewish interests in this country are often at odds with the white majority. How else to explain the actions of American jews?"

    So what if the jewish special interest group is at odds with non-jews? Make your argument with facts and persuasion. Don't break out the dog whistles. I am 100% goy and disagree with my jewish contemporaries on most everything political. (No, make that on most everything period. But I can still get along with them.) Including the elimination of all foreign aid to Israel and almost all other countries. I do agree with many jews on the right of Israel to be left alone to defend herself like every other nation. If you don't like the jewish lobby go make one of your own. (to paraphrase Skoop Nisker)

    And what's with the comments throttle?


    “if you don’t like the jewish lobby go make one of your own”

    The point is that a culture of Ellis Island fraternity lobbies is inimical to modern Democratic government. That is, the point is not to stoop to the level of petty tribal politics and reduce the state to an institutional weapon to be used against one’s tribal enemies, as Jews, Cubans, Armenians, and other immigrant populations are wont to do.

    It seems strange that, in a forum like iSteve where the pernicious role of ethnic special interest lobbying is well known, Neocons and other ethnocentric Jews in the United States could be seen as deserving anything other than scorn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @ 37

    “There is no eluding the fact that Iraq was stabilized when bush left office.”

    Isn’t that like saying, “well, there is no eluding the fact that the weather has stabilized,” when the eye of the hurricane is passing overhead?

    @ 55

    “wrecked America’s post-9/11 moral standing”

    Bingo!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Hunsdon says:

    @ Sam Haysom.

    It’s rogue, not rouge. Rouge is for your face, to put a pretty blushing schoolgirl like flush in your cheeks. Rogue runs down the streets singing “Napalm sticks to kids!”

    Anonydroid @ 8 said: When in doubt blame the jews.

    Hunsdon said: Wait—Victoria Nuland is a Jewess? I shall cease all criticism of the neo-Nazi regime she installed in Ukraine, then. Say, speaking of Ukraine, did you ever hear the old Ukrainian line about Jews? “The Jew cries out in pain as he beats you.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Unknown says:

    Aren’t the majority of neocons essentially just Zionists? Most of the things they push, such as a highly interventionist America that spends a lot of money on the military, seems to just be a part of it. America is to do the heavy lifting for them, attacking all their real and potential enemies and rivals. A lot of them are war profiteers to boot. Them getting on the Hillary bandwagon are like fleas that ride around on a dog; when they see a juicier dog passing by they’ll jump ship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Sunbeam says:

    I was going to put some excerpts from posters here, and make some comments, but it would have been several.

    But as regards the neocons…

    When have they been right? About anything? I am really drawing a blank on this.

    You might take the view that they are “villains,” that they have a parochial set of interests that they pursue, regardless of the basic interests of the US.

    But to my eye they seem stupid about that too. Whatever you think of them, these guys are supposed to be smart. Jewish for the most part, highly educated, they write a lot of stuff and blather non-stop.

    So why do they seem as dumb as a bag of rocks, and make everything they touch magically turn into a pile of crap?

    The world they’ve made seems to my eye to be more dangerous for Israel, not less. A middle east full of chaos is one that is tailor made for terrorists (assuming that terrorism was ever really a concern for them). And while I don’t think a “Caliphate” is going to come about, a situation like this is prime for new strongmen like Assad and Hussein to come along and carve out territories. The old guys were known quantities, new ones would be like “a box of chocolates.”

    So why do they get chance after chance? And why do people, any people listen to them and put them on TV and publish their columns after such a track record?

    I don’t get it. I also don’t get the obsession with Iran. That is like Ukraine; face it there isn’t much anyone can do about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. Mr. Anon says:

    “Sam Haysom says:
    July 7, 2014 at 1:28 am

    “”Where was the shame from people like Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan after their wildly incorrect predictions of catastrophe before the first Gulf War.

    The consequences of them being inaccurate then were far less consequential that were the consequences of the neocons being wrong later. Staying out of an unnecessary war is better than plunging into one.””

    This is pure special pleading. The argument isn’t about harm, but about who does and doesn’t have the right to make their opinion heard. Becevitch could have made your argument, but he didn’t. “The bigger question, though, is why do the op-ed pages of major American newspapers open themselves up to the commentary of these people who were so wrong? ”

    Who says it isn’t about harm? It has everything to do with harm. The consequences of Pat Buchanan being wrong about the Gulf War would be that America would be no worse off now and Iraq no more f**ked up than it is now. The consequences of those who bayed for war in the Middle-East can be measured in thousands of caskets and prosthetic limbs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Mr. Anon says:

    “Whiskey says:
    July 6, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    Steve, this is nonsense and I’m shocked you fell for NYT boob-bait. Or failed to see the article for what it was, which is the Obama Admin discrediting and destroying Hillary! and her campaign………………wah, wah, wah………….”

