It will be doubly hard for the GOP to wean itself off the neocons because anybody who points out the mere fact of neocon money and media influence is denounced as an anti-Semite. And most people in public life would rather let America blunder into more Middle Eastern wars than be denounced as anti-Semites.
Of course, neocon/neolib loyalty to the GOP is a lot less of a sure thing -- they are maneuvering to try to dominate the foreign policy of the next Democratic administration.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
36 comments:
Steve -- that has to be one of the dumbest comments you've made. Sorry to say. Because it's factually wrong.
Neocon thinking is the only remotely responsive to reality policy for National Security threats.
And neo-cons are VERY much opposed to Democrats and Democratic policies. Which amount to groveling, PC-Multi-culti nonsense, and ignoring terrorism and terrorism threats, domestically or abroad.
That's non-responsive to reality.
I recall article after article in the LAT, NYT, etc. after the dissolution of the Soviet Union warning of increased danger. Based on the theory that the "stans" would inherit nuclear weapons and become unstable, aggressive messes. Meanwhile Dems and Libertarian fantasists like Fukayama predicted the end of History.
The articles were half-right. Without superpower leashes, nations like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, are dangerous nuclear powers (or about to become one). Even more nations are pursuing nukes. With deniable terrorist proxies, fantasy ideologies of Iran and AQ believing they can have "A World Without America," and pervasive and inviting Western weakness and groveling, no clear lines drawn, the danger of a nuclear Pearl Harbor mandating a strategic nuclear response has never been greater.
Because there is no sense of restraint in Islamabad or Tehran.
Neo-cons offer a policy that is different than failed policies of 1972-2001 (of both Parties). Neither ignoring it, firing off impotent missile strikes, or treating terrorism as a criminal matter. But responding to it in order to decisively deter further attacks.
The idea of "transforming" the ME into something akin to Switzerland is of course dead. That was not more than the pipe dream of some neo-cons. However the use of US military power to finally deal with decades-dragging threats and even more dangerously, the idea that America is a weak and easily pushed around power is likely a neo-con lasting policy.
Which is also populist. As many neo-cons are. National Review (neo-con central) is on balance anti-Illegal Alien amnesty and open borders. A populist issue. Same for Malkin, other noted neo-cons.
That neo-cons are "Jewish" is of course a libel. Most neo-cons are not Jewish and the most important certainly are not: John Bolton, Michelle Malkin, Mark Steyn, Fred Thompson, Rudy Guiliani, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter.
The UN is useless and nothing more than a corrupt, anti-American, money-laundering talk shop. The EU has nothing on offer for solving the problem of nuclear terrorism. "Diplomacy" has meant US submitting to North Korea, Pakistan, and now Iran's nuclear programs and thus nuclear shields for any terrorist act against the US and it's allies. Technology: nukes, shipping containers, ICBMs, allow failing semi-state the ability to destroy US cities with near-impunity absent any deterring policies.
Only Neo-con policy offers voters a choice for US action (instead of passively waiting to be nuked and then "apologizing" for "why they hate us" etc.)
Neo-cons generally want: A stop to illegal immigration. Adherence to a unifying Judeo-Christian standards, morality, and institutions. Valuing and celebrating national unity and symbols, institutions. Promoting middle class family formation. And use of an expanded US military to actively deter threats of the nuclear terrorism variety.
Dems offer a "a world apology for America tour." Libertarians a fantasy of Fortress America and the return of 1921. Paleocons the same.
None of these is likely to work, and all stem from the same elitism.
Steve -- my suspicion is that you object first and foremost to the populism of neo-cons. Elitism can be a very destructive disease.
Fukuyama was a goddamn neocon back then. He signed the letter urging Clinton to depose Saddam. It was only later that he broke with the neocons over Iraq. He is neither a democrat nor a libertarian.
The only future that the GOP has is irrelevancy. Steve, of all people should realize that demographics will make the Republican party irrelevant to the political process. Every deep blue area of the U.S. if a functional one party state. That is the future of the U.S.
Krauthammer is the poster child for the neocons. On foreign policy issues he's a hawk and interventionist extraordinaire, on domestic issues one only has to watch clips of him tearing up over the revisionist Western Brokeback Mountain to gather he isn't your father's conservative.
