Consider together these two items from today’s VFR: the Maryland anti-profiling plan whereby police in the performance of their duties must invite people to accuse them of racism, and National Review’s open advocacy of the merger of Europe and Islam. These two developments carry to a new and stunning level the twin threats that we face, consisting of the moral delegitimation of our society from within and the cultural and racial destruction of our society from without.

I think the author is forgetting the real reason for Rome’s fall: imperial overstretch.

A correspondent wrote:

“I sincerely hope that the NR article is a parody of the EU, taking its anti-nationalism to its full extent.

“Otherwise, why the heck is this in NR? They are not pro-EU. Neither neo-cons nor paleo-cons like the EU. The unifying factors of the EU are geography socialism and opposition to the US.

“If this is not parody then the editors of NR have published an article supporting everything they are supposed to oppose.”

My reply:

I don’t believe it’s a parody. This article follows on the heels of the establishment conservatives’ victory dance over their success at driving “racism” out of the Republican party in the person of Lott, and thus “restoring the morality” of the Republican party. With the Lott affair, the establishment conservatives have announced a new dispensation. Non-discrimination, the principled elimination of any privilege for whiteness—which means, in practice, the very existence of white majority societies—is now their quasi-religious object, legitimizing their very existence as conservatives and as Americans. The merging of Europe with Muslim North Africa, Egypt, and Turkey fits that agenda.

“I don’t believe it’s a parody. … Non-discrimination, the principled elimination of, [in practical terms], … white majority societies is now [the] … object [of establishment conservatives] … . The merging of Europe with Muslim North Africa, Egypt, and Turkey fits that agenda.”

You really have to wonder what is going through the minds of white Euro Christian élites both here and in Europe who don’t vigorously, decisively oppose this. They could bring this agenda screeching to a halt in about ten minutes. We on VFR who have no power can only stand and watch, our mouths agape, as the Tranzi juggernaut crushes all that lies before it. From the mid-eighties, when I discovered “National Review,” I idolized Bill Buckley. I loved him. Now, I have only contempt for him.

Mr. Auster, what is the right way to answer those individuals among the neo-cons who deeply believe that the assertion by a country of some white Euro Christian nationality or other — say, for example, Austria, Portugal, England, Denmark, or whatever — is intrinsically anti-Semitic?

Is it intrinsically anti-Semitic?

If it is, then how do we have one that’s not?

(I ask this in relation to the neo-cons because, though leftists such as Prof. Chomsky, Prof. Ignatiev, and Christopher Hitchens believe it even more than neo-cons do, it’s easier for us at VFR to mind-read neo-cons than leftists.)

I think this is a very serious problem, as I suggested in http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001041.html.. I do believe there is a kind of madness at work in the neocons. In some respects they are quite rational, among the more rational people on the scene today, but in other areas they refuse to think. You raise certain issues with them, and it’s not as though they think about it and disagree with you, but rather that your words simply don’t register with them. I know this because over the years I have made something of a personal campaign to contact Jewish neoconservatives personally from time to time and challenge them on these issues.

I don’t have any new thoughts about it at the moment beyond what I said to a neocon journalist in this recent post: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001086.html

As an optimistic friend suggested, the fact that the neocon didn’t reply to my follow-up may indicate that what I said was new to him and perhaps he was thinking about it.

Also, I don’t blame just the neocons. I believe that the prominence and popularity in the immigration restrictionist movement of a resolute opponent of Israel like Patrick Buchanan (even those who deny that he has an animus against Jews cannot honestly deny that he is an enemy of Israel), combined with the tendency of many on the right to defend Buchanan and the Buchananites from any criticism on this score, has a devastating effect on getting immigration restrictionist positions listened to in the respectable mainstream. Our side is automatically discredited. That’s why I feel that there must be a culturally traditionalist right in existence that is absolutely clear of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism if our side is to get anywhere. Yet many many people on the paleo and traditionalist right remain quite resistant to seeing this. So there is a serious problem not just with the neocons but with our own, traditionalist, side.

