Neocons fiddling while Rome is burning

It’s Iraqi Liberation Day today, as the website of the “conservative” “American” journal National Review informs its readers. I am sure that my readers will forgive me for neglecting to crack open the champagne, and some may even join me in my gross apathy. It’s largely a religious difference: I am a Christian and so celebrate Christmas. The editors of NR are true believers in Global Democracy, and so celebrate Iraqi Liberation Day, but not Christmas.

Both faiths require some suspension of disbelief. Christians must simply believe that Christ was born, proof or no proof. Similarly, Global Democratists must believe that there’s been a Liberation somehow related to Iraq, even if proof isn’t precisely easy to find.

The Iraqis themselves, up to a hundred thousand of whom have perished since the end of Saddam’s rule, haven’t been noticeably liberated of anything, save their properties and their loved ones. The coalition soldiers on the ground, spirited away from their homes and families in order to do a job- policing the world- they didn’t sign up to do, may also dispute being designated as “liberated” or even “Liberated”. The British public may also wonder how it has been liberated by having its military turned into an auxiliary arm of Washington’s and sent off to unnecessary wars to achieve some ex-Trot dreamer’s idea of global utopia.

The lack of any actual liberty emerging from all this liberation doesn’t seem to matter to the war’s more enthusiastic backers. After all, they allege, Western forces have overthrown a dictatorship, and the now democratically governed Iraqis are bound to act like any other democratically governed people. Would that be executing Christians or electing terrorists, then? Those two have been the so far observed actions of Arabs once introduced to democracy.

The failure to note racial/cultural differences and to take these into account when making policy will ultimately destroy the neocon plan for fighting the War on Terror. We cannot take Arab Muslims with all their history of conquest and despotism, and expect to turn them into model Westerners simply by letting them vote. In all likelihood, they will vote for those who promise them a return to the halcyon days of Islamic dominance over the Middle East, Central Asia and beyond.

It is remarkable how sanguine the Washington pro-war punditocracy has been in the face of continued Arabic immigration into the West and increasingly brazen Arab demands once they are here. Many prominent neocons chastised the French during the recent rioting there, alleging that the disorder was the product not of the insatiable appetites of the already pampered Islamist ethnics but of the French for not embracing positive discrimination sooner. Similarly, most are supporters of open borders, despite the dangers to European security entailed in these.

How remarkable, one might well say. Isn’t protecting Westerns from militant Jihadists and forestalling Islamic domination what this war is being fought for? How can either of these goals be achieved whilst uncontrolled numbers of precisely these Jihadists flow across Europe’s frailly defended borders, threatening the native populations into obedience with rioting and moral censure once there?

Of course, if you subscribe to the historically and scientifically blinkered nostrums of Global Democratism, the paradox vanishes. Seeing the prosperity and freedom of the West, these Arabs flee here, wishing to become just like the Westerners they supposedly so admire. In actual fact, they more likely wish not to assimilate into the West, but simply to trash it, and not to add to Western treasure, but to simply loot it.

This is why the Global Revolutionary Tribunal in the White House will simply not be able to win this war in any meaningful sense. To fight Islamic Terror means to make the people safe from the threats of the Mohammedans. The threat to the West doesn’t come from cave dwelling, impoverished peasants without the wherewithal to make a plough let alone a bomb. It comes from Western-educated but not Westernised youths, enraged like all other teenagers at the status quo, and having both the means and the justifications to wreck havoc upon Europe.

Spain, Britain and Portugal are just three of the countries that joined America in fighting the War on Terror in Iraq, only to find their borders open to sympathisers of their opponents there. Needless to say, it would have been a far nobler and more useful task for these troops to have defended their nations’ sovereignty rather than violating that of another country’s.

Helping Europe protect its borders and deal with the Islamic anarchists already within them would be the way to fight Terror in reality, rather than in the fetid imaginations of ex-Trot fantasists. However, the Washington chicken-hawks, their vision restricted by the absurd ideology of Global Democratism, seem unable to do this. Will the neocons continue to fiddle while Rome burns?

Posted by Alex Zeka on Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 01:10 PM in Media, War on Terror
Comments (8) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by ?????? on April 09, 2006, 10:15 PM | #

I LIKE your blog.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 04:18 AM | #

I had forgotten commenting on this post.