I'd like to invite Evil to eschew the "neo" part of his conservative ideology and join the rest of us in ushering in a new era of responsibility and respect for Judeo-Christian traditions. Mature adults don't embrace a foreign policy of creative destruction.
I'm not a Krauthammer fan by any means, but the following prediction is the only remark I can find him having made on Brokeback Mountain:
"Brokeback Mountain will be seen by 18 people. But they will be the right 18 people, and it will sweep the Oscars."
The prediction, while it ultimately proved inaccurate, was certainly plausible, and the tone of the remark seems quite negative rather than positive toward the film itself. When did Krauthammer ever comment on the movie at any other time?
An interesting tidbit, by the way, is that Krauthammer is apparently the best friend of Charles Murray.
evil neocon,
It is pretty rich to read you claim that Steve is factually wrong. In a previous thread here recently you were describing how well Iraq has turned out with the Saddam problem solved.
Failed policies? Containment of Saddam was working. It was working very well for cheap. Now we spend $3 billion per week and throw away thousands of lives and end up with tens of thousands more injured in brain and/or body and you have a learning disability that prevents you from seeing it.
The neocons are a disaster. They are wrong on Iraq. They are wrong on Israel. They are not really conservatives. They just find the Republican Party a useful tool.
Islamabad unconstrained? So then why aren't the Pakis hurdling nukes at India? India's got a nuclear deterrent. Why are the Pakis letting our supplies pass thru to our troops in Afghanistan? Because they fear us and want favors from us. They are on a leash.
Neocons and immigration: They were wobbly for a very long time. Some of those National Review writers like Jonah Goldberg would rather have mass immigration. They just need the Republican base for more important projects in the Middle East. So they now hold their tongues on their real immigration views.
Neocons as populists: What a joke. They are an elite movement. The masses on the Right are paleocons or social conservative Christians.
An interesting tidbit, by the way, is that Krauthammer is apparently the best friend of Charles Murray.
Maybe Krauthammer was the one who got Murray his very comfortable position at AEI, after he was fired by the Manhattan Institute in the early 1990s for being "controversial" and then turned down by CATO for the same reason. It was right around that time that the neocons seized control of AEI.
Frankly, Murray's most recent article in Commentary left him a total laughingstock in my own eyes at least. As I recall, he basically argued that the greatest proof of superior Jewish intelligence was that Jews were the only people in the world to have discovered the true religion, Q.E.D. Still, I suppose that when you have a very comfortable sinecure, you have to occasionally perform "tricks" for your paymasters...
As for the best evidence against superior Jewish intelligence, just read the endless ravings of our half-witted friend "Evil Neocon." At the rate things are going, I suspect he'll soon be made a New York Times columnist...
A major problem for all Americans is the institutionalization of the Republican and Democrat parties. These parties are not empowered by the Constitution. These parties are not sacrosanct. Like the Federal Reserve, they have proved to be a cancer on the Republic.
The Iowa Caucus is extra bizarre this year. Apparently resentment toward this system is building on racial grounds (Iowa and NH are supposedly too white), but resentment should have boiled over a long time ago on common sense grounds.
The "primaries" are a system whereby the two major parties eliminate all threats to their duopoly, with the media engaged as co-conspirator. Yet no doubt the average American thinks the primary system is authorized by the Constitution.
What we have today is a very sophisticated dictatorship. Both of these two parties need a good hard punch in the nose. Let "the future of the GOP" be short, and the future of that other cretinous malignancy even shorter.
Future --
No, containment of Saddam had not worked. Nor was a constant Air Combat Patrol "cheap" or sustainable for much longer. It certainly did not change Saddam's behavior.
Sanctions were breaking down, and Saddam would have publicly beaten Uncle Sam after 9/11. Recall he kicked the inspectors out, and after decades of cheating, going back on his own word to even his relatives/in-laws (executing them after false offers of amnesty) we had two choices: be weak and accept Saddam doing what he wanted and showing us to be weak, taking SADDAM's WORD.
Or using force to finally get rid of him. We took that option because it was the only one that would allow us a "win" anywhere that would allow us to be seen as strong.