    I paraphrase, but “wha, wah, wah” effectively summarizes what whiskey writes, here, or anywhere else.

    “2. The Neocons were not primarily Jewish; rather they were WASPy guys like Victor Davis Hanson trying to reconcile PC and Diversity and other idiocy things they believe in (which yes, even Hanson believes in to “prove he’s not a racist”) with their belief in military strength.”

    Yeah, Victor Davis Hanson is the pre-eminent neo-con – the dean of the whole school of thought. Victor Davis Hanson is the master-mind behind the Iraq war – the strategist who plotted the whoe thing from his farm in California.

    I think that the sock-puppet Whiskey doth protest too much. How many thousands upon thousands of words has this self-proclaimed born-fightin scots-irish lad vomited on to these pages, with nary a word once about Scotland or the Northern Counties or anyplace where the people who lived there ended up? Not a word about them, and what ails em’? Since when are true-blue sons of St. Andrew primarily obsessed with Israel and Jews?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Sheila says:

    “This is a straightforward regurgitation of the ‘light unto the nations’ delusion which has been used since the Enlightenment as a smokescreen for the protection of Jewish racial identity. Jewry has had centuries to provide the world with some benefit from its “particular spiritual and cultural experience, insight and wisdom.” It is rather telling that in the course of these centuries, this group of benevolent, altruistic, wise and moral people has found remarkably few friends among ‘the nations.’ Jews nonetheless convince themselves that they are the gift that keeps on giving.”

    Andrew Joyce, Occidental Observer: “Development of Jewish Strategies for Survival in the Multicultural World”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. The neo-cons’ crucial insight is that public signals through law, custom and tradition are the key to getting people to behave well. And that is a Jewish insight.

    Reminds me of the Afrocentric belief that blacks created the wheel, math, electricity etc. The key Jewish failing is that they can’t appreciate anything unless they can convince themselves that the thing in question was a Jewish creation or discovery. If you want to sell an idea to Jews you don’t do it by logically explaining the benefits of the idea in question but by persuading them that the idea in question is fundamentally a Jewish one and one they should adapt on that basis, as Melanie Phillips is doing in the quoted passage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Chuck says:
    @Whiskey
    What people don't get about Jews, and I'd include Steve in this, is that they are no longer Jews, at least in the US.

    Jews are not Jews. Rather they ARE WASPs. That is the irony, like the surviving members of Monty Python turning into the guys they mocked in their twenties (seriously, take a gander at Michael Palin for example). Or guys like Joss Whedon in Hollywood lamenting "the man" when in fact, THEY ARE THE MAN!

    Caroline Glick has the insight Ari Shavit and American Jewry's views on Israel which are to put it mildly, not positive:

    "For the past decade, AIPAC made convincing the White House and Congress to pass sanctions against Iran its primary goal. But when President Barack Obama told AIPAC to stop lobbying for further sanctions after he signed the interim nuclear deal with Iran last November, AIPAC folded like a deck of cards. Israel and the Republicans on Capitol Hill that had pushed the legislation were left high and try.

    Defending Israel to an unsympathetic president from the Democratic Party is apparently too much to ask most pro-Israel American Jews to do.

    And this is where Shavit’s book comes in.

    By portraying Israel as a country that is morally deficient, Shavit gave the American Jewish community two gifts. First he gave them a way to feel morally superior, and therefore patronizing towards Israel. Israel, they can say, committed a massacre – and did so because its founding ideology is poisonous. American Jews would never do such a thing. But out of the kindness of their hearts, like Shavit, they will continue to love this unworthy cousin.

    The second gift Shavit gave the American Jewish community was the ability to feel comfortable refusing to be inconvenienced for Israel. Clearly – given Israel’s moral failings as portrayed by Shavit – American Jews should have no interest in picking up and making aliyah. But beyond that, since Israel is a morally lacking country, there is no reason for them to take a serious stand on its behalf. There is no reason for them to object to the galloping anti-Semitism on college campuses. The BDS people may be over the top, but according to Shavit, they have a point.

    There is no reason for them to stand up to Obama. He is using “tough love” to make Israel free itself of sin and atone for its past crimes – like the one it committed in Lydda.

    The success of Shavit’s book reveals the rupture in the relationship between the American Jewish community and Israel. A generation ago, being pro-Israel meant believing in the justness and morality of Israel and being willing to be inconvenienced a little or even a lot to defend the Jewish state.

    Today, being pro-Israel means that you support Israel despite its immorality because you are forgiving. And supporting Israel means you’ll help Israel so long as it doesn’t inconvenience you in any way or make you feel uncomfortable about anything at all."
    ----------------------

    And this is what I mean by Jews are no longer Jews. American Jews don't ask themselves "Is this good for the Jews?" Revealed preference shows they ask themselves, "Is this good for my moral standing as a moralizer in a diverse, majority non-White nation?" Jews are atomized and obsessed with moral status and standing and Christian or Post-Christian concepts of "National Original Sin" regarding Israel (name me a nation not founded in violence and "sin" and I will give you -- Liechenstein). Jews are indistinguishable from WASPs in behavior: subscribing to the same old SWPL status mongering and unwilling to take social opprobrium to stand up for their cousins in Israel which is a sea change in Jewish behavior. It is in fact a radical change, among Jews, right here, visible, and almost no one grasps the implication.

    Which is that even actual survival friendly things (like having a nation to escape to if non-White America turns distinctly unfriendly to Jews which given the Minneapolis to Mogadishu trend in Minnesota seems a definite possibility) are overcome by status mongering and the need to conform to WASP/SWPL standards. Not even something as obvious as cousin-saving is able to compete with WASP-driven social standing and a desire to gain the good opinion of the NYT editorial board.

    This probably explains the SWPL crowd's belief in transforming NAMs into good SWPL ers who shop at Trader Joes and listen to NPR. Because it worked among White "ethnic" class people: Jews, Italians, Irish, Poles, etc. If it worked among Jews, the thinking is, it will work among Mexicans. And Salvadorans. And Nigerians.

    Forgetting that high-IQ, successful, socially savvy, WHITE (is there a Whiter guy than Jerry Seinfeld? Larry David maybe) Jews are not Nigerians. Nor are they Mexicans.

    This is the fundamental truth Steve and much of his readers have not grasped: Jews are no longer Jews. American Jews don't care very much about Israel (not enough to risk social condemnation by fighting the Magical Black Guy President) over Iran and Israel. They don't care about their cousins in Israel and have adopted the view that Israel was guilty of Original National Sin and as such probably should not exist (and neither should America either in that SWPL thinking). Most Jews in America probably accept Pacifica/NPR (National Palestinian Radio) views on the ME. And THAT transformation: from cousin-protecting, Israel supporting, Jews of say thirty years ago to SWPL conformers today, is frightening.

    If SWPL can do that to Jews, what White people can they NOT do this to? Or is this Janissary conversion only a function of Wealth and will it collapse as Whites move downwards the economic/social ladder.

    Whiskey: “And this is what I mean by Jews are no longer Jews. American Jews don’t ask themselves “Is this good for the Jews?” Revealed preference shows they ask themselves, “Is this good for my moral standing as a moralizer in a diverse, majority non-White nation?”

    In its national survey Pew Research asked Jews:

    Are you proud of being Jewish? (94%)
    Do you have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people? (76%)
    Do you feel a special responsibility to help Jews in need? (63%)
    (Weighted by religious types)

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/03/infographic-survey-of-jewish-americans/

    What group would you like to compare this too? With “Whites”, we would have to reverse the polarities of the questions:

    Are you ashamed of being White?
    Do you have a strong commitment to anti-racism?
    Do you feel a special responsibility to end White racial identity?

    No one asks the question of White subgroups like Irish, because they don’t register. So no, Jews have not assimilated in that way.

    Whiskey: “American Jews don’t care very much about Israel (not enough to risk social condemnation by fighting the Magical Black Guy President) over Iran and Israel. They don’t care about their cousins in Israel and have adopted the view that Israel was guilty of Original National Sin and as such probably should not exist (and neither should America either in that SWPL thinking)”

    U.S. support for Israel Jews White
    Too Much 11 24
    Not Enough 31 21
    About Right 54 46
    No Opinion 3 9

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/

    So, Jews are about 0.4 SD more Zionist than the typical White, despite being super progressive.

    Try again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website

    The difference between Wasp elites and Jewish elites.

    There’s some truth to the Jewish complaint about how the Wasp elites were more snobby, ‘racist’, and exclusionary. In contrast, the New America run by Jews emphasizes more diversity, inclusion, and etc.
    Jews have led something like a Spartacus-rebellion against the Wasps. Though the novel SPARTACUS was essentially communist/class-warfare in allegorical meaning, by the time the movie came out, it was more about the Jewish-led socio-cultural revolution against the Wasp establishment(within both the GOP and Democratic Party as there were plenty of white southern Democrats who weren’t too keen on the rise of the Negroes) in America. In the original story, the emphasis is on lower classes rising up against upper classes. In the movie, the emphasis is on ‘immigrant slaves’ rising up against the native Roman elites.