That is an excellent post Alex. Very good - along with all your previous writings on Iraq.

The Neoconservative lapdogs (not the Neos themselves who I shall turn to in a minute*) have all the intellectual maturity of children. An earlier generation of statesmen, say Churchill’s generation, would have acknowledged that the semi-barbarian condition of the Arab would require centuries of colonial occupation and rule before a semblance of civil society (and then liberal democracy) could be established. The idea behind the invasion was that you can just plan your flag in any corner of the earth, hold elections and poof! liberal democracy emerges from thin air! This sort of idiocy could only have been concived in a superficial age like ours.

In a way Iraq makes me happy in a sardonic sense. It is a brutal lesson for the lobotomised TV addicted public. And the lesson is that “nation building” is not a joke. People are not interchangable. Genetics, the conditon of a people and history determine what type of nation is built by that people.

* The Neocons are smart, shrewd operators. They had the concerns of Israel at heart first and foremost. Their goal was to remove Saddam to make Israel feel safer. The current civil war in Iraq does not threaten Israel, not yet anyway. So they have little reason to be apprehensive. However, it is not inconceivable that another tyrant like Saddam will eventually emerge from this morass.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 04:25 AM | #

The open borders ideology of the Neos also requires some careful reflection.

The Neos are essentially Jewish ethnocentrists. They consider majority white Christian populations as eternally hostile to Jewry. And they therefore think that having an Arab majority in Europe, for example, would serve Jews better.

To us this may make no snese whatsoever but that is the truth. The immigration issue is one that all Neocons are united on. They want limitless amounts of it. In their minds, nothing would be safer for Jews than a non-white majority. That is what they believe and that is what they pushed relentlessly in the last three decades.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 14, 2006, 01:48 PM | #

I prefer to view the neocons’ indiscribably demented ideas as the product of their (Trotskyite-derived) ideology. Of course, that isn’t to say that GDism wasn’t invented to advance Jewish interests, but one of its main foudning fathers, Leo Strauss, was not a Jew to the best of my knowledge.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 03:28 PM | #

Fred,

Thanks for those kind words.

Alex,

Strauss was not a Neoconservative. He was, however, Jewish.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 14, 2006, 04:08 PM | #

Wrong on both counts!

However, didn’t Strauss inspire the modern neocons?

As for jewish alleged “rootless cosmopolitanism”, here’s Rothbard on the Pod.Roth on the Pod

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 04:21 PM | #

However, didn’t Strauss inspire the modern neocons?

He did. I think there is some overlap between so called “Straussians” and Neoconservatives. And of course Wolfowitz himself was a student of Strauss (as were other neocons).

I have read a little bit about Strauss and there is nothing in his writings that preach global democratic revolution. Strauss himself held very controversial (illiberal) views which were only ever admitted to the “inner circle” (that is a key tenet of “Straussianism”).

One should also remember that Neoconservatism has changed. It started out as a reaction against the excesses of the welfare state in the 1960s. The Neos were on the side of lesser government.

However, some of their agendas were pretty clear. The Neo move to the Right was inspired by the “plight” of Soviet Jewry who were (starting 1960s onwards) discriminated against by the Soviet state to some extent (although how much is still open to question). And of course the Soviet Union refused to let disaffected Jews leave the USSR (which is what they would have done with any other ethnic group behind the iron curtain). However, the Neos from being Trotskyists turned into staunch Anti-Communists as a result.

A second transformation occured sometime in the 1970s as the ME started hotting up. Coinciding with that, the Neos were also laying the groundwork for their breakthroughs into the Republican establishment in the 1980s (which until the 1970s was almost exclusively Gentile).

It is a complicated picture but one fact that does emerge is that Jewishness is a very strong part of who they are and the way they conceive of themselves. Their ethnocentrism is extreme and it is that ethnocentrism that explains what they have been doing since they thoroughly entrenched themselves after Bush became President.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 14, 2006, 04:29 PM | #

As for jewish alleged “rootless cosmopolitanism”, here’s Rothbard on the Pod.Roth on the Pod

That Rothbard piece is very good. Norman Pod is an intellectual non-entity. I have always been mystified as to why the Republican establishment keeps sucking up to him. It doesn’t make sense.

Next entry: Babelcast-zoetrope

Previous entry: Just four lads who blew themselves up

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa