So is Auster posting this rant by Mona Charen to avoid answering questions about faulty intelligence and the failure to uncover large quantites of WMD? Notice that Charen never says that we have removed a major threat to America, or that the soldiers who fought and died gave their lives in defense of their country. She lauds the demise of the Hussein regime as an end in itself, and pushes the real reason for the war into the background.

These seem to be the emerging talking points among the pro-war neoconservative establishment: just mention how horrific Hussein’s regime was, emphasize the liberation of the Iraqi people, and just ignore the fact that the Bush Administration lied through its teeth in leading us to war. Now it is probably true the that the world is much better off without Saddam. However, that is an easy assessment for chickenhawks to make because they paid no costs — made no sacrifice — to rid the world of Hussein. Now, imagine if we could go back in time and tell the US servicemen who lose their lives in this war that Iraq doesn’t have any WMD, that he is no threat to America, that ridding the world of Hussein is not urgent, and that losing your life will not make America safer. Do you think they would still be willing to sacrifice their lives just to maybe make Iraq a nicer place for a years? It is easy for all the little chickenhaws — like Sean Hannity — to say that toppling Hussein’s regime was good for the world, but what costs did he suffer to rid the world of Hussein? None. If someone asked him would you be willing to sacrifice one of your children’s lives to get rid of Hussein, do you think he would still say yes?

So all the chickenhawk neoconservative bluster about how wonderful a world without Hussein is a betrayal of our servicemen who lost their lives. On the way into war they were told by the neocons that their sacrifice would make America safer — remember that stuff about mushroom clouds? — but on the way out they are being told their sacrifice was maybe to make Iraq a nice place for a few years. Who knows what will happen in Iraq? Maybe the Shi’ite majority will take hold and we will have another Islamic state that really supports terrorism. Maybe Iraq will dissolve into three separate provinces and be ruled by tribal thugs. Regardless of what happens, it shows the immense shamelessness of neocons who will re-write history and deceive the servicemen who died just so they can claim a “victory” for George Bush.

Whether the world is grateful for the closing down of the torture chamber will probably ultimately depend on what the torture chamber’s own former inmates think. Many of them seem a good deal less grateful than one would expect (although the statements by the Arab journalists quoted in the article are encouraging). If Iraq ends up under either a new Islamist tyranny or a long-term U.S. occupation, this ingratitude will presumably grow. In the absence of WMDs, the war will then not look justified in retrospect, will it?

“and just ignore the fact that the Bush Administration lied through its teeth in leading us to war.”

This is itself a lie, one Mr Weller makes with no evidence to support it. The administration had a large number of good strategic reasons for invading Iraq, and despite the evidence showing that Iraq was a state sponser of terrorism, Mr Weller would have had us do nothing about this. Apparently Mr Weller was in another country on Sept.11.

On that day war was declared against the United States (so when Mr Weller talks about Bush leading us to war he is wrong). This war is being carried out by a loose network of non-government organisations like Al-Qaeda (soon to be joined by HAMAS and Hizbollah), and a group of supporting states who financially sponser these organisations, namely the former Iraqi regime, Iran and Syria, with elements inside Pakistan and Suadi Arabia.

The traditional conservative position regarding such a decleration of war is to defnd one’s country to the end. Mr Weller and his fellow paleo-cowards, having adopted the ideology of anti-American leftists and post 60’s hippies, have turned this position on its head, and now are advocating surrender and pacifism.

Thankfully Mr Weller and company are not in positions of power, otherwise Osama bin Laden would already be sitting in the Whitehouse directing the global annihilation of the Jewish people.

yup, shawn really hit a doozy of an off-the-wall homerun this time.

I think part of the prudential calculation was that Osama bin Laden specifically said that our failure to finish Hussein proved that we are cowards who won’t bite the bullet and defend ourselves, and therefore we could be attacked with impunity. The only way to falsify that, to kick the legs out from under that Arab conceit which led directly to the falling twin towers, was to go depose Hussein on the ground. As Mr. Hare says, though, whether it will be ultimately viewed as wise or foolish has to wait for the long term.

I think Matt’s construction of Bush’s real rationale for the war is very worthwhile. It is indeed a wholly legitimate reason for our invasion of Iraq, even though it was not presented explicitly. In fact, I’ve never heard the argument made before, or at least so well as Matt made it here, and at more length in another thread:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001484.html#6129

matt’s explanation reminds me of jonah goldberg’s comment: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.”

i was appalled by the comment, and yet auster thinks it’s “a wholly legitimate reason for our invasion of Iraq”.

you know, i’s starting to get the hang of it. let’s try it out on the more local level. let’s go down to ‘negro town’ and kick some butt, “just to show we mean business” and won’t put up with their low i.q. theiving ways.

you know how them negros think, our failure to throw them against the wall proves that we are cowards who won’t bite the bullet and defend ourselves, and therefore we can be attacked with impunity. The only way to falsify this negro notion is to kick the legs out from under that uppity negro conceit.

all those who aren’t for kicking negro butt are against us and no better than thieves.

maybe next time the u.s. could stay a little closer to home and slap around canada. or better yet just head over to nro and slap around that canadian frum for a while.

I actually haven’t said whether I think the Bush rationale was in fact actually justified. I see that as prudentially arguable, and also as a factually sparse domain. I just said what I thought the Bush justification in fact was.

Abby as usual misses the point with a straw man. “Kicking some negro butt” would not be morally justified, but “kicking some criminal butt” would be, even if it happens to be in Harlem or Oakland. The butt kicking may also have other beneficial prophylactic effects on the community, sure. It (the criminal butt-kicking) ought to be welcomed by the law-abiding citizens of that community. Welcome to reality, that objectively illiberal place. Have a nice day.

Again, I am expressing rather than agreeing with the Texan argument that Abby would have to address in order to actually achieve relevance in this discussion. The putative butt-kicking is (the Texan argument goes) morally justified in itself and also increases the security of the innocent for other reasons. The certainty of the former is complete, and the certainty of the latter is a prudential judgement.

Abby writes:
“you know how them negros think, our failure to throw them against the wall proves that we are cowards who won’t bite the bullet and defend ourselves, and therefore we can be attacked with impunity.”