    And so, Jews like to believe that they led a rebellion to create a better, fairer, and most just America. But the problem is this new America is more likely to splinter and divide.

    Though plenty of Wasps were ‘racist’, the vision they put forth was–at least for white ethnics–assimilationist and inclusive. Of course, to be included into the American nation, the ethnics had to become essentially Waspized to some considerable extent, but still, the notion of Waspness was broad enough and ‘bland’ enough to include non-Wasps. Though there would still be exclusive Wasp country clubs only for genuine wasps and socialite clubs only for blue bloods, the notion of waspness could apply to just about any white ethnic. And the cultural aspect of waspiness could also make room for non-whites, which is why a lot of Chinese in Hong Kong and Singapore and a lot of Asian-Indians were charmed by the Waspy order. Though they were banned from certain wasp clubs and spheres, if they adopted waspy cultural-ness, they too could be considered as something like hononary wasps and treated as part of the broad Anglosphere tribe. (Romanness served the same purpose in the ancient world and Russianness served the same purpose in the Russian/Soviet empire.)

    Today, we have the Jewish elites running the US, and they take pride in taking the side of all the diverse groups who’d been excluded or snubbed in the past. So, Jews have broad coalitions with all sorts of people–blacks, browns, yellows, and some aggrieved white ethnics.

    But the problem is Jewishness is, by its very nature and definition, specific and exclusionary.
    (In the ancient world, Romans could encourage non-Romans to adopt Roman culture, identity, and citizenship. Suppose Jews had taken over the Roman empire. Could they have used Jewishness in the same way that the Roman elites had used Romanness? Actually, that did sort of happen but it took Jesus and St. Paul to remake Judaism into a universal creed, something that most Jews rejected fervently.) No matter how much Jews reach out to others, Jews cannot formulate Jewishness into something broad enough to encompass non-Jews. Non-Wasps could assimilate into waspness and even take on ersatz-wasp-identity, but Jewishness only applies to Jews.

    Non-wasps, upon becoming waspy, simply became ‘white Americans’. Though wasps weren’t without a distinct sense of where they came from and what they were, the sense of Wasp identity wasn’t as deeply rooted and culture-specific as that of Jews. Also, American Wasps, instead of merely seeing themselves as people of English stock, preferred to see themselves as a people who’d made a clear break with the Old World to create a new breed of man called the American. Thus, the American concept of Waspness became more abstract and broader, enough to make room for non-wasps–if they were willing to adopt the general American narrative and assimilate into wasp modes of life and values.
    One could argue that this was culturally intolerant, but it did help forge a broader sense of united white America. Without the wasp-glue, the various ethnic groups in America would have had no reason to come together on the basis of common identity, ideas, and attitudes. It was because Poles, Greeks, Italians, Lithuanians, Russians, and even Jews learned English, adopted the wasp-American narrative, and etc that they were able to gradually merge into a melting pot nation. And there was a kind of compromise. Ethnics lost their specificity but so did the Wasps in order to embrace the broader sense of America. And for this end, the American western was appealing to many since it was about Anglos starting anew in the frontier with basic wants and needs. For immigrants, the English gentleman would have been too culture-and-class specific. Even the Boston Brahmin would have been intimidating since it would have taken a lot of effort to become like one of them. But any immigrant could identify with the Anglo pioneer taking just basic needs and starting anew in the West without all the old cultural baggage–except the most basic kind. So, oddly enough, even though most European immigrants arrived on the East Coast, they soon took to liking Western movies since it was easier to understand cowboys than East Coast Wasp establishment.

    Jewish elites take great pride in being far more inclusive than the wasp elites were. But Jewishness can never become the kind of Americanism that waspism became and served as a model for others. Anyone could be waspish — even the mulatto black gentry class — and become part of the broad wasposhere, but how does one become Jewishy? Sure, we can appreciate Jewish humor, use Yiddish words, and etc, but Jewishness is too tribal and culture-specific to serve as any kind of assimilationist instrument for Americans. So, in this sense, Jewish elites are more exclusive than the Wasp elites were since Jews insist on the particularity of Jewishness as being for the Jews. So, while Jews can forge various coalition-alliances with non-Jewish groups, they cannot use Jewishness as a new kind of Americanism that others can assimilate into. Jewishness was, is, and always will be only for Jews.

    Wasps, for all their ‘racism’, turned Waspism into a kind of cultural Christianity. Though it had its hierarchies and rules of exclusion, everyone could convert into it and become accepted as a fellow wasp or honorary wasp to varying degrees. It’s like the Christian Churches have their biases and preferences but allow anyone to join.

