Perle didn’t “call for” the abolition of the U.N. He’s simply writing about what has happened. Your twisting of his words is similar to what you and the neocons do to paleos, as is demonstrated in Gene Callahan’s excellent article today on LewRockwell.com: http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan106.html

Now, before you get on your high horse and denounce me as an anti-American slug and a child molester, know that I am a paleo who is strongly in favor of the current war. I don’t think President Bush is acting from the motives most paleos are ascribing to him, but instead out of a genuine concern for American security. However, I also think it’s equally true that many of the neocons around him do have visions of empire in their heads that perhaps he doesn’t share. Perle is one of them. Nevertheless, it’s not Perle running the show up there, it’s George Bush. Moreover, even if the neocons *are* fans of empire, that at least makes them foes of the U.N. and international tyranny whenever the U.N. stands in their way. So there is common cause between paleos like myself and neocons to just that extent. Whereas I’m deeply troubled by much that our American government has become and does, it would simply be folly to think that it poses *more* of a threat to what remains of our liberties than does Vladimir Putin.

While I’m on the subject: many people seem not to realize what this obstinate opposition of the French, Germans, and Russians to American unilateralism has been all about. But that’s just it, precisely: they are frantic over the prospect of American unilateralism. They’ve all sold their own souls and sovereignty to the devil, and it kills them to see America standing defiantly just outside their clutches. Successful opposition to this war was supposed to cement their hold over the American people; they’ve been building up to this moment for years, and they decided to place all their money on this single bet. They thought the time was right for exercising some authority they imagined they had over the American people—and if the American people had capitulated, that illegitimate but freely granted authority would have been written in stone forever by way of stare decisis. God bless President Bush for calling their bluff and telling them to stick their hubris where the sun don’t shine.

I fail to see what Bubba is so hostile about, since he seems to agree with me on the war and other things. To be specific, what is the bad motive that Bubba ascribes to me in my supposed misrepresentation of Perle’s statement? If I am deliberately twisting things (like a neocon, as Bubba charges), why am I twisting them in this particular way in this particular case? Is it to make neocons look good, in a “paleo” sense, because they are opposing the UN? But I made it clear that their opposition to the UN was in the name of the American-led world order, which the paleos oppose as much as they oppose the UN.

On the substance, it’s true that Perle did not “call for the end of the U.N.” However, I made that clear in the text of the article where I directly quoted him. I also mentioned Charen, who I believe called for U.S. withdrawal from the UN or at least suspension or its membership, and Gelernter, who wrote an article “Present at the Destruction.” Clearly they are calling for, at the least, a major downgrading of the UN and withdrawal of the US from some of its functions. This is a new and very hopeful development (unless, of course, one fears US power and sovereignty equally or more than one fears the UN, which I don’t think is true of Bubba).

Here’s another neocon calling for the end of United States involvement in the UN, which would mean the end of the UN itself. Krauthammer, Washington Post, 3/21/03:

“There were wars and truces and treaties before the United Nations was created—as there will be after its demise. No need to formally leave the organization, Mr. President. Just ignore it. Without us, it will wither away.”

I read the Callahan article. It mostly distorts Frums’ article beyond recognition, and then attacks the distortion. It accuses Frum of ad hominem attacks, and then engages in the very same tactic. It goes on to whitewash the virulent anti-American rantings of Buchanan and Fleming, and defends the Nazi style Jew hating conspiracy theories of sodomite Justin Raimondo.

In short, it’s more evidence that paleolibertarians are increasingly incapable of mounting intelligent arguments for thier stand against America, and further evidence of how far into the gutter their crawling.

The problem with paleos being unable to accept that growing numbers of neocons are calling for either withdrawal from the U.N or at least seriously downgrading it, arises from two issues.

The first is that many paleos simply cannot have an adult rational discussion with neocons. Their too busy foaming at the mouth and seeing Mossad around every corner.

The second is the claim that all neocons are just liberals in conservative drag, and therefore how can they possibly be against the liberal institution of the U.N?

The truth is that neocons divide into two camps, one that is centrist-liberal, and one that is patriotic conservative. When, and if, paleos like Buchanan and Fleming decide to grow up, they might find they have more in common with patriotic neocons than they think.

As to the libertarian anarchists at Lew Rockwell, they gave up on patriotism long ago and are now part of the anti-American adversary culture, firmly allied with the Berkeley based hard left.

The neocon argument for withdrawal from the U.N. seems predicated on maintaining a Republican in the White House, or the next Clinton will simply revive it. An unlikely prospect at best.

The problem with an “American World Order” is that its leaders promote the same democratic universalism as the UN currently subscribes to. Worse, they will take up arms and needlessly risk American lives to do so as they have done in the Balkans. The fact that it is ‘American” makes it no more palatible that if it were done in the name of the UN.

Make no mistake about it, as long as current American elites maintain control of America, the fate of the world under the new “American World Order” is little different than the “New World Order”. It will promote the end of distinctions between all peoples, eradicate their tradition, substitute American degeneracies like Hollywood for real culture, deprive them to right adhere to whatever form of government they see fit and promote open borders. Solzhenitsyn was quite correct in his assessment of present Western Culture during his Harvard Commencement Address. There is no need to drag other nations and peoples into our cultural sewer.

Shawn, you’re obviously “not with it” yet. Don’t you understand that the Callahan article is an authoritative, devastating refutation of Frum, which, if people just took the time to read it, they would understand how utterly false the attacks on the antiwar right really are?

I’m being ironic here because this has happened so often. Every time someone on the antiwar, paleolibertarian, neo-Confederate right gushes: “Read this article! This will explain it to you,” and you go look the article up, it turns out to be worthless tripe that couldn’t persuade anyone who didn’t already share the author’s biases.

Look at the way the Callahan article begins:

—David “I Coin ‘the Axis of Evil’ and My Wife Gets Me Canned for It” Frum has just “taken on” the antiwar right in an article called “Unpatriotic Conservatives.” It is one of the most pathetic pieces of writing ever to appear in National Review, composed almost entirely of illogic and ad hominem attacks. Frum is so distraught at the thought that there is an antiwar right that the ability to form coherent sentences deserts him at times: “But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves ‘conservatives.’”—

So Callahan, after starting off with nothing but ad hominems against Frum and vague characterizations like “pathetic” and “illogic,” charges that Frum’s article consists of ad hominems and illogic. Not a very impressive beginning, nor does it make this reader want to go further. But, if you share Callahan’s view of things, as Bubba does, it’s nothing less than “excellent.”

Here’s another Callahan paragraph chosen at random:

—Yearning for defeat: Frum contends that Eric Margolis was “yearning for defeat” when he advised the Arab world on how to “prevent a war of aggression against Iraq.” But Margolis was writing about how to prevent war, not how to beat the US in a war. I am sure he realizes that even a united Arab world could not prevent the US from taking over Iraq if it attacked. He was simply hoping to forestall the attack. So were most of the other people in the world. Once again, there is a complete mismatch between the charge and the evidence.—

Margolis was in fact was egging on our enemies on ways to increase their power against us, to cripple our economy through an oil boycott, to rally the world against us, to alienate our allies from us, to humiliate us, and to paralyze our ability to act in our own defense. To call this “wishing defeat” is putting it mildly. What Margolis was saying amounted to treason. Here is Frum’s paragraph quoting Margolis in full:

“Yearning for defeat: On January 30, 2002, Eric Margolis, the American-born foreign editor of the Toronto Sun, appealed to the leaders of the Arab world to unite in battle against the U.S. ‘What could Arabs do to prevent a war of aggression against Iraq that increasingly resembles a medieval crusade? Form a united diplomatic front that demands U.N. inspections continue. Stage an oil boycott of the U.S. if Iraq is attacked. Send 250,000 civilians from across the Arab World to form human shields around Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Boycott Britain, Turkey, Kuwait, and the Gulf states that join or abet the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Withdraw all funds on deposit in U.S. and British banks. Accept payment for oil only in Euros, not dollars. Send Arab League troops to Iraq, so that an attack on Iraq is an attack on the entire League. Cancel billions worth of arms contracts with the U.S. and Britain. At least make a token show of male hormones and national pride.’”

” … [N]eocons divide into two camps, one that is centrist-liberal, and one that is patriotic conservative.” — Shawn

Shawn, but the problem seems to be there are too few in the second group. You can count them on the fingers of one … well … on the fingers of one finger: Irving Kristol (he seems to be about it).

Jason Eubanks, I found your entire post (of 7:03 PM) to be right on target: excellent post, although the final sentence did seem a bit harsh toward the United States. Most VFR readers will know, nevertheless, what you meant by that last remark and, sadly, will have to admit you were right in many respects. Columnist Mona Charen took up a closely-related bit of subject-matter in a column a year ago, entitled, “The Woman Question,” Jan. 4, 2002. (The URL address, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen.html ,goes to her latest column, at the bottom of which clicking on “Mona Charen Archives” and then scrolling down takes you to the old column in question).

Unadorned,

“but the problem seems to be there are too few in the second group. You can count them on the fingers of one … well … on the fingers of one finger: Irving Kristol (he seems to be about it).”

You may well be right. However after years of not even bothering to read neocons on the basis that I was convinced that Buchanan was right and that they were the Devil incarnate ( a self censorship and deliberate self imposed ignorance for which I am ashamed), I am weary of throwing them all into the liberal camp. Especially as I often seem to get thrown into that camp myself by some paleos and traditionalists, largely because my political thinking is deeply informed by the Reformation, which was according to some a liberal-left event.
Because of that, and my own chagrin for having wrongly dismissed them out of hand, I am willing to give neocons the benifit of the doubt.

Shawn having done the courtesy of respectfully noticing my comment, I’ll do the courtesy of admitting I was exaggerating in saying the neocon members of the second camp could be counted on the fingers of one finger. Also: I clarify that in deeming most neocons ineligible for Shawn’s “patriotic conservative” camp, I judged on the basis of their insufficient *conservatism,* not on anything supposedly the matter with their *patriotism,* which I don’t impugn. I just wish neocons were actually more conservative than their name suggests. Apart from their fanatical opposition to bringing immigration under reasonable control, itself a grave, unforgivable defect in them, they have committed numerous other sins whereof we all can cite a few that rankle us, I dare say. I’ll cite as one of a great many their astonishingly vicious attack on Trent Lott for what clearly was an innocent comment, an attack whereby they revealed much more that was bad about themselves than about him.

I long loathed Trent Lott for his ineffectualness as Senate Majority Leader — for seeming to squander opportunity-after-opportunity to advance the conservative agenda, time after frustrating, heart-breaking time. He was a deal-maker; a compromiser where a little application of principle and backbone now and again would’ve made so many of his “giving-the-whole-store-away” compromises with the Dems unnecessary. But he lacked those two qualities: principle and backbone. I frankly coudn’t STAND the guy, who did next to nothing to advance our side — the VFR side. And I won’t even TALK ABOUT the way he, to his everlasting shame, rendered Clinton’s impeachment trial a farce, rigging it so there would be absolutely no possibility a guilty verdict by the Senate.

But I didn’t hate, loathe, despise, detest, and spit on the man and consider him no better than a nazi merely for his being a Southerner who wasn’t constantly on his knees apologizing for that accident of birth (an accident of birth which, had it befallen ME, would make me exceedingly PROUD, it so happens).

THAT sick, wrong, low, bigoted hatred was harbored by William Kristol, and by others like him.

“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

Micheal Ledeen, _The War Against the Terror Masters_.

Leninesque, no?

Unadorned, thanks for this post as well as your support for a post of mine on another thread. It’s funny how the “conservative” pundits went crazy denouncing Trent Lott, whom I never cared for either. The same people almost never say a peep against the Mexicans who boast that they will take the Southwest away from America.

Unadorned, I don’t think our views are far apart. In giving neocons the benifit of the doubt, and recognising that some of them are genuine conservatives, I am not signing on to everything they say or believe. My views on economics and immigration are still the same as Buchanans America First proposals, so that puts me well outside the neocon camp.

Ledeen’s embrace of “creative destruction” is extremely objectionable if taken as a general cultural/global strategy for America, as I’ve told him myself. If taken as a specific agenda with regard to specific things that need destroying, e.g. the Hussein regime, I’m all for it.

Furthermore, Ledeen’s current importance is not as a neo-Jacobin political thinker, but as an analyst of the Terror Masters and the threat they pose. More and more evidence supports his thesis that certain states including Iran, Iraq, and Syria cooperate in a network supporting the terrorist groups. So his larger political ideology, which I oppose, doesn’t matter to me; what matters is whether his argument about the Terror Masters is true.

Here’s Linda Chavez joining the growing neoconservative chorus on the desirability of leaving (which would mean shutting down) the UN, on the grounds that it threatens U.S. sovereignty:

“It’s time the United States considers quitting the United Nations. In the past, only the right-wing fringe argued for pulling out of the U.N….

“Writing in the Wall Street Journal this week, American Enterprise Institute scholar Joshua Muravchik argued that France’s veto threat actually rescued the United States from a serious blunder, namely creating ‘a presumption that Security Council approval is the necessary prerequisite for the use of American force abroad,’ which he claimed ‘would have posed incalculable dangers to world peace in the long term.’

“Mr. Muravchik is right. The best way to be sure we are never tempted to do so in the future would be to withdraw our support altogether. If we are not prepared to do that, we could at least continue to withhold payments, give our excellent Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte a new job befitting his talents, and downgrade our representation and participation in this feckless institution. Pretending that the United Nations is worthy of our unqualified support is not in our nation’s best interest.”

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030322-1089544.htm

I think it was on Friday that the Wall Street Journal called on America to withdraw from the UN’s Security Council. So perhaps this is part of a growing trend among conservatives.