Unadorned, how on earth could an expression or desire for self-preservation on the part of any Euro-Christian nation be construed as anti-Semitism by a rational person? Yet, the actions and positions of some Jewish neocons along with those Jewish leftists who make an “unpricipled exception” to the notion of abolishing nationhood seems driven by that very idea - irrational though it may be. I was attempting a similar question in my response to the Fox-Hedgehog dialog on an earlier thread: (http://www.couterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001100.html)

“The Fox/Hedgehog allegory is a disturbing description of the argument made by some Jewish-American neocons and leftists on the “national question.” I would change the Fox’s final line to read: “As I said at the start, Israel may be closed, along with Latin America, Africa, and Asia. ‘Tis America, England and the old lands of Christendom that must forever be open.” To be fair, some of the neocons wish to add the Islamic lands to this list of nations to be punished by abolition through multiculturalism. In general though, the underlying impulse would appear to be a desire to carry out the ideas of Noel Ignatiev on one level or another. I’ve never read anything from a neocon like the fox described above which advocated the opening of China, or Mexico, by way of example. Only the US, England (and the white-majority colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and Europe itself are targeted.

What exactly is driving this destructive desire? Is there some sort of thirst for cosmic revenge against all Euro-Christian civilzation and peoples? Are they buying into Goldhagen’s idea that the Holocaust is rooted in Christianity, and that all Europeans are responsible in some way? The fox’s view comes frighteningly close to advocating genocide - though the fox is clever enough to avoid stating it so bluntly as Mr. Ignatiev. The hard leftists in Israel are at least consistent within their own leftist worldview - they want to get rid of all nation-sates, including their own. The Gentile elites in Europe (especially) and the US (to a lesser degree) seem to share the globalist ideal. If the underlying impulse of the the neocons and unpricipled Jewish leftists (Abe Foxman) who support Israel’s existence while working for the destruction of certain other nations is truly genocidal in nature, is it a genocide against Christians (or perceived Christians) or against whites (as with Ignatiev)? This double standard is glaring and not easily explained away. It certainly needs serious confrontation.

If it is a desire to wipe out Christianity, these folks are in for a very rude awakening. Even if they are successful in eradicating America, England, and all the old lands of Christendom, Christianity is gaining much ground in the third world. It’s not the Spong-like parody of Christianity found throughout the west, either. With a population approaching 2 billion, Christianity is going to be well-nigh impossible to get rid of. On the other hand, if the goal is the more achievable one eradicating the white race - genocide in the purest sense of the term - this could end up backfiring in a huge way and add much fuel to the anti-Semites who are presently marginalized and confined amongst the tin-foil hatters in the white societies - though they now seem to be finding a new home with the neocons’ former comrades in the left.”

The Trazi-left’s desire is to abolish nation-states altogether, starting with all Western states, Israel included. Once that goal is achieved, eliminating the various third-world states shouldn’t pose much of a challenge, as most are economic basket cases anyway. The NR writer appears to be a Tranzi, more than anything. Israel would presumably be a part of his new Roman Empire along with the various North African Arab states.

Tehari’s piece is so wrong, on so many levels, that it wouldn’t even be worth comment, were it not for the fact that it was published on “America’s Premiere Conservative Website”.

What the piece illustrates is mainstream conservatism’s worship of state power and trade, to the exclusion of culture and community and religion. For so-called “mainstream” conservatives, the ideal state exists apart from and above its subjects, unsullied by the concerns of actual communities and actual citizens. The state’s job is to promote free trade, in as pure a form as possible. The further a trading system extends geographically, the more it approaches the ideal. Therefore a trading bloq should not limit itself to those states who belong to a common culture or civilization. Rather, it should extend as far, geographically, as possible, ignoring civilizational boundaries. This would perhaps be acceptable if neocons limit themselves to the flow of goods, but in their idealized world, interfering in the flow of labor is equivalent to interfering with trade.

This system sounds as if it would require only a minimal state, but in fact it requires a strong centralized state — like the Roman empire - to overcome any local resistance to the flow of trade and especially to the flow of people.

The irony here is that these type of views are taken to be objective, uninfluenced by parochialism or “xenophobia”. But a good case can be made that those that tend to hold these views belong to an ethnic group — what Samuel Huntington called “Davos People”, after the Swiss (?) ski resort where the elite meet to plan our world. They are often non-westerners who are either exhiled from their homelands or who prefer the comforts of ex-Christendom. They have, of course, been educated in the west. They lack roots in a real community — even though they are non-Western they are blind to the realities of non-Western society “on the ground”. Some examples; Fouad Ajami, Edward Said, V.S. Naipaul, etc. They typically plump for policies that would benefit themselves — like free immigration of third worlders into the first world — while pretending to be disinterested parties fighting “xenophobia” “bigotry” etc.

For an interesting list of such “Davos People” and their western fellow travelers, click on the link to benadora.com at the end of the Tehari NRO article, and then click on the benadora associates “experts” list.

Tehari’s piece is so wrong, on so many levels, that it wouldn’t even be worth comment, were it not for the fact that it was published on “America’s Premiere Conservative Website”.

What the piece illustrates is mainstream conservatism’s worship of state power and trade, to the exclusion of culture and community and religion. For so-called “mainstream” conservatives, the ideal state exists apart from and above its subjects, unsullied by the concerns of actual communities and actual citizens. The state’s job is to promote free trade, in as pure a form as possible. The further a trading system extends geographically, the more it approaches the ideal. Therefore a trading bloq should not limit itself to those states who belong to a common culture or civilization. Rather, it should extend as far, geographically, as possible, ignoring civilizational boundaries. This would perhaps be acceptable if neocons limit themselves to the flow of goods, but in their idealized world, interfering in the flow of labor is equivalent to interfering with trade.

This system sounds as if it would require only a minimal state, but in fact it requires a strong centralized state — like the Roman empire - to overcome any local resistance to the flow of trade and especially to the flow of people.

The irony here is that these type of views are taken to be objective, uninfluenced by parochialism or “xenophobia”. But a good case can be made that those that tend to hold these views belong to an ethnic group — what Samuel Huntington called “Davos People”, after the Swiss (?) ski resort where the elite meet to plan our world. They are often non-westerners who are either exhiled from their homelands or who prefer the comforts of ex-Christendom. They have, of course, been educated in the west. They lack roots in a real community — even though they are non-Western they are blind to the realities of non-Western society “on the ground”. Some examples; Fouad Ajami, Edward Said, V.S. Naipaul, etc. They typically plump for policies that would benefit themselves — like free immigration of third worlders into the first world — while pretending to be disinterested parties fighting “xenophobia” “bigotry” etc.

For an interesting list of such “Davos People” and their western fellow travelers, click on the link to benadora.com at the end of the Tehari NRO article, and then click on the benadora associates “experts” list.

Mr. Young, I would argue that the “Davos People” you mentioned are simply a subset of a larger group who have been labeled “Transnational Progressives” by John Fonte. The basic ideal: one world with total “free trade” governed by a ruling elite at the controls of an all-powerful centralized super-state. All ethnicity, culture and religious particularism to be dissolved in the name of progress (i.e. utopia).

” … European … demographic composition is in deep crisis. All but four of the 15 original members of the European Union are facing a population decline. At least three — Germany, Italy, and Spain — may even disappear as nations before the end of the century. By most conservative estimates, the EU needs at least 1.2 million new immigrants each year to preserve its demographic balance.” — Amir Taheri

You’re dead-wrong, Amir. That thing in the known universe which the EU needs LEAST is 1.2 million Arab immigrants a year. The EU doesn’t even need one Arab immigrant per hundred billion trillion millenniums. The EU doesn’t need Arab immigrants. Period.

It needs simply to adopt pro-natality measures for the individual European countries so they can reproduce themselves — something which is very easily done, and should have been done forty years ago. The solution to low birth rates is to raise birthrates by easing the many government policies that depress birthrates.