    In contrast, despite all the efforts of Jews to serve as the new representative elites of America, what really sticks out is that we cannot become Jewish or even all that Jewishy. A Greek-American or Russian-American could be waspish, but what would it mean for either to be Jewishy? Tell schlong jokes or rave endlessly about Woody Allen movies? Indeed, even Jews are ‘most American’ when they suppress their Jewishness and try to be waspish. While everyone has laughed at Woody Allen jokes, he’s very Jewish. But Jews who wrote songs for Christmas and Pop music–in the spirit of ersatz wasps–had a much broader appeal. And Steven Spielberg’s most popular movies tend not to be about Jews. He has either assimilated into or appropriated from Norman Rockwell and Walt Disney.

    So, this presents a problem for the Jewish elites. Despite all their rhetoric about equality and inclusion, Jewishness can never serve most Americans as Waspishness could and once did. Also, Jews don’t want Jewishness to serve such a function because if we could all become Jewishy, Jewishness would lose its deep-rooted meaning and significance. Jewishness is nothing without ancient roots.
    Even the Holocaust thing is problematic as it’s not about the victim-hood and shared suffering of all peoples but instead is predicated on the notion that all gentiles should bow down before Jewish suffering.
    Wasps may have put themselves on top, but they invited non-wasps to share in the glory and triumph of Wasp achievement.
    In contrast, Jews take pains to point out that the Holocaust was about Jewish suffering, the greatest suffering of all time, and all other peoples should subordinate their victim-hood narratives to the Jewish Holocaust.
    It’s easier to share in Wasp victory than in Jewish suffering. When white ethnics — and American Indian youths — watched Western movies, they felt they were sharing in the might and glory of American history. But when we watch a Holocaust movie, it’s all about the suffering of Jews. We can sympathize but it’s not about us, especially as Jews are deeply offended if other groups dare to compare their own suffering with the Holocaust.

    This is probably why Jews prefer the notion of ‘diversity’ than assimilation. Jewish elites know that they cannot offer a broad assimilationist model that Wasps had offered to earlier waves of immigrants. So, Jews stick to building a diverse coalition of people who are made to see ‘privileged whites’ as their enemy. This gets funny sometimes since even over-privileged yellows are made to see poor whites as the ‘oppressors’. Indeed, yellow elites in America are more worried about mostly fantastic micro-aggressions against them by ‘privileged racist whites’ than the very real physical macro-aggressions by street thugs.

    Maybe Jews find in homosexuality something like an assimilationist or ass-imilationist model since homosexuality, though certainly a fact of life for a only small minority, exists among all groups: white, yellow, black, brown, and etc. So, while only Jews can be Jewish, any group can be associated or ass-ociated with homosexuality. Also, unlike Jewishness that has deep roots and is culture-specific, homosexuality has a 1000 cultural faces–and feces–and is all about the here-and-now fashionableness. In our culture that happens to be so pop-culture-centric and celebrity-driven, the narcissism of the homo community may serve as the poo-glue for all Americans. A Jewish pride parade would only mean something about Jews since Jewishness has ancient and specific roots. But homo ‘pride’ parade could be just about anything, with homos dressed up as superheroes, movie stars, Disney characters, and etc. Thus, through the homos, celebritism becomes the new Waspism. Through homos, we costume-party-assimilate with the New Hollywood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. WhatEvvs [AKA "Cookies"] says:

    “Well, but neoconservatism is remarkably hereditary….”

    I like that “Well, but…” Steve. No, it’s not Jewish, but….

    Seriously – do you find this in Britain? France? No. There’s a unique combination of Ashkenazi Jewish & American in this, and not just any American: it’s a kind of Yankee missionary fervor. All these guys have some kind of Ivy League connection, and Ivy League = Yankee Missionary. Read American Nations – this explains it all.

    I really don’t worry about the Neocons. Yeah, they never went anywhere, they are irrepressibly horrible and trouble-makers. But the country is different. They don’t have *that* much power – only the power that a bamboozled country gives them. Their moment has come and gone. Unfortunately, so has America’s, and they helped to kill it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. Noah172 says:
    @Anon
    When in doubt blame the jews

    When in doubt, accuse others of anti-Semitism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Mr Anon:
    “I think that the sock-puppet Whiskey doth protest too much. How many thousands upon thousands of words has this self-proclaimed born-fightin scots-irish lad vomited on to these pages, with nary a word once about Scotland or the Northern Counties or anyplace where the people who lived there ended up? Not a word about them, and what ails em’? Since when are true-blue sons of St. Andrew primarily obsessed with Israel and Jews?”