There is some truth in this, by the way. Liberals just don’t want to face it (my paleo friends don’t either, because it has the unfortunate side effect of being aligned with objectively evil neocon ambitions).

It isn’t that many or most Arabs are with the terrorists or that many or most blacks are gangsters. It is that many of the heroes of their respective communities are terrorists and gangsters. Stomping those objectively evil heroes into the dirt is potentially good for security in general and the security and culture of the community in particular. It is also morally justified.

The fact that people like Abby are reduced to defending murderers and criminals in order to sustain a liberal world view is quite telling.

matt,

don’t be a bore, your silly ‘relevance’ or ‘credibility’ argument makes about as much sense as saying abortion is a women’s only issue.

you also didn’t say anything, in your post auster agreed with, about kicking criminal arab butt, only conceited arab butt to prove the u.s. is not a coward.

Posted by Matt at June 11, 2003 03:59 AM
“The fact that people like Abby are reduced to defending murderers and criminals”

get real, your starting to sound as off-the-wall as shawn.

Abby writes:
“you also didn’t say anything, in your post auster agreed with, about kicking criminal arab butt, only conceited arab butt to prove the u.s. is not a coward.”

What I said (speaking with Texan accent (that is, for Bush rather than myself)) was:

“We’ve got several options as to who we can whup with no moral qualms whatsoever.”

and

“Anyone who objects on moral grounds is objectively with the plastic-shredder boys, so screw ‘em.”

I note that Abby is apparently not interested in addressing the putative Texan argument though.

Maybe there is an additional layer of liberal psychoanalysis underneath the incomprehension that meets the Texan argument.

Premise 1: Killing Hussein and deposing his regime is an objective good in itself. No moral justification is necessary for war beyond simply closing down the torture chamber, period, done, QED, end of sufficient moral justification.

Premise 2: There are other regimes where this is equally true. We have no intention of stomping them all into oblivion however, even though that would be morally justified. Our reasons for discriminating between evil tyrants - those we destroy and those we do not - are prudential and are related to our security.

So in the end, the liberal problem with deposing Hussein is that we aren’t treating all genocidal monsters equally. In fact worse still our reasons for treating them unequally have as much to do with PR directed against a particularly problemmatic ethnocultural group — with insuring that the Arabs take us seriously in a way they did not prior to 9-11, in this case - as with anything else. It would be like arresting and making an example of black rapper thug-heroes in order to reduce rioting in black ghettos: possibly smart policy objectively and in any case a prudential judgement; perfectly justified morally; and a deep violation of the liberal need to treat all thugs equally, as if they had no tie to a particular culture or ethnic group. After all (asks the liberal), there are plenty of white criminals out there so why focus on the black rapper thugs in particular? That focus is unnaceptable because of the implication (a true implication, as it turns out) that there is an enthocultural tie to the particular form of criminality that is addressed by the policy. It isn’t just that Hussein is evil; we got rid of him because he was evil and because he was a pan-Arab hero whose defiance of the US was a direct encouragement (at least according to bin Laden himself) of Islamofascist terrorist attacks against Americans.

Ultimately, then, liberal opposition to the Iraq war boils down to ideological multiculturalism. Sure closing down the torture chamber is good all by itself and without further justification, but the fact that we did it as a discrimination for self-interested reasons — racist self-interested reasons no less — makes it unnacceptable.

OK, since I am amusing myself in soliloquoy how does this apply to paleos? Perhaps it has something to do with the modernist tendency to abstraction. Paleos have no intrinsic problem with discrimination, of course. The permanent and the particular are paleo bread and butter.

Part of the problem, I think, is that it isn’t just _any_ permanent or _any_ particular that matter. It is of course Christendom — actual Christendom, or its remnant, that matters. A paleo looks at the Muslim world and sees something that is more particular, more traditional, more illiberal in many ways than our own home and hearth. I have no problem saying that liberalism is evil, blasphemous, and destructive. But I also have no problem saying that Islam is evil, blasphemous, and destructive. The paleo feels a need to protect anything that is traditional-qua-traditional from liberalism (or from the neocons we might say, but that is really just a form of liberalism), not embracing the notion that such an abstraction removes itself from the actuality and concreteness required by an embrace of traditionalism. It isn’t traditionalism-qua-traditionalism that needs to be defended from the liberal Other as the paleo perceives, but rather it is our Christendom or its remnant that needs to be restored through a radical repentance from liberalism. Treating traditionalism-qua-traditionalism as what is important, rather than actual Christendom as what is important over and against both its traditional external enemies and its modern internal enemies, becomes a de-facto multiculturalism: for what is multiculturalism other than a faux-disinterested defense of traditionalism-qua-traditionalism that treats all actual traditions and peoples equally?

Posted by: Matt on June 11, 2003 10:02 PM
“Treating traditionalism-qua-traditionalism as what is important, rather than actual Christendom”

that may be conservativism but it isn’t paleo-conservativism. it’s also why paleos, unlike conservatives, don’t look back fondly on the american 20th century.

paleos take the long view, not the american exceptionalist view. the american exceptionalist view has its roots in american puritanism, not catholicism.

” … what is multiculturalism other than a faux-disinterested defense of traditionalism-qua-traditionalism that treats all actual traditions and peoples equally?” — Matt

The problem is, of course, that when you treat them all equally and mix them all together as the libs want, you lose them completely as distinct entities. Individual leftists have no problem seeing, let’s say, that you lose distinct ice-cream flavors if you do this to them, but can’t seem to grasp that the same thing happens when you do it to distinct nations and ethno-cultures.

Or, correction: you lose all but the most rigid and inflexible ones. These remain least changed. In a mixture of, say, the thin, post-mod, gravely anemic, heavily watered-down, all-but-ready-to-surrender-to-anyone-or-anything Christianity seen today in Holland or the U.K. on the one hand, with convinced, fiery, passionate, inflexible, fanatical life-and-death Islam such as is seen these days brazenly invading Belgium, Holland, the U.K., and the thing that used to be France on the other hand, it will be the Christianity which will bend and surrender, and the Islam which will be least affected.

I don’t think conservatism is a stable well-defined concept, as I’ve explained in other comments. But the intent was to seek the beginning of an explanation for paleo support of Moslems, traditionally the sworn enemy of Christendom. Something that mirrors multicultiralism has to lurk in there somewhere.

I actually agree with Abby about American exceptionalism. I love my kids even though they were born in original sin, and I love my homeland similarly though perhaps - realistically - not as much. American exceptionalism treats America as though she can be redeemed without baptism and other sacraments, or as though she has no need of redemption. The national-political implications nicely mirror the personal implications of such a view, it seems to me.

“Treating traditionalism-qua-traditionalism as what is important, rather than actual Christendom”

An example of this, I suppose, is the National Front starting to ally itself with Muslims and against America. They see America as the homogenizing, globalizing entity, and side with anything that opposes it or that it is perceived as threatening. This is relativism, because it says that whatever is perceived as traditional is good, and whatever is perceived as anti-traditional is bad. If America is fighting against Hussein, one sides with Hussein, because America is anti-traditional.

Paleoconservatism thus becomes an ideology of traditionalism, indeed an ideology of what one might call abstract, universal traditionalism. Such paleoconservatism is to tradition what Wilsonianism is to national self-determination or what liberalism is to equality or what libertarianism is to freedom or what sociobiology is to the selfish gene or what Nazism is to the German race. It defines one part of the total reality as the good, and thus denies objective morality and the transcendent good.

Posted by: Matt on June 11, 2003 10:34 PM
“the intent was to seek the beginning of an explanation for paleo support of Moslems, traditionally the sworn enemy of Christendom”

you might start by looking at charity. the paleo see the infidel for what he is, but also sees his immortal soul reflecting God, its creator.

Charity doesn’t explain the political-military support though. If anything such support interferes with the Moslem’s conversion and the salvation of his soul; so charity can’t be the right place to start in understanding paleo support for e.g. Palestinian suicide bombers.

Abby, may I ask if you view yourself as a variety of conservative? I had you pegged as a liberal but some of what you write doesn’t seem consistent with that (while lots does, perfectly consistent). (Also, I’ve taken you for a woman. Are you one, may I ask?)

Posted by: Matt on June 12, 2003 12:05 AM
“Charity doesn’t explain…Palestinian suicide bombers.”

paleos don’t support suicide bombers, i’m surprised you would even suggest it.

it is interesting you bring the subject up though, because the paleos have a strong distaste for the dispensationalists. all of whom were american exceptionalists with zionism’s roots coming out of such men as darby, scofield, torrey, blackstone and moody.

the dispensationalist position in general, and their israeli exceptionalism, because of their end-times dogma, which places america as israel’s handmaiden in particular, is what chafes the paleo’s catholic and american patriotic soul.

Abby writes:

“paleos don’t support suicide bombers, i’m surprised you would even suggest it”

Its even better than that. Paleos play the leftist “blame the US and apologize for the terrorists” game even with the 9-11 attacks, e.g.:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Fleming/NewsTF091801.htm

I suppose “support” may be too strong a word, though. I retract it, and replace it with “apologize profusely for, excuse at every turn, and generally place blame on Jews and neocons rather than on those who actually perpetrate the bombings”.

Posted by: Matt on June 12, 2003 03:14 AM
“apologize profusely for, excuse at every turn”

Fleming isn’t making excuses for or apologizing for terrorism. all he’s doing is explaing why the u.s. was attacked and why we shouldn’t be surprised if we’re attacked again.

it’s no different than the girl who goes to a night club and gets sloshed shouldn’t complain about waking up in a strange bed. that doesn’t excuse the jerk who took advantage of her, but neither does it excuse the girl’s stupidity.

Fleming is pointing out that because the world is full of jerks, having a dozen too many in the wrong location isn’t very bright; and if the girl doesn’t like the consequences, she should either get her act together or stop bitching.

adding to my above post:

the american exceptionalists would have us believe this air-head of a girl is both a paragon of prudence, and still a virgin no matter how many beds she spent the wee morning hours getting bounced on.

the texan solution to the little lady’s bad behavior is to defend her honor by rounding up all the male patrons at the night club, and to treat them all to the shock & awe of a six shooter.

Abby, that girl who is looking for something other than just sexual adventures can change her behavior so as to stop having nothing but sexual adventures. How does Israel change its behavior so as to stop offending the Arabs (ultimately, it offends them by living and breathing) or the U.S. likewise (it offends them by supporting Israel’s survival)?

Abby compares the people murdered by evil Islamofascists to whores who woke up in a strange bed, and the Islamofascists are just boys being boys?

Abby’s own support for the blasphemous murdering infidel is as good a demonstration as any I could find to quote. As I said, I think an abstract traditionalism that ideologically mirrors multiculturalism may provide at least a beginning explanation of the paleo melt-down.

Matt has brought out some worthwhile things in this discussion. Abby (who by the way does not seem to have much acquaintance with the use of capital letters) speaks of “charity” for Muslims, when, as Matt points out, what she really means is liberal-style, non-judgmental acceptance of them. And, as Matt said in a more recent comment, that attitude would fit perfectly with the notion of an abstract, universal traditionalism. Just as the liberal with his abstract individualism ends up tolerating and making excuses for all types of men and behaviors, especially if they are alien to the norms of our own society, the abstract, universal traditionalist ends up tolerating and making excuses for all types of cultures, especially if they are alien and hostile to our own culture.

Matt:
“the intent was to seek the beginning of an explanation for paleo support of Moslems, traditionally the sworn enemy of Christendom”

Abby:

“you might start by looking at charity. the paleo see the infidel for what he is, but also sees his immortal soul reflecting God, its creator.”

Matt:

“Charity doesn’t explain the political-military support though. If anything such support interferes with the Moslem’s conversion and the salvation of his soul; so charity can’t be the right place to start in understanding paleo support for e.g. Palestinian suicide bombers.”

And here’s another instructive exchange:

Matt said:

“apologize profusely for, excuse at every turn”

Abby replied:

“Fleming isn’t making excuses for or apologizing for terrorism. all he’s doing is explaing why the u.s. was attacked and why we shouldn’t be surprised if we’re attacked again.”

But of course Fleming was making excuses for and apologizing for terrorism, exactly as the left does. Abby says Fleming was merely “explaining” why the U.S. was attacked. But that explanation consists of saying that the attack is simply an inevitable response to our own behavior. Which is another way of saying that the terrorist attack is justified, or at the very least is not to be condemned.

Posted by: Unadorned on June 12, 2003 07:51 AM
“Abby, that girl who is looking for something other than just sexual adventures can change her behavior so as to stop having nothing but…(it offends them by supporting Israel’s survival)?”

fleming isn’t discussing israel but the u.s.

Posted by: Matt on June 12, 2003 10:18 AM
“Abby compares the people murdered by evil Islamofascists to whores who woke up in a strange bed, and the Islamofascists are just boys being boys?…. paleo melt-down.”

matt jumps to the wrong conclusion, just like with fleming. he calls it “boys being boys” when it’s really fornication and rape.

fleming calls it fornication and rape, but all matt can see because of his blinding himself is “boys being boys”.

of course auster jumps to the same blind conclusion when ever paleos are discussed, he always does.

Abby didn’t say rape (and contra Abby, Fleming never uses the term either). But I’m starting to warm to the analogy now that she has clarified. She is right that a Texan — or any decent man, for that matter — is likely to string up a rapist even as the rapist protests that she was drunk, dressed scantily, and asking for it. A Texan is unlikely to even stop to listen to the rapist’s protests; and in that all men of honor should be like Texans.

one last note, i didn’t call the girl a whore, that’s matt’s misunderstand. i called her an air-head and stupid.

to call her a whore would be to put on the same level as fornication and rape by the jerk. i didn’t do that. matt switches the sin to the girl.

My previous comment does not imply that the young lady shouldn’t be packed off to a convent right after the rapist is hanged, by the way.

I think I do like Abby’s analogy after all.

Charity in this case, by the way, would be to insure that the rapist has access to the sacraments before he ascends the gallows and to pray for his soul after his descent.

Abby wrote, “fleming isn’t discussing israel but the u.s.”

All right, Abby. How does the U.S. change its behavior so as to stop offending the Arabs, when ultimately what offends them is being kept from making Israel into millions of Daniel Pearls and Leon Klinghoffers? (I’m not talking about decent Arab folk, who are the vast majority, but about the vicious thugs. And yes, I know it isn’t Arab Muslims but Pakistani ones who stand accused of slitting Pearl’s throat. What I said still stands.)

Posted by: Matt on June 12, 2003 11:58 AM
“Texan — or any decent man … all men of honor should be like Texans.”

not quite. the texan gives the six shooter shock & awe to all the male night club patrons, and lets God sort them out. the texan sees everything as black and white, the male patrons must be all black because the air-head, his dante’s beatrice, is all white.

for the texan, he must first above all else be true to himself, he’s not reflective, he doesn’t seek to know the good because he sees God as speaking directly to him. he is God’s instrument, chosen by God to defend the air-head.

Posted by: Unadorned on June 12, 2003 05:04 PM
“How does the U.S. change its behavior so as to stop offending the Arabs, when ultimately what offends them is being kept from making Israel into millions…”

why do you ask?

Abby wrote, “Why do you ask?”

I ask, Abby, because you act as if the only problem between Israel and the U.S. on the one hand, and the Arabs on the other, is that we wrong them in our treatment of them. But part of what they perceive as us wronging them is our wish that Israel survive, a non-negotiable thing which the Arabs want instead to be put indirectly “on the negotiating table.”

Can you see that?

“But part of what they perceive as us wronging them is our wish that Israel survive,”

Unadorned, I don’t know about you, but having been born in the US, I have accepted a legal obligation to defend my nation from attack. This is because I am covenanted to my nation by birth. But I am not covenanted to any other nation. I wasn’t born in Israel, nor do I have ethnic ties to that country. Unless there is some implicit covenantal oath that binds one nation’s citizens to the citizens of other nations, no American citizen has a legal obligation to shed his blood and surrender his property on behalf of people living in Israel.

Posted by: Unadorned on June 12, 2003 11:10 PM
“I ask, Abby, because you act as if the only problem between Israel and the U.S. on the one hand, and the Arabs on the other, is that we wrong them in our treatment of them.”

now you really have me perplexed, i don’t recall ever commenting on this blog about the palestinians and israel’s treatment of them.

i do find it curious how you have the u.s. and israel joined at the hip in your question. why did you write your question in such an odd manner?

Abby writes:
“the texan gives the six shooter shock & awe to all the male night club patrons, and lets God sort them out.”

That is simply false. The Texan hasn’t indiscriminately toppled innocent regimes.

Henry writes:
“I am covenanted to my nation by birth.”

Henry is certainly right on this point, although it is important to note that Henry and the rest of us are also bound by whatever binds our own nation. Also it would be naive to think (I am not asserting that anyone in particular does, of course) that the Jihad will stop with the surrenders of France and Israel to the Moslem horde.

“Also it would be naive to think … that the Jihad will stop with the surrenders of France and Israel to the Moslem horde.”

Exactly. People are living in a dream world if they think the fate of Israel has no effect on America’s. Israel is the canary in the coal mine of world leftism. All the destructive leftist beliefs of today’s world—the moral relativism, the siding with savages so long as they cry “oppression,” the moralistic denunciation of those who resist the savages and defend civilization, the belief that nations only have the right to exist if they fulfill egalitarian and universalist ideals, the belief that ethnic differences don’t matter, the belief that the majority culture in any situation must yield to the demands of minorities and outsiders—all these beliefs and forces that threaten our own national existence, threaten Israel’s in an infinitely more immediate way. The people who think that what happens to Israel is none of our concern, who can look on in indifference or malevolent satisfaction as the left in all its hatred strives to bring that tiny country down, do they think that by ignoring Israel’s plight, our own moral will to stand against the left when it attacks us here will be enhanced?

Abby wrote,

“[Unadorned,] now you really have me perplexed. I don’t recall ever commenting on this blog about the Palestinians and Israel’s treatment of them. I do find it curious how you have the U.S. and Israel joined at the hip in your question. Why did you write your question in such an odd manner?”

Abby, In your post of June 12th at 05:05 AM, didn’t you say that Thomas Fleming’s view (which you seemed to agree with — correct me if I’m wrong) of how we got attacked on 9/11 and how we shouldn’t be surprised to get attacked a second time, resembled a foolish girl who, in getting drunk in a place where there were jerks to take advantage of her, had partly herself to blame if that was what happened?

You added, “Fleming is pointing out that because the world is full of jerks, having a dozen [drinks] too many in the wrong location isn’t very bright [on the girl’s part]; and if the girl doesn’t like the consequences, she should either get her act together or stop bitching.”

In other words, we’re the girl and Al Qaeda are the jerks. No? You seemed to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) it’s not ENTIRELY the U.S.’s fault it got attacked on 9-11, since there ARE jerks in the world. But it WAS PARTLY our fault (as it was partly the girl’s for getting drunk in the wrong sorts of surroundings) because some aspect of our behavior rubbed the Arabs (Al Qaeda) the wrong way. Wasn’t that your point?

What I said — or meant to say — in reply was that our support of Israel’s existence was part of what rubbed the Arabs the wrong way (and what rubbed them the wrong way about Israel’s existence was Israel’s existence), and I asked what you felt our options were for stopping rubbing them the wrong way.

If I got your position wrong, I apologize.

Henry (comment of June 12th, 11:52 PM), is there some misunderstanding about what I said? Everyone would agree with you that “No American citizen has a legal obligation to shed his blood [for Israel].” When, during the first Gulf War, American Patriot missile batteries manned by U.S. troops were deployed for duty inside Israel, any blood shed by those troops — thank God none was — would have been shed not for Israel but for the United States, whose uniform they wore, under whose orders they were, and under whose flag they fought.

Since, as you know, the U.S. gives Israel three billion dollars a year in foreign aid, strictly speaking the second part of your statement is technically wrong: there is an indirect sense in which Americans are under a legal obligation to “surrender [their] property [in the form of taxes] on behalf of people living in Israel.” But, analagously with the Patriot missile crews, one could make an argument that this American property is surrendered solely to the American government in order to serve solely that government’s legitimate ends and no one else’s. I prefer not to split hairs in this way, and to admit the obvious, that U.S. taxpayers are sending money to Israel. Whether that’s good or bad, right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary, can be argued. Many in Israel, and many Jewish-Americans here, argue that it’s bad, wrong, and unnecessary, as everyone knows. I don’t have a strong opinion on that question.

But maybe that wasn’t the sense in which you meant your comment.

unadorned,

whenever solving israel’s problems comes up for discussion the arguments invariably turn vicious and irrational, with the pro-israel partisans and the palestinians being the worst offenders. i’m not interested in irrational discussions.

neither am i very interested in solving israel’s problems for them, anymore than i’m interested in solving japan’s. neither do i think the u.s. should be in the least interested in solving israel’s problems for them.

the problem solving obligations of the u.s. ends at its borders. in fact, its borders are where all its obligations end. the u.s. government wasn’t set up as a charitable institution for its own citizens, let alone foreign nations, and it should act within its charter.

if israel is a hinderence to the good of the u.s., and since that’s what it appears to be, it should be treated like a hinderence.

By the way, I want to recall why those Patriot missile batteries were deployed to Israel, lest anyone think they were there serving other than U.S. interests. Israel and other countries including Saudi Arabia were threatened by, and actually came under attack by, Iraqi Scud missiles. American and Brit air crews were searching very diligently for those Scud missile sites without however being able to find and knock all of them out. Israel felt its own air crews could do a better job, and told the Americans it was itching to send its planes into action — purely in order to defend itself against the Scuds, by knocking them out on the ground. The Bush Administration had a cow, since if so much as one hair on any Arab head were harmed by the Israelis, there was danger the entire Coalition would quickly unravel. In order to keep Israeli pilots out of the fray, the Bush Administration (Bush-I, of course, for those in Rio Linda) came up with the idea of sending Patriot missile batteries to that country to try and shoot down incoming Scud missiles for them, to give them at least some semblance of security vis-à-vis Scud attack. The troops manning those batteries were serving no interests other than those of their country as determined by their president-and-commander-in-chief’s administration, exactly as U.S. troops in every war they’ve ever fought have done.

Abby writes:
“whenever solving israel’s problems comes up for discussion …”

The fundamental issue isn’t one of technically solving Israel’s problems, though. The basic issue is healing America’s wounds and tending to her security in the world. I agree with Abby that whenever Israel enters the discussion it becomes contentious; but the contentiousness has to do with basic assumptions about the America that is to be defended, it doesn’t start with Israel qua Israel.

I think that most views about Israel are wrong, from the evangelical Left Behind apocolyptic exhaltation of this single deeply flawed nation to special exchatological status to the leftist/paleo nonsense requireing her (Israel) to de-facto commit suicide. Embracing either extreme end of the spectrum of distorted views leads to ideological melt-down.

I don’t have a pat answer to the basic question of which America is to be defended (see here for some of Mr. Kalb’s thoughts on the matter: http://www.counterrevolution.net/cgi-bin/mt/fs/fcp.pl?words=quid+sit+america&d=/000833.html ). But the notion that we can build a 3000-mile-diameter dome over the US doesn’t strike me as an embrace of reality, and of course anything that doesn’t start with our actual particular reality is intrinsically utopian. So like it or not other nations, and our national honor and self interest in a community of nations, are unavoidable considerations. I have great sympathy for isolationism, minding our own business, etc; but like most things that turns into nihilistic suicide when it is transformed into an ideology.

“I have great sympathy for isolationism, minding our own business, etc; but like most things that turns into nihilistic suicide when it is transformed into an ideology.”

A statement that should be sent to every paleocon in America.

Posted by: Matt on June 12, 2003 11:57 PM
“That is simply false. The Texan hasn’t indiscriminately toppled innocent regimes.”

oh contrair, for the texan the patrons are a possible, shall i say some are an imminent, threat to his lady dulcinea. if they are not with him, and by being at the bar and not behind him backing him up they are not, they are against him.

this is proven out by statements that countries are either for the u.s. or they are for terrorism. there is not a middle ground, only black and white. france is black, great britain is white.