[You dismiss the opportunity cost of being seen by everyone as unwilling to use military force on the ground after 9/11. And the opportunity cost of allowing Saddam to sanction-bust and nuke-up quick with AQ Khan and North Korea's all-you-can-nuke take out. Given Saddam's open hosting of AQ people and courting publicly of Osama against America that's not an inconsiderable cost.]
Strength and the perception of strength deters attacks.
Exiting a general Muslim fantasy Jihad against non-Muslim nations is not an option. China has problems with Jihad (believe me I saw with my own eyes in XianXing '97 coverage of Uighur bombers). So too Argentina. Which got bombed by Iran for stopping help on it's nuclear program. So too the Philippines, Algeria, Germany, Denmark. The Pope says something and Muslims start killing people. Or it's a Danish cartoon. Or a Dutch film-maker. Or some guy converting to Christianity in a Muslim nation.
Being weak invites attack. Simple as that. Noe cons offer strength and freedom of action by the US to deter attack.
Do you honestly think that if the West simply throws Israel to Muslims they'll stop there? Iran's stated goal is to destroy America as well as Israel. The same holds true of Osama. Only conversion to Islam and acceptance of one as the Caliph will bring peace by one of them (but not the other).
I don't want to live under Sharia and I doubt anyone else in America does either. [This is an old problem, Jefferson and TR had to deal with Muslim pirates. But jet travel and nukes make them far more dangerous than in the days of sail or coal-fired battleships.]
Pakistan and India nearly fought a nuclear war over Pakistani ISI-JAM terrorist attacks in India in 1999. A wonder given India's huge manpower and wealth advantage (i.e. Pakistan would have lost and risked it anyway because of internal stability pushing external confrontation). Clinton had to twist arms and had only limited success in dialing down tensions.
Neo-cons want US freedom of action. Which sometimes will be military action. Against dangerous and divided tribal peoples or one-man kingdoms diplomacy fails. What works with say, the Russians or Chinese doesn't with fighting coalitions for tribes who loathe/fear/hate modernity and it's engine in the US.
There is no one to make a bargain with, and even when you find a figure-head someone else he has no authority over will go on the warpath. This was the experience of the treaties with the Indians in the West.
The Pakistani regime allows limited amounts of supplies through after much arm twisting. It is not unified, shot through with tribal rivalries and generational conflicts.
Musharraf's top generals are generally well informed about US capabilities and fear the US response. Their underlings who are younger and would like their spots are mostly ill-informed and have the same fantasy of "fighting spirit" overcoming boomers, ICBMs, and SAC that Osama had. They view Westerners as weak, decadent, cowardly, and incapable of any serious response.
That elements within Musharraf's military cooperated in Islamist attacks on CHINESE engineers and other Chinese personnel ought to scare the hell out of anyone concerned about stability. Given that since 1960, an alliance with Communist China against India has been the cornerstone of Pakistani national security policy, China has a border with Pakistan, and China has made aggressive moves to deal with Islamic separatists in it's own nation. That junior officers would help the Taliban/AQ pick a fight with China is an indication that Pakistan is becoming the equivalent of Liberia with nukes.
Ron Paul isolationist fantasies are nothing more than pure fantasy. As idiotic as Democrats proposal for apologies for America existing and a desperate attempt to get dangerous enemies to like us.
Michelle Malkin, a neo-con, has been against Illegal immigration likely before Steve launched his site. Victor Davis Hanson wrote a book against it in the 1990's ("Mexifornia"). Charles Johnson of LGF would be another example.
All populist, all opposed to Illegal Immigration and culture wars (because degrading common culture allows a fractured people to be picked off by elites). And all in agreement that US freedom of action including military action has to be part of the package of national security.
As opposed to simply ignoring the problem and waiting for a city to die.
Very few masses on the right are Paleocons: support for Israel, victory in WWII over the Nazis, and dislike of Muslim Jihad and an inclination to do something about it are high, particularly or especially among Evangelicals.
Jimmy Carter, Huckabee, Pat Buchanon, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul all hold about the same positions, views on Jews and Israel, dislike for a strong America, and dislike for ordinary people making their own minds up.