    We (the actual Ulster Scots) are quite keen on Israel, we see it is a kindred state (sadly the neocons don’t return our affection!). We were quite keen on apartheid South Africa too. It’s kinda silly re SA since the Irish Catholics we used to oppress, long before I was born, were really our close kin, I guess the Israel analogy is slightly closer.
    But yes, while we are indeed fairly keen on Israel (I recently ‘liked’ a Facebook post about those three murdered Settler boys, a bit of a personal & professional risk) we certainly don’t blather on about it constantly or lament the existence of teeny-weeny threats to Israeli security interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. “Who says it isn’t about harm? It has everything to do with harm. The consequences of Pat Buchanan being wrong about the Gulf War would be that America would be no worse off now and Iraq no more f**ked up than it is now. The consequences of those who bayed for war in the Middle-East can be measured in thousands of caskets and prosthetic limbs.”

    Well Bacevitch for one. I really can’t help the fact that the comment I replied decided to quote Bacevitch not your indignant emoting, but he did. Again this is really easy. A) I am responding to Bacevitch’s argument not some cranky fogey on isteve’s idea of what Bacevitch’s argument should have been. This is basic. B) we have no idea what the consequences of not fighting the First Gulf War are because we um fought that war. Thankfully, saner heads prevailed and Pat and Chomsky’s alarmist, frankly laughable predictions didn’t come to pass. C) Pat Buchanan gleefully slammed the war drums (this overwrought emotionalism is fun) for a war that put a lot more kids in body bags than the Iraq War did. Also prosthetics weren’t so good back them so instead of a prostethetic leg kid’s came home from Pat’s war with sewed up sleeves and in wheel chairs. Some how Pat B got to be on McLaughlin Group every Sunday.

    “It’s rogue, not rouge. Rouge is for your face, to put a pretty blushing schoolgirl like flush in your cheeks. Rogue runs down the streets singing “Napalm sticks to kids!””

    Never have I felt more sorry for someone in my life. What do you call something that can’t even aspire to ankle-biting. I’ll leave it at that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Retired says:
    @Pangur
    "So what if the jewish special interest group is at odds with non-jews?"

    A question so obtuse as to be baffling. Let me put it simply: the influence of much mainstream jewish thought (including, but not limited to, a contentious and legalistic sense of right and wrong as well as extreme ethnic chauvinism, a trait not permitted in whites in this country) has been and is corrosive to the fabric of the culture of the country. Couple that with outsized influence in law, finance, media and academia, you have a problem, namely an essentially hostile and minority elite who don't have the best interests of the country in mind. This is a problem.

    "Don’t break out the dog whistles."

    Like I said, the best defense is a good offense. There are worse places to start than controlling discourse, as you're trying to do here.

    "I am 100% goy and disagree with my jewish contemporaries on most everything political. "

    Uh, okay.

    “Couple that with outsized influence in law, finance, media and academia, you have a problem, namely an essentially hostile and minority elite who don’t have the best interests of the country in mind. This is a problem.”

    Sounds like the Democratic party, let by the progressive vanguard and stupidly followed by the garden variety Democratic voter.

    Or the RINO’s with their open borders policy.

    Guys like me can’t talk about our ethnic pride without being run out of town.

    You must be a lib, salting your comments with stuff like “controlling discourse” and “contentious and legalistic sense of right and wrong.”

    Essentially I agree with you but I state my biases in a more subtle way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Mr. Anon says:

    “Sam Haysom says:
    July 7, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Pat Buchanan gleefully slammed the war drums (this overwrought emotionalism is fun) for a war that put a lot more kids in body bags than the Iraq War did. ”

    Then, at least, he wised up. You haven’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. inertial says:

    All this discussion, and not a single mention of Cold War?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. “This is probably why Jews prefer the notion of ‘diversity’ than assimilation.” Where did you get that idea? Look at the intermarriage rate of Jews in the US. It is probably 70% and it is climbing. Overwhelmingly the children of those marriages will not be Jewish because the surrounding culture is Gentile – Church or no Church, if you grow up with no religion in the US, you will be celebrating Christmas.

    It is interesting that the neo-cons (as Jewish as they are) are considered idiots in Israel. No Israeli believes that liberal democracy can be brought to the Muslim Middle East. No Israeli wants anyone to send arms to the Syrian rebels. I would say that most Israelis do not care at all about Crimea and certainly do not think it worthwhile to antagonize Russia over it. Israelis (left and right) love their socialized medicine system. Moshe Dayan visited Vietnam in the mid-60s and famously said: “America is winning everything but the war”; He thought the entire venture was insane. Must be something in the air in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Where did you get that idea? Look at the intermarriage rate of Jews in the US. It is probably 70% and it is climbing."

    http://www.jta.org/2013/10/01/news-opinion/united-states/pew-survey-u-s-jewish-intermarriage-rate-rises-to-58-percent

    This is all very misleading. It's not like Jews are assimilating into the gentile community but, rather, the gentile elites--and the smarter(or prettier if women)kind of gentiles--are marrying into the Jewish community. We've been through this before many times. Jews are picking the best of the gentiles to enter and genetically contribute to the Jewish community. They are not merging into the larger community.