Posted by Matt at June 13, 2003 02:57 PM
“I have great sympathy for isolationism, minding our own business, etc; but like most things that turns into nihilistic suicide when it is transformed into an ideology.”

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 13, 2003 03:08 PM in commenting on matt’s post
“A statement that should be sent to every paleocon in America.”

yup, once again auster is true to form. the paleos are not isolationist, nihilistic or suicidal.

what they do think, is that alliances should be chosen for reasons reflecting the common good of the u.s., not chosen out of bizarre religious ideologies and for other emotional reasons. especially bizarre ideologies harmful to the u.s..

Matt writes, “I don’t think conservatism is a stable well-defined concept, as I’ve explained in other comments. But the intent was to seek the beginning of an explanation for paleo support of Moslems, traditionally the sworn enemy of Christendom.”

I’m not exactly sure I know what you mean when you say you are trying to explain paleo support for Moslems. If I’m not mistaken, it is neocons around Bush who got him to say that Islam is a religion of peace and who also believe that Moslems make good Americans. Srdja Trifkovic, a wrtiter for Chronicles magazine, which bills itself as the charter publication for paleoconservatism, wrote a book entitled _Sword of the Prophet_. This was not exactly a favorable examination of Islam.

Someone writes “I have great sympathy for isolationism, minding our own business, etc; but like most things that turns into nihilistic suicide when it is transformed into an ideology.”

I have not transformed isolationism into an ideology. It might surprise Auster to know that if I actually thought Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, and unless we took immediate action cities would start filling up with dead Americans, I would have favored the war. Of course I strongly disagreed with the obvious skullduggery coming out of the Bush Regime.

I said:
“The Texan hasn’t indiscriminately toppled innocent regimes.”

Abby said:
“oh contrair.”

Precisely which innocent regimes have been toppled?

Posted by: Matt on June 13, 2003 06:04 PM
“Precisely which innocent regimes have been toppled?”

this is an analogy matt, get with the program. the point is to see into the texan’s head.

if you want concrete examples of the innocent who our texan has his six shooter pointed at look to france and germany. our texan president and his compatriots over at newsmax and such places had those countries dead in their sights.

Mr. Weller writes:
“I’m not exactly sure I know what you mean when you say you are trying to explain paleo support for Moslems.”

I meant things like this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north59.html

Money quote:
“I think Islamic national leaders really are embarrassed by what was done in New York. They know the act was wrong. They know it could happen to their nations. If the United States would just supply the evidence against bin Laden, and then call on them to defend what they perceive as Islamic justice, I think they would cooperate – grudgingly, probably, but who cares, just so long as they isolate bin Laden and round up his active henchmen who have broken Islamic law? “

And this one, arguing that Taliban John Lindh didn’t do anything wrong:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stein/stein13.html

I mean, I could surf lewrockwell.com alone and come up with tons of articles setting up a juxtoposition between an evil American state and innocent radical Muslims. That is the sort of thing to which I refer when I talk about paleo support of Moslems: the treatment of Christendom’s sworn traditional enemy, the ruinous blasphemy of Islam, as an innocent wronged by the perfidious liberal West.

An appropriate approach would be to resist both our internal and external enemies, it seems to me. Otherwise we are like a Jewish banker fighting on the side of the Nazis in order to bring down the Russian communists.

I wrote:
“Precisely which innocent regimes have been toppled?”

Abby then provides France and Germany as examples, justifying the nonsequitur by saying it is just an analogy. Am I the only one who thinks she has gotten rather lost?

Matt asks, “Am I the only one who thinks [Abby] has gotten rather lost?”

No, you’re not.

“I think Islamic national leaders really are embarrassed by what was done in New York. They know the act was wrong. They know it could happen to their nations. If the United States would just supply the evidence against bin Laden, and then call on them to defend what they perceive as Islamic justice, I think they would cooperate—grudgingly, probably, but who cares, just so long as they isolate bin Laden and round up his active henchmen who have broken Islamic law? “

Matt’s quote from lewrockwell.com is staggering. The Rockwellites are speaking the language of NEGOTIATION and PEACE PROCESS. If only we had been more sensitive in the way we approached the Muslims, if only we had spoken to them in the RIGHT WAY, then they would have cooperated with us and all conflicts would have solved. It’s our own failure to use the correct negotiating posture that has been responsible for all this hate.

This reminds me of how leftists I’ve known have imagined that every war in history was really unnecessary. Specifically, it reminds me of how liberal promoters of the “peace process” argue that Arafat’s rejection of Barak’s offer at Camp David in July 2000 and the ensuing terror intifada did not have to happen. The whole thing could have worked out, if only the Americans and Israelis had approached Arafat in a more skillful manner. It was our fault, after all.

Or, to take another example, if only President Roosevelt had not denied the Japanese empire access to oil, the war with Japan could have been avoided. All we had to do was help the Japanese fanatics establish their East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, and all would have been well! Or, to take another example of this type of thinking, from Buchanan’s A Republic Not An Empire: If only France and Britain had not foolishly gone to war with Hitler over the invasion of Poland, a perfectly acceptable modus vivendi could have been worked out, with Hitler the master of Europe, and America the mistress of the West.

One could write a book cataloging the many ways in which paleocons and paleolibertarians have become, point by point, exactly like leftists.

And when we remember the strain of virulent anti-Americanism in some of the leading paleos, that tells us something about the inward motives of leftists themselves. What I mean is, people only adopt this sort of relativism between one’s own country and its enemies AFTER they have become so alienated that they reject not only the goodness of their own society as it is presently constituted, but the belief in objective morality itself.

This process goes in three stages. One, the generic liberal (a category that in this particular analysis includes paleocons) rejects what he sees as the illegitimate use of power by his own country. But, two, as his alienation deepens, he starts to reject the very possibility of any legitimate power. An example of the transition from stage one to stage two is Joseph Sobran, who started out as a constitutionalist critic of the abuses of the Constitution, and ended by becoming a Rothbardian anarchist who rejects the Constitution itself. But now we come to stage three. Having rejected the very possibility of legitimate power, the liberal finds himself in a spiritual void, because no human being can actually do without some moral authority or political ideal with which to identity himself. So, having rejected the very idea of legitimate power, but still needing to identity himself with some source of power, he begins to identity with evil power, such as the evil power of third-world dictators.

Thus, what begins as an apparently moral critique of one’s own society, ends as an nihilistic embrace of its evil enemies.

The difference between a morally sound critique of one’s society and a morally unsound critique that turns into nihilism, is that the first is driven by a love of country and a love of truth, while the second is driven, at bottom, by anger and resentment.

i’m not lost, but if you think france and germany is a nonsequitur in showing that bush and co. might have just a wee bit of trouble telling friend from foe, we are definately not on the same page.

i don’t know about you, but anyone who calls islam a religion of peace, and in the same breath sets out to punish germany as a supporter of terrorism because it won’t bow down to the wishes of the bush, might just have a wee bit of difficulty making distinctions.

North writes “My wife is of Armenian descent on her father’s side. She was told early and often about the slaughter of a million Armenian civilians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915-16, to which the West turned a blind eye, and still does. We are in the latest phase of an old war.”

This is lionizing Moslems? I guess I don’t get it.

“Lionizing” is a straw man. I said “paleo support for Moslems” and I gave Mr. Weller some examples. I will stipulate that paleos are too curmudgeonly to lionize anything at all, if that is helpful.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 13, 2003 07:28 PM
“Joseph Sobran…ended by becoming a Rothbardian anarchist who rejects the Constitution itself. But now we come to stage three. Having rejected the very possibility of legitimate power, the liberal finds himself in a spiritual void, because no human being can actually do without some moral authority”

sobran is a catholic, so he has the catholic church as him moral authority to guide him.

“or political ideal with which to identity himself. So, having rejected the very idea of legitimate power, but still needing to identity himself with some source of power, he begins to identity with evil power, such as the evil power of third-world dictators.”

well it’s all pretty silly, but the last sentence is really something to behold.

as opposed to reading auster odd interpretation of sobran’s writting, try reading sobran himself. when you’re done, just for kicks, go back and read auster’s interpretation.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/021029.shtml

http://www.sobran.com/columns/020124.shtml

http://www.sobran.com/columns/020516.shtml

http://www.sobran.com/columns/021017.shtml

Or you could try this slightly more recent Sobran article:
http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

thanks matt your a peach, i was looking for that one in particular.

Also, see my critique of the Sobran article that Matt linked:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001246.html

By the way, does anyone have any idea of where, politically speaking, our capitalization-challenged friend Abby is coming from? She was attacking conservatives in full-sounding liberal tones, and now she is defending Sobran. I guess she illustrates Matt’s and my thesis about paleoconservatism (or whatever you want to call it) being a form of liberalism.

Also, I was only using Sobran as an illustration of stage one and two in my etiology of alienation—and that view of him is derived from his own words in the article that Matt linked, and explained further in my linked article. Stage three of my paradigm, in which the alienated person ends up identifying with evil dictators, was not written with Sobran in mind.

Maybe there is mass obsession with the thought, “It is my fault.” This obsession could be attributed to Christianity. Certainly Catholics are taught it is dirty to even think about doing this or that. In addition, the Bible imposes impossible standards upon all Christians. So it need not be surprising that liberals, who for one reason or the other, apply these standards to their country and culture but not to anyone else.

The cause for the obsession is unknown. Some psychiatrists use the model or idea that obsessions are an attempt by the mind to hide intense taboo feelings. What feelings liberals are hiding are unknown.

I do not detect a general support for Moslems among Paleos. I know that Charley Reese has written some favorable things about Moslems that I take issue with. However, I don’t think the paleos are giving support more support to Moslems than the Neos are. Who welcomes Moslems as immigrants? Who calls Islam a religion of peace?

Mr. Auster asks:
“By the way, does anyone have any idea of where, politically speaking, our capitalization-challenged friend Abby is coming from?”

Palooka, perhaps?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame47.html

Mr. Weller:
“Who welcomes Moslems as immigrants? Who calls Islam a religion of peace?”

Neocons and GW Bush respectively. That doesn’t exonerate paleos, though. I think that there is a substantive alliance between paleos and Moslems, particularly where opposition to Israel and the War On Sneak Attacks are concerned. I’ve already described what I think above though so I won’t repeat it again here.

Did Auster and other critics of paleoconservatism accuse them of being similar to liberals when they opposed Clinton’s war against Serbia? And if not, why not? What is different about Clinton’s 1999 war in Serbia, and Bush’s 2003 war in Iraq?

I would like to know why no one accused me of being a subsersive lefty back then, but now they do when I have remained entirely consistent.

Mr. Murgos writes:
“Maybe there is mass obsession with the thought, “It is my fault.””

Funny, my thought was almost the exact opposite. The tendency is to view the problem as the perfidious Other, the oppressor-untermensch whose existence is the last remaining impediment to the freedom and equality of the new man. Even the American paleos hold that sort of view, where the tranzi neocon represents the oppressor in their particular instance.

Repentence is a far more difficult road than revolt, which is one reason why it seems that most don’t even consider it.

Posted by: P Murgos on June 13, 2003 11:35 PM
“Maybe there is mass obsession with the thought, “It is my fault.” This obsession could be attributed to Christianity. Certainly Catholics are taught it is dirty to even think about doing this or that. In addition, the Bible imposes impossible standards upon all Christians.”

i don’t find them impossible, although i expect to spend my fair share of time in purgatory.

to say that the bible sets impossible standards, is to say God made man immortal and also incapable of being good, that is incapable of reaching his proper end for which he is made and thus destined for hell.

the sacraments are not a magic charm, but grace working through free will, thus to say the standards are impossible to reach, is to say it is not possible to will them.

but we know by example, the saints, and by faith, those standards can be willed. there’s a story of a man who once asked a saint how he, himself, could get to heaven, the saint’s reply was ‘will it’. those standards are impossible only to those who will not will it. they habituate themselves to vice not virtue. for the vicious man it is impossible, for he makes it so.