I'll add that neo-con foreign policy boils down to freedom of action by the US.
No begging the UN for permission. Or worrying about worthless "moral stature" or other junk no one really cares about. [See all the nations that trade with China.]
It's pretty unlikely that we will see further ground force invasions because there is no political consensus (as there was at the time) to do so.
But Kosovo-style air bombardments stuff works only on tiny, vulnerable nations without a strong regional protector and lacking any means to hit back through terrorist proxies, or nukes.
Clinton tried it, it didn't work. Neither did ignoring the problem.
Very likely the next President will embrace neo-con freedom of action by a clear policy of who gets nuked if a US city goes boom.
It will certainly let everyone know where they stand.
At least he admits that he's evil.
Anyhow, we were spending about 1.5 billion a year containing Saddam with no-fly while losing no planes.
Now we're spending at least 100 billion dollars a year on Iraq and taking casualties, while most of the Army and Marines are left unable to do anything else.
As for sanctions breaking down - hadn't happened.
Evil, you might consider canning it. Almost everything you say is a lie: that's irritating.
tggp, re: fukuyama, eastasia has always been at war with oceania! More seriously I bet that five years ago fukyama was on the list of gentile neocons used to show that neocons "aren't" Jewish.
The main diff between neos and liberal jews is that neos see muslims as the prmary threat and liberal Jews see white rightists as the primary threat. Otherwise they share the same premises on all isues that matter...in particular they justify rightist policies in leftist terms, scoring a neat twofer of short term political gain but long term ascendancy of leftist discourse. Thus "liberal fascism", "islamofascism" , Taliban = sexist , etc. This is why brooks and kristol are at the nyt -- at the end of the day they are also Jews and share many of the same mores and priorities.
"Jimmy Carter, Huckabee, Pat Buchanon, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul all hold about the same positions, views on Jews and Israel, dislike for a strong America, and dislike for ordinary people making their own minds up."
Obviously, we aren't all defining neocon in the same way, Evil. I don't consider Malkin to be a neocon although maybe she defines herself as one? Support for the War on Terror since 9/11 doesn't necessarily make someone a neocon IMO.
From your earlier post:
"And neo-cons are VERY much opposed to Democrats and Democratic policies. Which amount to groveling, PC-Multi-culti nonsense, and ignoring terrorism and terrorism threats, domestically or abroad."
I disagree. I think this is one of the issues that differentiates a neo from a conservative. They embrace the "PC-Multi-culti" in the guise of open borders and free trade no matter what the cost to US Citizens. In short, neocons are globalists.
Are you a globalist, Evil?
Evil Neocon = low on facts but full of bloviations
"No, containment of Saddam had not worked. Nor was a constant Air Combat Patrol "cheap" or sustainable for much longer."
Since when do neocons care about the cost of anything? Cheap!? Sustainable!? Compared to what? Iraq War II with a trillion dollar price tag?
At the end of your lunatic long post you claim Hansen's Mexifornia was from the 90's, when it was actually 2003. But in your hyperactive mind I bet it seems like it happened 10 or 15 years ago. Do you realize that each time you post you answer about five questions that were never asked in the thread? You're a clumsy propagandist. You get a few sentences into your schtick and then forget what the hell you were arguing, so you filibuster with boilerplate. You come off like you've been educated in a madrassa with your rote style of grab bag arguments and fuzzy facts that don't quite address the matter at hand.
I'd say you are between 17-19 years old. And you are working toward a degree in globalist political science at some dopey reeducation camp like Claremont College.
Neo-cons generally want: A stop to illegal immigration. Adherence to a unifying Judeo-Christian standards, morality, and institutions. Valuing and celebrating national unity and symbols, institutions. Promoting middle class family formation. And use of an expanded US military to actively deter threats of the nuclear terrorism variety.
This is mostly lies, of course.
Neocons are basically just pro-war center-leftists. Sometimes they claim to hold vaguely conservative positions on a few issues, usually unimportant ones. Examples: Supports flag burning amendment to the Constitution, won't vote for any additional gun control (until the next school shooting), etc. Regardless, you'll rarely catch them actually doing anything conservative when they're elected.
One of the most important elements of the neocon position, right behind support for bombing the shit out of 3rd world countries (especially Israel's enemies), is support for mass immigration to America from 3rd world countries (including Israel's enemies). As has been noted by others, they will lie about this when they need to rally credulous conservatives around their wars.
My estimate of Steve's IQ goes down every time he uses the term "neocon".
Evil neocon is a Israel-first liar, good for "stirring up the animals" here (to use Mencken's phrase) and for crying up "an endless series of hobgoblins" (to use another), but that's all.
FWIW, I am a 36 year-old lawyer, a Catholic who was raised as a fundamentalist/evangelical Protestant, and I agree with virtually everything Evil Neocon says.
I do differ with him on the domestic policy positions he attributes to neocons. On the domestic side, most part the neocons strike me as culturally liberal and mildly in favor of big government. For example, I can easily see most neocons coming out in favor of national health care and amnesty.
But that's really beside the point because neoconservatism is almost exclusively concerned with foreign policy issues. They don't really have well-formed domestic policy views. It's like talking about the views of Second Amendment supporters on national health care? It's easy to guess that most of them are probably against it, but who really knows? We are comparing apples and oranges.
The whole "neocon" vs. "paleocon" debate will be meaniningless, because the GOP as it exists today is headed for extinction. The demographic shift that is occuring makes it practically a done deal.
Thanks to the retirement of the baby boom generation and large scale immigration from 3rd world countries, we are going to see a real, pronounced decline in per capita income. I am sure that has happened before for short periods of time in our history, but never as a broad, probably irreversible trend.
That by itself will doom any political party that preaches "conservatism" of the economic variety. We'll still have 2 major political parties, but one will be a socialist party that edorses race preferences and multiculturalism (the GOP) and the other (the Democrats) will be a quasi-communist party that stands for the same things, with perhaps state atheism and draconian "thought crime" statutes thrown in to add to the fun.
What kind of total psycho calls neocons "populist"? Seriously, what are you smokin dude?
These are the same guys whose guru propounded some weird Machiavellian "only elites can understand reality" thing.
Unless by populist, you actually meant "connivers fanatically dedicated to the idea that their ends justify any means." Then that would make sense.
Grab a dictionary - neocons are pretty much the diametric opposite of populist.
Lol! Populist! Thanks, that one really cracked me up.
What is a neocon? A criminal gang dedicated to political terror to achieve revolutionary ends. In this way, they are similar to the Jacobins and Bolsheviks.
evil neocon writes, "No begging the UN for permission."
One of the claims by many neocons is that we invaded Iraq because Saddam violated UN sanctions. If one hates the UN so much, then why should Americans fight to uphold the sanctity of a UN resolution?
evil neocon writes, "Most neo-cons are not Jewish."
This might be true, but many of the most militant ones are. This would include Richard Perle, Feith and Wurmser who presented Netanyahu a plan called, "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" back in 1996. It called for the overthrow of Saddam and attacks against Syria.
The people you listed are primarily neocon cheerleaders, not the actual leaders.
William Kristol stated before the 2004 election that he favored Bush over John Kerry, but would favor Kerry over Pat Buchanan. Anyone, that favors Kerry over Buchanan is no conservative.
Neocons tend to be very soft on immigration. The official neocon rag, "The Weekly Standard", tends to support Bush on immigration.
I support the war in Iraq but every time I hear from Bill Kristol or JPod or any of the other loud and proud Jewish neocons I have to remind myself that these guys are atypical and most Jews don't support neocon foreign policy. JPod et al certainly do breathe life (or at least a pungent flatulence) into the stereotype of the pushy, obnoxious Jew.
In the best Neocon tradition, EvilNeocon frequently practices the art of the elitist noble lie couched in populist nationalist, fear mongering and other mass propaganda tools.
From the master himself and typical of the Chicago School, the fountainhead of Neocon thought:
Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie
When their noble lies are exposed, Neocons simply shout down, ignore, lie, redirect or silenced their critics with the usual personal attacks like anti-Semite, blame America first-ers, weak-kneeded terrorists-coddlers or head-in-the-sand isolationists (personal attacks being the hallmark of someone who has no argument to support their position).
Neocons are clever pathological liars and narcissists who suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
I agree with c.o. jones: the GOP is well on its way to extinction. George Bush and his administration have squandered one of the last oppurtunities that real conservatism had. He has given the GOP a name that it will not soon live down. Added to that, demographic trends will likely spell its demise.
Bush left the great "undecided" masses with a false and twisted idea of what conservatism is (and on the topic, don't you hate the fact that people who only pay attention to politics in the last month of the campaign end up deciding its result?). People like evil neocon have done the rest - convincing people that they are the face of conservatism, when they are really some kind of free-market Jacobins. Just look at the GOP candidates. All the so-called front-runners are indicative of everything that's wrong with the Republican party. In the words of Twisted Sister: "If that's your best, your best won't do."
The movement by virtually every state to move their primary elections ahead of New Hampshire and the Iowa caucus will further wound the GOP and deeply. Say what you want about Iowa and the Granite State (and at this time of year, like everyone who isn't an iowan, I hate them for their presumption), but they are more conservative than California or New York. What if the first primaries of the campaign end up being California, New York, and Massachusetts? Imagine what kind of losers we'd get for Presidential candidates then? McCain would even have a shot in a situation like that.
This country is doomed.
Also, evil neocon is wrong about polygamy. And he probably kicks puppies.
Steve,
"It will be doubly hard for the GOP to wean itself off the neocons because anybody who points out the mere fact of neocon money and media influence is denounced as an anti-Semite."
I don't think it's possible for the GOP to reform itself, or to return to majority status given its present composition.
The neocons themselves are a Jewish-Zionist centric elite group.
The real question is who else is there to lead the "GOP"?
The GOP's flyover country leadership is dominated by a particular brand of religious theology. This is Premillenial Dispensationalism. Labeling this bizarre sect as Judeolators is a mere statement of fact. They're more Zionist than Binny Netanyahu.
Huckabee is the quintessential example of what can be expected from this cabal. They do a good job of getting their deceived sheeple to vote against their own interests by threats of hellfire, damnation and promises of eternal reward for betraying their neighbors and children.
So who's left once these two groups are gone? The petite bourgeois in the gasping Chambers of Commerce are about it. Their idea of leadership is Bush, McCain and Schwarzeneggar.
The GOP lost their Congressional majority in 2006 on three issues. The House was lost over the Jack Abramowitz scandal, plus the effects of non-Free Trade in the Midwest. The Senate majority went down over immigration.
Zionism, open borders cheap labor, Middle East adventures and free trade. These are the real core policies of the present GOP elites. They will prefer nominal GOP electoral defeat to compromising these policies.
So the question is, what is there in the GOP elite's core policy mix to really appeal to middle and working class whites?
Answer: Zilch.
Tanabear, why don't you come around Townhall.com any more? We need you.
"What is a neocon? A criminal gang dedicated to political terror to achieve revolutionary ends. In this way, they are similar to the Jacobins and Bolsheviks."
"Neocons are basically just pro-war center-leftists."
"Neocons are clever pathological liars and narcissists who suffer from paranoid schizophrenia."
"Also, evil neocon is wrong about polygamy. And he probably kicks puppies."
I was going to suggest calling Evil, Evil Globalcon, but these reviews of Dr. Evil and his lies about neocons were just too compelling. I had to repeat them. I'd like to add that Evil tends to underestimate the intelligence of commenters on iSteve while simultaneously overestimating his own. Perhaps he should read some Leo Strauss so that he'll be better able to dissemble the heretical push for a one world order among contemporary neocons. Of course, Evil doesn't really want to debate the finer points of political philosophy, he just wants to blow things up.
STEVE, THE NYT HIRE OF WILLIAM KRISTOL IS A CASE OF ETHNIC NEPOTISM, A TOPIC WHICH YOU FREQUENTLY DISCUSS. THE JEWISH NEOCON WILLIAM SAFIRE RETIRES AND IS REPLACED BY THE JEWISH NEOCON DAVID BROOKS WHO IS JOINED BY KRISTOL. CAN ANYONE IMAGINE THE NYT HIRING PAT BUCHANAN? DO PIGS FLY?
evil neocon wrote:
Steve -- my suspicion is that you object first and foremost to the populism of neo-cons. Elitism can be a very destructive disease.
I read that the other day and I'm still laughing.
Today's lead story on Vdare gives some choice examples of the "populism" of one of the core neocon figures, Bill Kristol:
"He is openly hostile to opponents of amnesty, whom he called 'yahoos' who will turn the GOP into an 'anti-immigration, Know Nothing party.'" [citation provided]
So the question is, what is there in the GOP elite's core policy mix to really appeal to middle and working class whites?
Well, if they could just get the price of gasoline back down and have the NFL put all their games on Basic Cable...
anonymous writes, "Tanabear, why don't you come around Townhall.com any more? We need you."
This is what happened. I was posting under a column written by Mary Katharine Ham that was published on September 11, 2007 entitled, "Top 5 9/11 Truther Myths You Should Be Prepared to Debunk." I seemed to send everyone into a apoplexy once again. Later that day I noticed that all my posting were erased and that I had been logged put. Townhall deleted all the postings I had ever made there and blocked my account so I couldn't log back in.
tanabear
So what name did you post under?
"Well, if they could just get the price of gasoline back down"
Steve's seminal 2006 AMCON article...
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_05_08/cover.html
...captures the essence. Qualify this as "affordable quality white family formation" and you'll define every issue of real political importance.
The GOP doesn't actually promote affordable white family policies. It either ignores the relevant issues or it's on the anti-side.
The GOP simply parasites on whites in areas where white family formation is affordable. This is where the contemptible Zionist rapture cult sect plays its political role, as it did last night in Iowa. It delivered about 0.5% of the population of Iowa to give Open Borders Free Trader Hucky his 'historic victory'.
This is no defense of 'Democrats'. Their policies now are openly aimed at white child ethnic cleansing and economic genocide.
The best outcome for white people this year will be for the GOP to be politically erased from existence.
I suspect there is a sociological "vision of the annointed" sort of reason why neocons get along well with the kind of people, mostly establishment liberals, who run most of the media. I think the folks at the New York Times can get along with someone like Kristol, where they just *couldn't* get along with, say, Pat Buchanan.
It will be doubly hard for the GOP to wean itself off the neocons because anybody who points out the mere fact of neocon money and media influence is denounced as an anti-Semite.
But the GOP did have a pretty strong base of middle class/non-neocon donor support for a very long time. It had a huge advantage in grassroots, small contri fundraising - middle class folks mailing in $10, $20, or $100 donations. It lost that advantage with Bush's failures and immigration.
Maybe that's another reason neocons are so open borders: so they can make the GOP more dependent on their own financial support.
The GOP simply parasites on whites in areas where white family formation is affordable. This is where the contemptible Zionist rapture cult sect plays its political role, as it did last night in Iowa. It delivered about 0.5% of the population of Iowa to give Open Borders Free Trader Hucky his 'historic victory'.
Indeed. I've always found evangelicals to be mostly likeable people. Not after last night.
When economic concerns are ascendant, social issues get left by the wayside. That's why Huck's policies would be bad for evangelicals. That's why South Carolina, a fairly religious state, might give Huck less support than Iowa: they're more a part of the modern economy than Iowa is.
One of the claims by many neocons is that we invaded Iraq because Saddam violated UN sanctions. If one hates the UN so much, then why should Americans fight to uphold the sanctity of a UN resolution?
I'm glad someone examines his posts. I've been scrolling past them, sorta like I've been scrolling past the mass media for the last five years; at some point you realize your interlocutor isn't remotely interested in your well-being, and you're being programmed subconsciously. You decide, "no more garbage in, thanks." It's the old "drown 'em in paperwork" routine.
Back to the point, YES, neocons love their stupid contradictions almost as much as standard liberals:
1) Iraq's violation of U.N. sanctions motivates and justifies Iraq Attaq 2.
2) The U.N. is anti-American anathema.
3) Israel's violation of U.N. resolutions is a non-issue, except as evidence that the U.N. is anti-Semitic anathema.
This stuff was standard rank-and-file neocon stupidity at least as early as the lead up to Iraq Attaq 2.
Post a Comment