    Suppose an alien elite dominates a people, and they intermarry with the native elites who come to accept and support alien elite rule. That's hardly genuine assimilation. It's kind of like what savvy white elites did in Hawaii with the native elites. That way, the native masses lose their elites that once stood up for native interests. In effect, the native elites have been won over and intermarried into the alien elites. It's like Alexander the Great married with the elites of the peoples he conquered so that the native elites would ally with the Greek imperial overlords than stand up for their own people. (Some things never change.) It's like that white guy wasn't assimilating with the Indians when he married Pocahontas.

    As Jewishness is such an advantage to have career-wise(Jews will favor other Jews or part-Jews), connection-wise(Jewish networking globally), morality-wise(Holocaust guilt), culture-wise(Hollywood), intellect-wise(higher IQ and favoritism in Ivy Leagues), and etc, even a part-Jewish person will value his or her Jewishness.
    I've known part-Jewish kids who insisted they were Jewish since high school. Even none-too-bright gentile kids adopted into Jewish families insisted they were Jewish. They used to get pissed with me when I said they weren't really Jewish but really a 'dumb Polack' or 'stupid Irish'--which is what some of them turned out to be when they tracked their real parents. One kid still rags on me about what I said about him in high school days--and that was eons ago. After all these yrs, he's still so bitter about it--that I called out the fact that his real parents are 'stupid Irish' and that's why, unlike real Jews, he didn't do well in school.

    Or how about that guy in Big Lebowski, a film I didn't think much of long ago but now recognize as an instant classic. It turns out the big fat guy played by John Goodman isn't even Jewish but converted to Jewishness when he got married long ago. And even though he's divorced, he tries to be more Jewish than actual Jews. I've known those types too. Being aggressively and proudly Jewish is one way right-wingers can be openly and zealously 'tribal' and 'patriotic'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website
    @Steve (not Sailer)
    "This is probably why Jews prefer the notion of ‘diversity’ than assimilation." Where did you get that idea? Look at the intermarriage rate of Jews in the US. It is probably 70% and it is climbing. Overwhelmingly the children of those marriages will not be Jewish because the surrounding culture is Gentile - Church or no Church, if you grow up with no religion in the US, you will be celebrating Christmas.

    It is interesting that the neo-cons (as Jewish as they are) are considered idiots in Israel. No Israeli believes that liberal democracy can be brought to the Muslim Middle East. No Israeli wants anyone to send arms to the Syrian rebels. I would say that most Israelis do not care at all about Crimea and certainly do not think it worthwhile to antagonize Russia over it. Israelis (left and right) love their socialized medicine system. Moshe Dayan visited Vietnam in the mid-60s and famously said: "America is winning everything but the war"; He thought the entire venture was insane. Must be something in the air in the US.

    “Where did you get that idea? Look at the intermarriage rate of Jews in the US. It is probably 70% and it is climbing.”

    http://www.jta.org/2013/10/01/news-opinion/united-states/pew-survey-u-s-jewish-intermarriage-rate-rises-to-58-percent

    This is all very misleading. It’s not like Jews are assimilating into the gentile community but, rather, the gentile elites–and the smarter(or prettier if women)kind of gentiles–are marrying into the Jewish community. We’ve been through this before many times. Jews are picking the best of the gentiles to enter and genetically contribute to the Jewish community. They are not merging into the larger community.

    Suppose an alien elite dominates a people, and they intermarry with the native elites who come to accept and support alien elite rule. That’s hardly genuine assimilation. It’s kind of like what savvy white elites did in Hawaii with the native elites. That way, the native masses lose their elites that once stood up for native interests. In effect, the native elites have been won over and intermarried into the alien elites. It’s like Alexander the Great married with the elites of the peoples he conquered so that the native elites would ally with the Greek imperial overlords than stand up for their own people. (Some things never change.) It’s like that white guy wasn’t assimilating with the Indians when he married Pocahontas.

    As Jewishness is such an advantage to have career-wise(Jews will favor other Jews or part-Jews), connection-wise(Jewish networking globally), morality-wise(Holocaust guilt), culture-wise(Hollywood), intellect-wise(higher IQ and favoritism in Ivy Leagues), and etc, even a part-Jewish person will value his or her Jewishness.
    I’ve known part-Jewish kids who insisted they were Jewish since high school. Even none-too-bright gentile kids adopted into Jewish families insisted they were Jewish. They used to get pissed with me when I said they weren’t really Jewish but really a ‘dumb Polack’ or ‘stupid Irish’–which is what some of them turned out to be when they tracked their real parents. One kid still rags on me about what I said about him in high school days–and that was eons ago. After all these yrs, he’s still so bitter about it–that I called out the fact that his real parents are ‘stupid Irish’ and that’s why, unlike real Jews, he didn’t do well in school.

    Or how about that guy in Big Lebowski, a film I didn’t think much of long ago but now recognize as an instant classic. It turns out the big fat guy played by John Goodman isn’t even Jewish but converted to Jewishness when he got married long ago. And even though he’s divorced, he tries to be more Jewish than actual Jews. I’ve known those types too. Being aggressively and proudly Jewish is one way right-wingers can be openly and zealously ‘tribal’ and ‘patriotic’.

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

    I caught a bit of Rush today. He mentioned that Obama went to dinner with several squishy “conservatives” early on in an attempt to get them on side. George Will was mentioned, but every other man he named was Jewish: Kudlow, Krauthammer, and David Brooks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Svigor says:

    Look at the intermarriage rate of Jews in the US. It is probably 70%

    Lol, what nonsense.

    P.S., to Jews, “intermarriage” means Irish marrying English. Well, the equivalent. If Jews considered Euros equivalent to themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. Svigor says:

    It is interesting that the neo-cons (as Jewish as they are) are considered idiots in Israel. No Israeli believes that liberal democracy can be brought to the Muslim Middle East. No Israeli wants anyone to send arms to the Syrian rebels. I would say that most Israelis do not care at all about Crimea and certainly do not think it worthwhile to antagonize Russia over it. Israelis (left and right) love their socialized medicine system. Moshe Dayan visited Vietnam in the mid-60s and famously said: “America is winning everything but the war”; He thought the entire venture was insane. Must be something in the air in the US.

    When you strike a bargain with the Devil, you have to give him his due. Neokahns agreed to give the Military-Industrial Complex stuff to do to justify continued spending, in return for killing people and breaking stuff in Israel’s neighbors’ back yards. So, obviously there’s going to be a lot of stupid misadventure.

    It’s sort of like how (until recently) we were giving Egypt billions every year; the checks were made out to the Egyptians, but written on behalf of Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Svigor says:

    Never have I felt more sorry for someone in my life.

    A sheltered life, that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. atonal says:

    The general phenomenon here is that merely being factually wrong, over and over, in things big and small, is no impediment to being taken seriously as a talking head or a semi-serious thinker. (By contrast, expressing the wrong sort of ideas, even when you are demonstrably right, can quickly get your invitations to be on the talking head shows or to write an op-ed piece cancelled for good.)

    Historically, we have done a pretty bad job of playing the great game. This is visible in the many apparent failures and the consistent unpleasant surprises our elites much deal with, in the way our allies turn on us the moment we stop pointing a gun at them or handing them briefcases full of cash, and in the way the apparent intended beneficiaries of our policies (like Israel and Saudi Arabia) seem to be in a worse position now than they were a decade ago. I don’t see this as an argument that we are putting the wrong people in charge of playing the great game on our behalf, so much as an argument that maybe we’re not all that good at playing it and so should be less ambitious with our moves. We are wealthy and powerful because of our technical and industrial capabilities, not because we bomb some third world hellhole once every couple years for murky reasons. We can remain wealthy and powerful while having a much less adventurous foreign policy, and our lousy performance in the more adventurous parts of our policy makes me think that would be a pretty good idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @atonal
    The general phenomenon here is that merely being factually wrong, over and over, in things big and small, is no impediment to being taken seriously as a talking head or a semi-serious thinker. (By contrast, expressing the wrong sort of ideas, even when you are demonstrably right, can quickly get your invitations to be on the talking head shows or to write an op-ed piece cancelled for good.)

    Historically, we have done a pretty bad job of playing the great game. This is visible in the many apparent failures and the consistent unpleasant surprises our elites much deal with, in the way our allies turn on us the moment we stop pointing a gun at them or handing them briefcases full of cash, and in the way the apparent intended beneficiaries of our policies (like Israel and Saudi Arabia) seem to be in a worse position now than they were a decade ago. I don't see this as an argument that we are putting the wrong people in charge of playing the great game on our behalf, so much as an argument that maybe we're not all that good at playing it and so should be less ambitious with our moves. We are wealthy and powerful because of our technical and industrial capabilities, not because we bomb some third world hellhole once every couple years for murky reasons. We can remain wealthy and powerful while having a much less adventurous foreign policy, and our lousy performance in the more adventurous parts of our policy makes me think that would be a pretty good idea.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer 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 evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation