January 3, 2008

Failing Upward

As Marcus Epstein notes on VDARE.com, William Kristol, recently fired as a columnist by Time, has now been hired as an op-ed columnist by the New York Times.

Yet, the NYT already had David Brooks as their invade the world / invite the world columnist, so it's hard to see what Kristol brings to the table that the more talented Brooks wasn't already supplying better. Granted, Brooks sometimes sounds like his calls for more war aren't really sincere, that he doesn't pay much attention to which foreigners to slaughter next, that he's just recycling stuff Kristol, Krauthammer and Ko. fed him. But, the pro forma nature of Brooks's bloodlust is a good thing.

I guess the neocon world view has been proven so valid over the last four and a half years that the NYT just had to double up. After all, the neocons are the only respectable voices of conservatism.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

28 comments:

RKU said...

I must say that the neocon "long march through the institutions" have been astonishingly successful.

Back during the early/mid 1990s, when I wasn't paying much attention, they seized control of AEI, National Review, and most of Heritage, the traditional pillars of the Right, to round out their previous WSJ and Weekly Standard territories.

Then, following 9/11, they conquered Brookings, Carnegie, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Washington Post, plus fully consolidated their control over the New Republic, these all being the pillars of the Establishment Center/Left. They also picked up control over nearly all of the electronic media, including the various Cable News channels.

Now, they have a neocon editing the very influential NYT Sunday Book Section and also the political Week in Review, and TWO virtually-indistinguishable neocon columnists on the NYT Op Ed page. Near as I can tell, the NYT was the last hold-out for traditional American media liberalism, and I think it's completely gone as well.

If the neocons were only as good at conquering foreign countries as they are at seizing all of American's leading political and media institutions, the entire world would be bowing to Tel Aviv five times each day...

TGGP said...

Radar's article on how pundits who got Iraq wrong have fared just keeps getting better and better.

I'm imagining an alternate universe in which Lawrence Auster and Fred Reed are the official NYT conservatives.

Sideways said...

It's really disturbing that the number of significant left wing media institutions that are neo-con free and also don't serial-publish articles by terrorists is basically non-existant.

dave david said...

It's been said before: Being a neoconservative means never having to say you're sorry.

theKnickerblogger said...

Just a style note:
invade the world / invite the world

invite the world/fight the world
has a catchier note to it, no?

...........

What I basically see in this and the 'floating' as Bloomberg as an 'alternative' candidate are attempts by the East Coast Establishment to keep political discourse within their power structure.

RKU: "conquered" the New Republic? Not hard to do since it's owner is famous for saying something to the effect "my pacifism stops at the Kosher deli door"

Fred said...

"Just a style note:
invade the world / invite the world


invite the world/fight the world
has a catchier note to it, no?"


No: Steve's use of alliteration is subtler and sounds more sophisticated than your use of simple rhyme.

Evil Neocon said...

Steve -- there is no "Neocon bloodlust."

Merely a recognition of the truth, from Machiavelli to Reagan, that to avoid War and attack a state must both be strong and seen to be strong. Weakness invites attack and War.

GWB is NOT a neocon and never has been. I remember his debates with Al Gore, promising a Mike Huckabee "humble" foreign policy, with nothing more than open borders with Mexico and ignoring the rest of the world. Bush followed Clinton's lead of doing nothing after the Cole bombing and ignored the rest of the world.

After 9/11 he woke up and smelled reality, and a few neocons like Bolton, Cheney, etc. persuaded him to act on his own to make America seen as both willing and able to make enemies miserable if provoked. Classic deterrence through strength.

The central problem for the West is that the Muslim world is unstable. It is unstable because the young men inside it are barred from taking wives and forming families due to polygamy and big-man-ism. Thus the attraction of Jihad and general violence directed at rich, weak, outsiders.

Given that PC-Multiculturalism has eroded the West's ability to make examples of people to deter attacks (peace through strength, Arnold Schwarzenneger didn't get sand kicked in his face on the beach), AND everything from AK-47s, speedboats, improvised explosives, cheap jet travel and nuclear weapons tech proliferation, the West's technological edge that it had since the 1600's has been eroded along with it's edge in resource mobilization.

Neo-cons offer this policy: the West and America is basically good, it is worth preserving, it is BETTER than anything else, and worth fighting for.

There was an article in the NYT recently about two Palestinian brothers who imprisoned their 40 year old sister for three years after her husband divorced her. Her cries for help had finally gotten some outsiders to pressure the PA Police to do something.

The sister had been part of a swap-marriage, she had been married in a swap for her husband's sister marrying into her family. Osama and Zawahari did this with their Afghan hosts. It's tribal. The trouble started when the woman's brother divorced his wife, the sister was then divorced in retaliation and in "shame" she was locked up by her brothers.

From such a society there can be no peace except through credible threats of overwhelming force. The fundamental tribal organizing concepts of that society bring them into conflict with us through their increased wealth, trade, globalization, the internet, satellite TV, and global jihad spread by the Saudis and Iranians.

By contrast the case for Israel as a protected ally is that it is full of smart people. Who are not tribal. Who come up with say, gene therapy that promises cures for various kinds of cancers including Leukemia. And a whole host of other medical innovations. Meanwhile the oil in Arab lands will run out soon, and will be replaced by something: coal gasification, oil shales, etc. Just like whale oil was replaced by petroleum.

My question for Steve: given that you have had leukemia once already, your children may be at risk for it as well (genetically) in addition to your risks of recurrence, why would you not find it in your own best interests (as well as that of the nation as a whole) to support what is essentially a medical lab in a country over tribal savages with rapidly depleting resources? If not to guard against a recurrence of cancer in yourself, to guard against it in your children who would have increased genetic risk?

Europe's failure to do much technologically and engineering wise, dependence on Russian gas/oil, have much to do with the self-imposed lobotomy of the Holocaust. Since medical technology becomes globally available rapidly, that alone justifies US support for Israel against a rabble that will hate us anyway and be inclined to attack unless deterred by strength.

Kristol of course is not a real neo-con. He places faith in useless negotiations through the UN, EU, both of which are failed institutions that can accomplish nothing. Bush is not a neo-con either. After listening to the few neocons he surrendered to his Huckabee-type liberalesque/Obama naivete in elitist mumbo-jumbo.

Rudy, Romney, Fred, are all neo-cons. McCain is not (despite his Iraq War support, his "Miranda Rights for terrorists" disqualifies him on that alone for neo-con status). McCain's desperate need to be loved by the elites over love of country makes him not a neo-con.

Evil Neocon said...

Add on GWB debating Al Gore:

GWB specifically disavowed: Kosovo, Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia as policy he would end because he felt it mistaken and a waste of time. Until 9/11 he governed just like that.

Of course since TR, US policy in the Western Hemisphere had been to "nation-build" by suppressing insurgencies that were favored by outside governments seeking power/influence over Latin American resources and nations at the US's expense.

Smedley Butler, US Marine Commandant, called himself the "gangster for capitalism" with the successful use of the US Marines against Sandino and others in Latin America. Of course the jungle fighting tactics came in very handy a generation later against the Japanese in the Pacific (a war everyone knew was coming). Even in the 1920's everyone knew America and Japan would make war over who would control the Pacific.

Much of the Iraq War occupation can be traced to GWB's liberal distaste for nation-building. The war itself overthrew Saddam in only a few weeks, with little US loss of life and little Iraqi loss either. Failure to engage in classic American local alliance building and taking advantage of America's positives (that we were far away, and would not have a heavy local presence as opposed to Iran or Saudi) meant a giant mess until Petraeus showed he could find his behind in the dark with either hand.

That "let the Iraqis sort themselves out" was not Neo-con ideology but Liberal Utopianism which GWB suffers a great deal from.

GWB's problem was he tried as much as possible to keep his campaign promises of no nation building even after events had shown that policy to be unworkable.

tanabear said...

The New York Times already had to apologize and issue corrections for their reporting regarding Iraq's non-existent WMD's before the war. A lot of the bad reporting came from Judy Miller. Now they are hiring someone who's facts and opinions turned out to be wrong both before and after we attacked. Why not hire someone who was correct, like Scott Ritter?

Stan said...