The solution most emphatically is NOT the Tranzi one of changing Germany, Italy, and Spain into Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya. (Ever notice how Tranzis never want to change Tunisia, Algeria, or Libya into Germany, Italy, or Spain — somehow these changes can only go in one direction. Gee … I wonder why that is … )

Sorry, Amir, you complete charlatan — but it was a nice try. You get an A for effort (and an an F for content).

Shame on “National Review” for publishing toilet paper and calling it journalism! “National Review” gets an F, for TOTAL ABJECT FAILURE.

Since Mr. Auster quoted me, I should chime in.

There is nothing inherently anti-Semitic with European Nationalisms, nor should there be.
However, historically European Nationalists defined all Jews as outside of their volk, even the assimilationist and Liberal (19th century) Jews.
For instance Hungarian and Polish Nationalist became overtly anti-Semitic despite the initial involvement of many Jews in the independence movements.
There is an 1800 year history behind all this. Jews have been in Europe longer than the Germans (Goths-including Franks and Vandals), and Hungarians. For most of that period Jews have been the designated “other.” They have been pawns between occupiers and occupied, serfs and lords, and various empires.
Jewish fear of European nationalism is well founded. Unfortunately, it has meant that since the revolutions of 1848, most Jews have opposed local nationalisms.
The allegiances between various nationalists and local religious leaders cemented the cycle of distrust.

Frankly, this should change. The European nationalist right is the one thing that stands in the way of the Muslim hordes and the anti-Israel EU.
Unfortunately, the European nationalist right is fractured. The Far Right :Le Pen, Austrian Freedom Party, BNP, German Republikaners and the Polish Peasants Party: are anti-US, anti-Israel (those two seem to go together in European politics) and have anti-Semitic members.

On the other hand, the Danish Peoples Party and Swedish Moderate Party are not anti-Semitic. Actually, my Aunt (a Macedonian-Swede who converted to Judaism) and my first cousin are both city council members from the Moderate Party.

If European Nationalists wish to stop being tainted with anti-Semitism, then they need to support their Israeli counterparts and expel the neo-Nazis.

All I’m going to say is that I’m sickened that an article of this nature has been published by National Review. What is going on in their heads?

I don’t see evidence that Pat Buchanan’s views will have any effect “on getting immigration restrictionist positions listened to [or not listened to] in the respectable mainstream.” First, I am not sure there is an identifiable mainstream. Second, few more are going to listen to Pat even if Pat stopped writing about Israel. Pat will then be called anti-Semitic for his failure to speak up for Israel, be called racist because of his potential support for restricting immigration from Muslim countries and because of his race and religion, and be called an isolationist for his various positions that are consistent with isolationism.

His critics (which include many on the right) will always have something negative to say about Pat because Pat is a visible focal point for almost everyone’s rage over one thing or the other. Pat is America’s whipping boy because he is the most visible white Christian that is against mass immigration by non-white non-Christians and is possibly in favor of the demographics of the 1960’s. The left (laced with anti-Semites) doesn’t call Pat an anti-Semite because they believe he is but because the right calls him an anti-Semite.

Certainly Pat will remain the whipping boy as long as his supporters remain silent and his potential allies criticize him. Bill Clinton could not have been elected president if his black and female supporters had chosen not to ignore his amoral character. Any reasonable person should know the Clintons stand for nothing but their re-elections. Yet all their racism, anti-Semitism, abortionism, criminality, and Bill’s misogyny is wisely pushed aside in the spirit of “united we stand, divided we fall.” No in depth analysis of Bill or Hillary is necessary to reveal any of these truths about them. But the right and the left scrutinize and criticize Pat’s writings with equal fervor for any taint of anti-Semitism or racism.

Pat can’t merely have unfair (according to some) views about Israel and maybe other things; he must be an anti-Semite if he consistently criticizes Israel. And even if he is somewhat anti-Semitic, his critics will find him unacceptable as an ally because he is impure.

Auster wrote: “That’s why I feel that there must be a culturally traditionalist right in existence that is absolutely clear of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism if our side is to get anywhere.”

It truly depends on your definition of “anti-Israelism.” It sounds like a rather subjective monker.

Does any criticism of Israel constitute such a label? Am I to assume it illegitimate or inappropriate to take issue with the State of Israel’s socialist tendency or its constant call for Johnny Pollards release? If so, your “feeling” reeks of PCism and is unacceptable for any traditionalist conservative to espouse. Traditionalist conservatives as the principled conservatives should act in good faith and fairplay not by ideology. Perceived insensitivity must not trump rationality…Truly good friends offer criticism and also take it without resentment…

Regarding MJK’s comment, anyone who could still say at this point that people are unfairly called anti-Semitic merely for “taking issue with the State of Israel’s socialist tendency or its constant call for Johnny Pollards release” is so deep in denial that he doesn’t deserve a reply. If MJK wants to return to the planet Earth and acknowledge the actual statements made about Israel by people on the antiwar right for which they have been called anti-Semitic, then maybe a discussion would be possible.

Ron Lewenburg wrote “If European Nationalists wish to stop being tainted with anti-Semitism, then they need to support their Israeli counterparts and expel the neo-Nazis. “

I take it you mean from the political parties?

Anyway even if the anti-semitism was purged, the charges of racism would surely still remain to be used by tranzies in the propaganda war.

I like the new attitude, Larry. Those of us who have some grasp of reality need to stop trying to engage our opponents in some conceptual never-never land, where all our efforts are futile becuase we are arguing about pure concepts with no relationship to the reality of the events that give birth to threads such as this one. Don’t get sucked into that game anymore.

Stephen writes: “Anyway even if the anti-semitism was purged, the charges of racism would surely still remain to be used by tranzies in the propaganda war.”

While I’m not accusing Stephen of the attitude I’m about to describe, his comment is typical of those who go one step further and say, “Well, they’re going to call us anti-Semitic WHATEVER we do, so we might as well be anti-Semitic.”

We need to understand that it doesn’t matter what the left calls us. The left will always be the left. But it matters a great deal what we people on the right say. If the right can stand on honesty and principle and remain clear of anti-Semitism, that same honesty and principle will give it the ability to lead. But if the right continues to have the mentality of a resentful adolescent, whining that it is not subject to morality because its ENEMIES always use a false, PC notion of morality against it, then the right will never lead. It will remain reactive, negative, and marginalized.

I’m not saying that the approach I’ve outlined is guaranteed to make the right win, far from it. But I am saying that my approach is an indispensable condition to the right having any chance at all of winning.

Auster wrote: Regarding MJK’s comment, anyone who could still say at this point that people are unfairly called anti-Semitic merely for “taking issue with the State of Israel’s socialist tendency or its constant call for Johnny Pollards release” is so deep in denial that he doesn’t deserve a reply. If MJK wants to return to the planet Earth and acknowledge the actual statements made about Israel by people on the antiwar right for which they have been called anti-Semitic, then maybe a discussion would be possible.

Earth calling Larry…which is it? Distinctions are vital here.

It appears you are manifesting symptoms that you previously attributed to so-called neocons: “In some respects they are [neocons]quite rational, among the more rational people on the scene today, but in other areas they refuse to think. You raise certain issues with them, and it’s not as though they think about it and disagree with you, but rather that your words simply don’t register with them.”

In your tortured logic, there is apparently no distinction between making critical statements about the State of Israel and espousing ethnic enmity towards a specific group. You need to get real. There is a major distinction and it’s intellectually dishonest to proffer the position you espouse. Distinctions are essential, especially when it comes to labeling people out of a conversation with the application of such a devisive term…

Well, I think Mr. Auster has been quite clear that he is talking about an extreme unprincipled point of view on the right that, for example, makes excuses for Palestinian suicide bombers and supports the polemic of Shiekh Muhammad Al-Gamei’a. Gamei for example propogates the idea that 9-11 was a Jewish conspiracy. I suppose if someone hadn’t followed the threads closely that might not be as obvious as it is to me, though, and Mr. Auster has only established that SOME on the right fit the extreme POV he is addressing rather than that such a POV is pervasive on the right. I think part of the point there is that if it is NOT pervasive then why the heck aren’t we policing our own? But maybe MJK’s suggestion of a more moderate tone to the discussion is appropriate, especially if the notion is to make distinctions with objective moral clarity.

First Mr. Auster says the traditionalists are being discredited because of supposed anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli beliefs and later says it does not matter what the left says. Who that matters is doing the discrediting? I suppose he means the Bush supporters, but I want to be sure.

If it is the Bush supporters, then the question becomes should we be seeking support from the Bush supporters who want to destroy American culture but save Israeli and Muslim cultures in the Middle East and Europe?

Throughout history it has been necessary for allies to suffer the other’s allegiance in order to fight a common menace. If allies are not gathered, the result can be defeat. Cultures don’t always have a choice over their allies. So my point is that we should consider allying with persons who might be anti-Israel.

These are arguments not strident “you are wrong, I am right” rantings. They deserve a response even thought it is understood that time pressures will not always permit a response.

I am not sure whom Mr. Auster is accusing of whining, but if he is going to start name-calling, he should at least identify his victim. Finally, if matters can’t be discussed without name-calling and snobbery, there is really no point to discussion.

Mr. Murgos, I think Mr. Auster is simply saying that the first concern of any political movement which hopes to succeed must be to make itself and its ideas as true and as moral as is humanly possible, for anything less will condemn it to failure as surely as that the sun will rise tomorrow.

In reply to Mr. Murgos, I didn’t mean that the Bush supporters’ charges of anti-Semitism do matter while the left’s charges don’t. I meant that if we on the right can present ourselves to the world on the sort of principled basis that I described, then (1) it will harder for people of whatever persuasion to keep calling us untrue names, and (2) we ourselves will be better able to participate in the leadership of society because we won’t be bent out of shape in the reactive resentment that characterizes so many on today’s right, including some of the leading figures of the antiwar right.

Seriously, can Mr. Murgos imagine a person who appears on television talk shows and turns beet-red in his hostility to Israel to be taken seriously by anyone outside a small fringe of American society?

Look at the number of people on the right whose sole, absolutely predictable response to this debate is to bleat: “If you say anything critical of Israel, you’re called an anti-Semite.” People who still maintain, after all that’s been manifested in the world in the last couple of years, that the only thing that’s being done against Israel and Jews—and the only thing for which people are called anti-Semitic—is mere “criticism of Israel” (!!) place themselves outside any rational discussion. They are no more capable of rational discussion of the subject than Muslims who deny the existence of Muslims terrorism are capable of discussing terrorism.

Mr. Murgos himself characterizes my statements about anti-Semitism as “name-calling,” which plainly implies that nothing should ever be called anti-Semitic. According to him, there is no such thing as anti-Semitism, there is only name-calling which pretends that anti-Semitism exists. Does Mr. Murgos believe such a point of view will ever widely accepted in America?

If Mr. Murgos is concerned that my approach creates division and polarization, let me say that I do not intend to go on some campaign insisting that people agree with me, and attacking them if they don’t. I will, however, continue to say what I think is right. To say what you think is right is inavoidably to say that other things are wrong. That’s what politics is, the discussion of what is the good.

I appreciate Mr. Auster’s response, and I hope he realizes that I consider myself a student and a guest.

I don’t believe that merely because someone criticizes Israel they will be called anti-Semites. I believe that if they criticize Israel regularly and maybe even take sides against Israel sometimes (and sometimes support Israel), they are not necessarily anti-Semites.

I do believe there is such a thing as anti-Semitism. I think the word anti-Semite can be used as long as it is used sparingly. I also think that not using the word is reasonable under certain circumstances. For example, if a commentator says things such as Jews are dirty or Judaism is evil or Jews were behind 911, the commentator would be an anti-Semite. Resentment against Israel or frustration over lack of Jewish support for the right should not be classified as anti-Semitism, and I admit you have said as much. I know we are all tired of the similar discussion ended a couple of days earlier so I won’t continue.

The name-calling I was talking about was “whining” and the snobbery of a dismissive tone.

My main question is why must the traditionalists present themselves with a clear principled doctrine and without unsavory allies while the left and the Bushites never have and never will? I am not complaining, I just want to know so I can act knowledgeably.

Mr. Auster, I’m having a hard time seeing how political opposition to the actions or policies of the state of Israel or to America’s support of Israel—even to the point of siding with Israel’s enemies and applauding the terror-bombing of Israeli citizens (supposing that to be true, anyway)—makes one, ipso facto, an anti-Semite.

Suppose there were two Jewish states, and a person held the exact same views as, say, Buchanan, toward one of the states yet supported the other. Would that person be an anti-Semite? Even if he went so far as to actually applaud the suicide-bombing of citizens of the first state, wouldn’t his support for the second state indicate that his opposition to the first was political and not racial in origin?

Thus, my question: what have Buchanan or others on the anti-war right done or said that would make you think he/they would never support a Jewish state—any Jewish state—simply because it is Jewish? Maybe you have such evidence, I don’t know, but if you do it would certainly help to clear the air for me if you’d present it.

Before I reply to the latest comments, I want to say that after some other recent threads dealing in a sometimes contentious way with the anti-Semitism issue, I thought we had put it aside for a while, and, furthermore, this current article was about Europe and Islam and had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Then I was asked in a follow-up comment how conservatives should deal with the charge of anti-Semitism, and I (perhaps foolishly) replied, and so here we are again, where I didn’t want to be.

Now to Mr. Murgos’s question:

“Why must the traditionalists present themselves with a clear principled doctrine and without unsavory allies while the left and the Bushites never have and never will?”

While I’m not sure about the moral equation between the Bushites with the left, my first response is that Mr. Murgos’s question is like asking: “Since criminals break the law, why shouldn’t the police”? Or, “Since the U.S.S.R has created a totalitarian slave society and criminalized Christianity and wiped out traditional cultures, why shouldn’t we?” The answer, obviously, is that we stand for our civilization and its values, while the left is trying to destroy our civilization and its values. To defend our civilization means to defend it, not to abandon it and violate it because that’s what the left does.

As for Jim Newland’s questions, with all due respect I feel he is being a more than a little sophistic here. Who has ever said that to be anti-Semitic means that one must be, Hitler-like, systematically against all Jews existing anywhere or against any hypothetical Jewish state existing anywere? Yet that is the surreal premise of Mr. Newland’s question.

We’ve talked about this issue so much already in recent discussion and there is plenty of data already on the table about the kinds of behaviors that are considered (a) sufficiently anti-Jewish and (b) sufficiently immoral to be called anti-Semitic. At some point I will have to write a more systematic article on anti-Semitism, with definitions and specific examples. I started something like that, but it’s too large a project for the moment.

Let’s get back to the original subject. National Review wants Europe, Turkey, and North Africa to be one region. How long before NR wants North and South America to converge with “no Borders?”

This may be our major problem. “Conservatives” with notions like this at practically every “Conservative” magazine.

Thanks to David for returning us to the subject of the article. I agree that the establishment conservatives are not far from the sort of thing he is suggesting. A year ago Henry Hyde, an honorable and courageous conservative, advocated an expanded NAFTA embracing the entire Western hemisphere (and the proposal may have been more radical than that, I forget at the moment). Borderlessness, globalism, integration, all these things are in the air today, and anyone who is a part of the establishment becomes influenced by them.

The Taheri piece also appeared in the Arab News, “Saudi Arabia’s First English Daily”: http://www.arabnews.com/SArticle.asp?ID=21459&sct=Taheri& .