Posted by: Matt on June 14, 2003 12:32 AM
“Repentence is a far more difficult road than revolt”

while matt is correct theologically, he seems to be mixing apples and oranges when he takes it to the political realm.

while there may be a right to revolution, (matt may substitute in whatever he wants in place of ‘right’), repentence belongs exclusively to the moral sphere. as fulton j. sheen once said, no man after speeding home, parks in his garage and weeps with remorse over breaking the speed limit. we don’t weep with remorse over breaking human laws or institutions.

Abby, your last two posts identify you unequivocally as a Catholic. And I believe you are a woman. But I cannot tell how you view yourself politically. A few times I thought I had you pegged on the political spectrum, but every time, you went on to utterly baffle me.

I’ve asked you, Mr. Auster has implicitly asked you, and Matt has perhaps indirectly wondered in writing too, how you view yourself politically. You’ve declined to respond.

The reason we don’t ask others is because there’s generally little or no mystery where they all stand politically.

What’s the big secret? You can’t offer a simple one-or-two-sentence statement on that? After all, anyone who is posting regularly on a forum ought to want his comments to be understood as fully as possible, and such a clarification on your part could only help that.

Perhaps just answer a single question: Do you have a very favorable or very unfavorable opinion of Bill & Hillary Clinton? (That’s not everything of course, but would at least be a big start.)

Finally, I can agree with Abby. We will meet in purgatory. Obviously, not a good thought, but misery does love company.

Because body language was unavailable in my comment, I hope to make it clear that I in no way was being sarcastic or insincere with Abby. Though I suppose we (especially Matt) all have substantial skins, it can’t hurt to be certain.

thanks p. murgos for the concern.

unadorned,

you’ve already done it for me. i’m a catholic and everything i think flows from it. it is what i am.

“I’m a Catholic, and everything I think flows from it. It is what I am.” — Abby (summarizing how she views herself politically)

That explains nothing of how she views herself politically, of course (Ted Kennedy, Maureen Dowd, Phil Donahue, Joe Sobran, Bill Buckley, Jr., and I are Catholic) — especially since she seems to be extemporizing her way through Catholicism.

My advice to Abby: stop ad-libbing your way through Catholicism from moment to moment.

unadorned,

actually it does explain myself politically. just as it explains matt, kalb, and sobran. the arguments are all on the perimeter, never on the essentials. except of course when one or the other strays from tradition.

i of course never stray, well at least not intentionally.

phil donahue and ted kennedy are not either catholics. they’re apostates. dowd is most likely one also and buckley gave us the neocons, which is next to unforgivable.

Abby writes:
“repentence belongs exclusively to the moral sphere.”

Is Abby suggesting here that the transcendent should have no impact on politics?

Matt wrote: “although it is important to note that Henry and the rest of us are also bound by whatever binds our own nation. Also it would be naive to think (I am not asserting that anyone in particular does, of course) that the Jihad will stop with the surrenders of France and Israel to the Moslem horde.”

Matt, what does guarding our borders have to do with having a special friend in Israel? I don’t remember arabs hijacking airplanes in the 1950s and flying them into buildings when Eisenhower was in office.

Henry asks:
“Matt, what does guarding our borders have to do with having a special friend in Israel?”

For those who think there is some relation, probably the same thing that guarding our borders had to do with Eisenhower’s (and his contemporaries’) special friends in France and England.

“I don’t remember arabs hijacking airplanes in the 1950s and flying them into buildings when Eisenhower was in office.”

A bit earlier there were airplanes being flown into ships primarily, although I guess a few buildings may have gotten it also. General Eisenhower was rather directly involved in overseas action to put a stop to the oncoming hordes then, as I recall. I think the isolationism-as-ideology crowd were saying rather similar things then too.

Posted by: Matt on June 14, 2003 12:53 PM
Is Abby suggesting here that the transcendent should have no impact on politics?

i don’t know what intend to mean when you use transcendent in the manner you use it. please explain.

Abby wrote:
“repentence belongs exclusively to the moral sphere.”

I replied:
“Is Abby suggesting here that the transcendent should have no impact on politics?”

Abby then asked for clarification of my comment. Abby says that repentance belongs in the moral sphere and not the political. This assumes that the moral and the political are completely separate. That assumption is, among other things, a material heresy.

Posted by: Matt on June 15, 2003 12:56 PM
“i wrote:
“repentence belongs exclusively to the moral sphere.”

matt replied:
“Is Abby suggesting here that the transcendent should have no impact on politics?”

i “then asked for clarification of my comment. Abby says that repentance belongs in the moral sphere and not the political. This assumes that the moral and the political are completely separate. That assumption is, among other things, a material heresy.”

i suspect from matt’s reply that i must have in some way misunderstood matt’s first comment Posted by: Matt on June 14, 2003 12:32 AM “Repentence is a far more difficult road than revolt”

i understood matt to use repentence in the sense it is used when the moral law is broken. i also understood him to say that repentence in this sense belongs to the political or human law which is prudential in nature.

so while it is true that the political and human law is subservient as a handmaiden to the moral law and must conform to the moral law, the political and human law’s object is not the same as the moral law’s, but the regulation of human action which is prudential in nature.

in much the same way as philosophy’s object is different from theology, and is handmaiden to theology.

Abby writes:
“i understood matt to use repentence in the sense it is used when the moral law is broken. i also understood him to say that repentence in this sense belongs to the political or human law which is prudential in nature.”

I am being far less philosophically esoteric than Abby presumes. When I say that the West must repent from liberalism in order to survive, I mean simply that. The West must confess explicitly that liberalism was wrong, must explicitly ask for forgiveness for its grave sin of rebellion, and must resolve to sin (at least in that particular way) no more.

Posted by: Matt on June 18, 2003 03:36 PM
“The West must confess explicitly that liberalism was wrong, must explicitly ask for forgiveness for its grave sin of rebellion, and must resolve to sin (at least in that particular way) no more.”

sounds good to me. although i suppose i’d substitute in modernism for liberalism if it was up to me since i see liberalism as a species of modernism.