The nightmare never ends. Mike Huckabee, will be a continuation of Bush rule. There is no hope for america with the evangelicals, the usefuls idiots of the neocons, unable to separate American interests from their religious hopes.

fifi said...

"There is no hope for america with the evangelicals, the usefuls idiots of the neocons, unable to separate American interests from their religious hopes."

Bingo. Because I was raised Baptist, there are very few Evangelicals I'd trust as president. I think Protestants, Catholics and I hope Mormons are more capable of making the distinction between the good of the country and their religious ideals. Many Evangelicals wouldn't see that they were being unethical by using their religious beliefs to guide their political decisionmaking. I don't know why Huckabee left the ministry for a political career since he obviously hasn't completely relinquished the role of Baptist preacher.

Anonymous said...

EN's use of the term "neocon" with his own personal misleading definition suggests a Randite background, don't you think?

SKT said...

Are there any "conservatives" at the NYT that aren't Jewish?

Anonymous said...

Evil Neocon’s propaganda must be paid for by the word.

His (ig)noble lies here require buckets of Stalinist airbrushing out inconvenient facts like neoconservative leaders Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle driving the ideology and relentlessly pushing for implementing Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

You remember? We’d topple Saddam, let democracy flourish in the desert (after digging ourselves out of the mountains of flowers from a grateful Iraqi populace) and sit back and watch the domino effect as the entire Middle East turned into one big League of Women Voters’ organization.

Here is a more rational overview of the neocon movement.

Proofreader said...

EN:
By contrast the case for Israel as a protected ally is that it is full of smart people. Who are not tribal.

Israelis are just tribal in a different way: let´s say they are ethnocentric.
North Korea is full of smarter people than Israel: is that a reason for supporting a foreign country? Loyalty, strategy and common interests should be the grounds for cooperation and support.
Why the dichotomy: either support Israel or Islamic countries? Each country should be examined on its own merit.
Europe's failure to do much technologically and engineering wise, dependence on Russian gas/oil, have much to do with the self-imposed lobotomy of the Holocaust.
Germany, e.g., seems to be doing pretty well economically and in all scientific fields. Do you want to compare the number of scientific nobel prices of Germany and Israel?
Europe has never lacked native brain power at any period in history. It´s not as if the loss of Jews left the continent lobotomized, as you put it.

icr said...

The late Sam Francis declared the term "neoconservatism" to be "rather obsolete" because the neocons had become the generally accepted voice of "conservatism" in the US. Thus, evil can with some justice call someone like mainstream conservative Fred Thompson a neoconservative.
http://www.shotsfired.us/sample.html
Contemporary conservatism, whether officially Republican or not, has specialized in surrendering and abandoning the premises of an authentic “right” and granting the premises of the left. That is essentially what “neo-conservatism” is — the application of the values and assumptions of the left for (more or less) rightish positions and policies, at least positions and policies generally to the right of what the self-described “left” supports — although the term “neo-conservatism” today is rather obsolete. The truth is that what in the 1980s was called “neo-conservatism” is now the dominant pattern of thought on the mainstream right and among those who still call themselves “conservatives” in the Republican Party, and even some conservatives who think of themselves as “old right” are often little more than neo-conservatives in their fundamental world-views. As for “multiculturalism,” the neo-conservative conservatives have been the main force in dumping those beliefs of the real right that could have rejected its premises and mounted a serious resistance to its long march to power.

Martin said...

"Evil Neocon said...

AND everything from AK-47s, speedboats, improvised explosives, cheap jet travel and nuclear weapons tech proliferation, the West's technological edge that it had since the 1600's has been eroded along with it's edge in resource mobilization."

This is tendentious nonsense. All of these things are within our control. We don't have to let muslims into this country. We can deny them entry at the air-terminals (not just at the arrival gate in the U.S., but at the departure-gate overseas). Why is this so unfathomable to you?

Or do you believe that squads of murderous jihadists, armed with AK-47's are going to cross the Atlantic in their explosives-laden speed-boats?

And the notion that Europe is behind us technologically is just ignorant chauvinism. For a long time, Europe and Japan lagged us in computer technology. Because we were ahead in this one field, we deemed it to be the most important field. It is not. In mechanical engineering and industrial electronics, we are probably inferior to Europe (continental Europe that is - exclusive of England, which has out-sourced itself almost to death). Certainly our automotive technology is nowhere as good as that of the japanese. And in consumer electronics, we have become a no-show. Japan makes the best televisions, stereos, and DVD players, and European companies make the best home appliances.

But I suppose that is all of no consequence to you neo-con masters of the universe, for whom moving around your little game-pieces (i.e., the rest of us) around the geo-strategic board (i.e., the Earth) in your little role-playing fantasy game (i.e., history) is your all-consuming passion. As an official in the previous Bush administration once famously said, who cares whether we only make computer chips or potato chips?

David Davenport said...

I don't know why Huckabee left the ministry for a political career since he obviously hasn't completely relinquished the role of Baptist preacher.

What's wrong with that? What's wrong with America being a Christian nation?

Btw, I prefer Fred T. to the Rev. Huckleberry.

Svigor said...

EN is a caricature of the oleaginous Jewish tendency to overvalue themselves. Europe "lobotomized" without the self-chosen? WTF? Europe is the SOURCE of Jewish brains, for God's sake. Otherwise Jews would be indistinguishable from their close cousins, the Palestinians.

defenderoftheremnant said...

evil neocon is back to proving his moniker:

The central problem for the West is that the Muslim world is unstable. It is unstable because the young men inside it are barred from taking wives and forming families due to polygamy and big-man-ism.

As is usual with neocons, reality is turned upside down. There is far more de facto polygamy ("single life", serial monogamy, etc.), big-man-ism, and thus "lost boys" in most of today's Western cultures than in most Islamic cultures.

By contrast, Islamic cultures are almost the only cultures left in the world where fathers are psychologically confident of their paternity and thus play a large role in their children's upbringing.

No surprise also that they are having far more of these children. Why do you think Europe is getting swamped with Muslims? In the Darwinian game, it is Islam with its traditional values -- which the West once shared in the form of Christianity -- that has the far greater Darwinian fitness. It is outbreeding the West, which is now Hollywood paganist rather than Christian, quite handily.

Many Westerners still call themselves "Christians", but they spend far more time watching Hollywood TV than in church. They have converted to Hollywood paganism. For anybody who cares about their family's future, Islam is the only game left on the planet.

fifi said...

"What's wrong with that? What's wrong with America being a Christian nation?"

This gets back to Steve's invade the world/invite the world. What does Evangelical mean, Dave? Baptists as well as other fundamentalists are known for their huge missions programs. This not only involves sending people and money to impoverished nations but also a zeal for bringing refugees here. Many Evangelicals embrace the idea that our immigration laws are to be ignored b/c the laws are bad not the supposedly starving people rushing in here illegally. I doubt most Evangelicals have ever considered that many illegals are here not to avoid starvation but rather b/c they can make more money here than at home. I think you should look at the Baptist Jimmy Carter's evolution into socialist idealogue for an idea of what I'm getting at. I don't have a problem with Christian beliefs and culture predominating in the US but I do have a problem with the Christians who believe they have the right to use tax revenues to fund their dictate to give alms to the poor of the world. We already know that much of the aid our government bestows upon third world nations ends up in the hands of wealthy despots but the drive to give to the point of sacrifice (even though in the case of public money it isn't your own sacrifice) overrides all reason in many Evangelicals. Huckabee's insistence on allowing those unfortunate children of illegal immigrants to attend college at in state tuition rates may not mean he'd pour money into every cause that presents itself during a presidential term but my instincts tell me that when it comes to human need he isn't going to put America first. Cold as that sounds, we already give plenty of money.

I also see this as related to the government funding of the refugee settlement efforts of religious organizations. This is an area where I believe there should be a strict separation of church and state. The temptation is too great to make it an industry which it has already become to a certain extent.

I see maintaining Christian culture in the US as a separate issue. Certainly you want a president who respects and values Christianity as well as religion in general but not one who will make decisions that accord more with the theology of a particular denomination of Christianity than with the laws of this country. Maybe Evangelicals are too tuned in to the needs of individuals to be properly protective of the US as a sovereign nation. The preacher at the church I attended in high school and Baptists like Chuck Baldwin are exceptions. Unfortunately, I think the wave of the future will be fundamentalists who are liberal on fiscal matters in order to expand the welfare state.

DissidentMan said...

What's wrong with that? What's wrong with America being a Christian nation?

A lot. Christianity has wreaked havoc on America. For one thing, the neocons exploit Christian belief in Jewish scripture, with all that that implies, including divine preoccupation with the holy land, and divine patronage of the Jewish people. This is the problem that Fifi was alluding to when h/she criticized Huckabee for being a Baptist preacher. While, in a free country, people are entitled to believe whatever they want, I would prefer it if people who believed such things were completely denied political power. Those who don't want to see America used as a dispensable tool-- as part of an effort to make the world conform with the neocon vision-- will agree with me.

For anybody who cares about their family's future, Islam is the only game left on the planet.

I'm starting to admire Islam more and more. I see it as memetic force to be reckoned with. I'm never going to convert though because I don't believe in Allah, and I'm presently a Buddhist, but if I had to choose between Christianity and Islam I would probably choose Islam.

Anonymous said...

Why do neocons enjoy so much access to elite media, even when they have no talent and are wrong about everything? We know it couldn't have anything to do with ethnic nepotism.

fifi said...

"It is unstable because the young men inside it are barred from taking wives and forming families due to polygamy and big-man-ism."

This is true even among Muslims who don't practice polygamy. The 4 wives are only allowed if you can afford them. Although some ethnic Muslims get around this by putting the family on welfare. There may even be a few who take Western brides b/c they aren't able to meet impossible expectations of the relatives of Muslim women. What's interesting is the transition from the Muslims who immigrated and more readily adapted to life in Western countries 20 or more years ago and the Muslims who now come to this country with their demands for prayer times at work, footbaths, burka clad DL photos, etc.

"For one thing, the neocons exploit Christian belief in Jewish scripture, with all that that implies, including divine preoccupation with the holy land, and divine patronage of the Jewish people. "

I hadn't even thought of that, Dissidentman, partly b/c the opposite is true for Jimmy Carter who I see as one of the first prominent fundamentalists to be seduced by socialism. I'll probably end up studying this further. Way back in college I had a professor who assigned me readings for a special project - one was on Liberation Theology in the Catholic Church, the other was the Cotton Patch Gospels which is a sort of translation of part of the New Testament but the characters are blacks and whites in the South. I ended up not doing the project with him but I wonder now how he expected me to respond to the material. Was I supposed to ferret out the communist ideology or was I supposed to internalize it? I wish I had done the project now but it was a bit beyond me at that point in time.

On the Israel question, I believe we should support Israel but not automatically go along with everything Israeli leadership decides to do. This is another area where we can't make decisions based on religious dogma. Not even all the Israelis are Zionists, they are simply Israelis who want to live in a stable country free of constant terrorist attacks. Also, I hate to get into this b/c I'm not up on what's going on there right now. The fact that EN gets his feelings hurt unnecessarily on this matter makes me even more loathe to discuss it without being prepared. In general, I think we ought to relate to Israel the way we do the UK. They are friends and allies but also a sovereign nation that operates independently of the US.

David said...

The fact that EN gets his feelings hurt unnecessarily on this matter makes me even more loathe to discuss it without being prepared.

Ignore Evil Neocon, a proven fantasist. Why should you feel constrained to be prepared, when he plays fast and loose with the facts? Another case of a nice guy letting himself be run over by a jerk.

fifi said...

"Why should you feel constrained to be prepared, when he plays fast and loose with the facts? "

True. EN does seem to be making it up as he goes along but we laid into him like Mitt Romney a few days ago. Never know when you'll push the unstable neocon personality too far. I won't be held responsible for the consequences. ; o)

Stan said...

It is amazing that many westerners are ready to surrender to Islam. Western intellectuals have betrayed the west. They have rejected Christian revelation as a source of truth and weakened the west from within. They are responsible for West's loss of confidence in Western Civilization. They have the arrogant belief that reason is the only source of truth.

Anonymous said...

I think we should give Israel the same support that we give to other countries that spy on us and try to sink our ships.