Peter Oborne, excoriating scourge of the British Political Class and conservative opponent of its wars, will use a television program tomorrow to break one of Britain’s great political taboos, namely that against mentioning the existence of our very own Israel Lobby. It will be interesting to see how far Channel Four, which is publicly owned though funded by advertizing, will let him go.

The Israel Lobby accounts for the overwhelming majority of newspapers sold in this newsprint-addicted country. It terrifies the life out of the broadcast media with its screaming about anti-Semitism if anything other than its own view is ever presented. It provided from the criminal sale of seats in the legislature much of the money necessary to create New Labour. It dominates Cameron’s Tories. And it remains much stronger in the Liberal Democrats than is often assumed. Most significantly of all, it embodies, just as it does in America, a secular Ashkenazi nationalist position which is not held by most Israelis, fewer and fewer of whom fall into all three of those categories.

How far are we paying for it? Oborne may be able to tell us. I very much hope that he is and does. But we know that the American taxpayer is ultimately footing the bill for the maintenance on your soil of, in such forms as AIPAC and the ADL, the largest spy network maintained by any country on the soil of any other, to which Presidential candidates are even expected to go and pay court. Will Obama bother to turn up in 2012? What would happen if he didn’t? The Christian Zionists (by no means all of the white Evangelicals, quite a number of whom voted for him anyway) would never vote for him, no matter what, so he wouldn’t be losing anything there. And the Jews, many of whom in any case do not agree with the Mossad position, mostly live in safely blue states.

At their respective heights, the British Empire and the Soviet Union ran large and powerful spy networks in the United States. But they were real powers. And, courtly as Britons and Russians can both be, we and they certainly did not have the sheer effrontery to charge you for the privilege of hosting those networks. Oh, the shame, the shame!

5 Comments »

You knew that you were going to get universal public healthcare. The Democrats won the Congressional and Presidential Elections, so now they are implementing their policy, indeed their flagship policy. But at what cost to the MoveOn-ers? No coverage for illegal immigrants, the sheer reach of the Stupak Amendment when set within that of the whole scheme, and the incandescence of those who think that Obama owes even though they never wanted him as the nominee in the first place and went around threatening to vote for McCain. Why aren’t you savoring the moment? When did you last win as big as this?

This leveling of the playing field, so that abortion no longer costs far less than continuing a pregnancy to term, begins to bring America into line with the numerous European countries that either restrict abortion very considerably or, not uncommonly, prohibit it altogether. Why aren’t you pleased? Whenever I hear of “Europeanization”, I wonder if it refers to 12-week limits on abortion, if not to outright bans. America could certainly do with being Europeanized like that. As could England, Scotland and Wales, the pre-1967 abortion law being mercifully still in force in Northern Ireland.

An American paleocon recently told me that he was against nuclear power because it depended on government subsidy. Well, yes. It does. And that subsidy helps to buy national sovereignty, the economic basis of paternal authority in the family and in the wider community, freedom from Middle Eastern (and other) entanglements and wars, and a redefinition of the relationship with Russia on the basis of the Biblical-Classical heritage rather than the price of gas. How is that anything other than money well spent? How is it morally or politically possible to justify refusing these things by refusing that spending? How is it constitutional, given the federal government’s constitutional duty of defense?

And likewise, how is it morally or politically possible to carry on opposing something that would dramatically reduce abortion, opening the way far more easily to significant statutory protections of the preborn child, such as exist routinely in countries with comparable arrangements? Especially since that something has a pro-life principle written into its fundamental charter, to the furious rage of your bitterest enemies. No putative Democratic nominee for President will ever now be able to avoid giving two assurances: no coverage for illegal immigrants, and no federal funding for abortion. Conservative Democrats, with their long history as the de facto third party in a de facto hung Congress, are now calling the shots. Conservative Democrats are not conservative Republicans; these are people who believe in an activist State where economics are concerned. But you win some, you lose some. And saving the lives of babies is a damn good one to win even if it has to be at the price of certain losses elsewhere.

Would the Founding Fathers have said that a certain reading, even the correct reading, of the Constitution mattered more than protecting the preborn child? Or, for that matter, that that reading mattered more than national sovereignty, the economic basis of paternal authority, freedom from entanglements and wars, or a relationship with Russia based on the Biblical-Classical heritage? If they would have said that, then would they have been right? Among numerous other examples, potential or actual.

Import controls, immigration controls, Buy American requirements, an insistence on the use of English, a ban or other restriction on abortion, the definition of marriage as only ever the union of one man and one woman, the hard work necessary to ensure a non-interventionist foreign policy: these and many more are or would be cases of government action. To suggest that any and all such action is bad or wrong, or at the very least regrettable, is untenable from the Classics, from the Bible, from the witness of Christendom, from the Common Law tradition, from the constitutionally binding and other writings of the Founding Fathers, and from sheer common sense. The House, at least, has just voted for such action of a strongly pro-life kind. Just for once, can’t you be happy? You have every cause to be.

Now, while abortion is being dealt with by Stupak and by the Pregnant Women Support Act, about those import controls, those immigration controls, those Buy American requirements, that insistence on the use of English, that definition of marriage as only ever the union of one man and one woman, that hard work necessary to ensure a non-interventionist foreign policy…

2 Comments »

MINT-AND-CORN COUNTRY, INDIANA — I haven’t a plethora of family who have served: One grandfather, a handful of great-uncles, an aunt who was an Air Force nurse, and an uncle who was a reservist. I belong nominally to the Sons of the American Legion, but have never been active. This all being so, I have never even remotely had the experience of coming from a military family — neither the uncertainty that accompanies having a loved one “fighting for his country” (though I have had friends, including a high-school classmate who took his own life in Iraq) nor the deep sort of connection, almost spiritual, that one whose grandfather stormed the beach at Normandy may have to the military-hero/freedom-fighter narrative. Because of this, I am a little hesitant to say a whole lot on Veterans Day; moreover, I have very mixed emotions about the attitude we collectively (purportedly) display on Veterans Day.

First, I say collectively because it seems, outside of American Legion and VFW halls and public schools, to have become little more than another paid-for-nothing — and, hell, I even worked a few hours today —, nearly forgotten —, the people whom we honor today nearly forgotten.

The attitude, to whatever extent we still embrace it, as numerous Facebook status messages reminded me today, is something to the effect of “We thank and honor American servicemen for protecting our freedom.” And here’s where my feelings become problematic.

But before I explain, I should make two things perfectly clear. Pace Mr. Roach, despite contributing to a Weblog at TAC, I am decidedly not a pacifist, sophomoric or otherwise. Notwithstanding Roach’s contention, I’d wager that few, if any, contributors to this magazine and its online presence embrace pacifism. Just War Theory? Sure. Constitutionally founded opposition quasi-imperialism? Damn right. A sick feeling that a wholly justified cause — incapacitating al Qaeda — has devolved, for a number of reasons, into a disastrous affair from which we can neither emerge victorious nor, it seems, extricate ourselves at all? It’s enough to turn anyone into a “pacifist” — except, it seems, for the people in power and the people who have been duped into believing that a) we can “win” in Afghanistan and Iraq and b) what ultimately will constitute these allegedly ineluctable victories in these quasi-nations will be anything but Pyrrhic.

Also, I deeply and intensely respect the men and women who risk their lives serving in the various manifestations of Hell that have emerged between India and the Mediterranean, just as I hold in high regard those who combatted Charlie in the jungles of Indochina. That so many veterans of that great quagmire, especially, have ended up on the streets of our cities is simply unjustifiable, further evincing, in my eyes, that the source of my discomfort regarding Memorial and Veterans Day is not off-base.

Simply put, I have concluded that the thank-the-soldiers posturing is one of the most triumphant, and most pernicious, myths of our culture. Arguably, Americans have not died to protect our freedom since the War Between the States (and, in that case, one could contend that only the grey-suited soldiers did this).

The Second World War, I concede, presents a more complicated situation: American soil was attacked. (We’ll check at the door debates over whether Japanese were agitated and whether Hawai’i ever should have been brought under American hegemony.) No war historian or tactical expert I, I shan’t pretend that I can offer an alternative to waging war against Japan (although I maintain my opposition to our destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima). Americans in the Pacific Theater fought — died — to protect our freedoms. But whether Americans shipped across the Atlantic did so is another question. Yes, Hitler declared war on us, and that being so, ensuring that he not invade American soil certainly was an urgent concern, but whether going on the offensive in Europe accomplished anything for the sake of our freedom and safety is far from settled.

Even conceding, as I am moderately inclined to do, that the servicemen fighting in the Second World War fought, indeed, to protect our freedom, that, by and large, Americans have not done this is undeniable. Neither North Korea nor Soviet Russia through that young puppet-state threatened us; the same goes for the subjugation of the Vietnamese, however unfortunate it was.

The great bloodbath of the second decade of the Twentieth Century? European pissing match of which we ought to have steered clear, rather than sending young Americans to their deaths in a fiery Hell that directly led to the rise Communism, National Socialism, and Fascism.

Spanish-American War? American imperialism.

Let us never denigrate the men and women who risk their lives in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard, nor in the reserves or National Guard.

But let us not deceive ourselves: These men and women who return home in coffins rarely have given their lives so that I may compose this inflammatory post without fear of retribution from Adolf bin Hitler. They have done so for the imperialists and the corporatists.

The American soldier, however sincerely he believes that he is, isn’t fighting for his country; he’s fighting for the State.

We owe him better. We owe him safety and security at home, and the assurance that when he puts his life on the line, he does so for the meaningful things for which we tell him he fights, for which we thank him for defending.

2 Comments »

As everyone should know by now but probably does not, this is the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The first breach in that wall set off a chain reaction that would eventually topple Communist governments and liberate people across half of Europe.  It would also end the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Block, substantially diminishing the possibility for nuclear annihilation. However, when people say that the West–or more particularly, America–won the Cold War, I’m not exactly sure what they mean.

Of course, America still exists as a country while the Soviet Union does not, but in a war that is supposedly about ideas and ideals, victory must me something more than outlasting your opponent.

I think the more appropriate way to look at the matter is to ask: who has benefited the most from the end of the Cold War?  Clearly, it is the peoples of East Germany, Poland, Estonia, etc. that have gained the most.  They are far richer than they were twenty years ago, and more importantly they are able to speak and think as they please without fear of imprisonment, torture, and possibly death at the hands of their governments.  Even Russia, which is still far from free, is a much freer place than it was under the Soviets.  Dissident journalists do still turn up missing, but to be known as a dissident journalist in the Soviet Union was almost an impossibility.  The post-Communist states all have a long way to go to complete freedom, but with few exceptions, they are all now much closer to that ideal than they were twenty years ago.

But can we say that the people of the United States also won the Cold War?  Sadly, I do not believe so.  After World War II, the United States’ standing army likely would have shrunk back to the small peacetime numbers that existed for most of our history if it weren’t for the Cold War.  Instead, the U.S. military spread across the world, allegedly to keep the country free from the horrors of Communism.  Ironically, keeping the people of America free required enslaving a large percentage of her young men through the country’s first peacetime draft.  And of course, soldiers must be housed, equipped, fed, and paid, which required a higher level of taxation than Americans were used to in peacetime.  Twenty years ago, the United States could have reversed this course and reaped the peace dividend, but instead the government pressed ahead and extended American influence into the former Soviet Block–taking on new powers and responsibilities along the way.

No, America lost the Cold War.  We may be richer than when it started, but a larger portion of our incomes go to the government.  Even worse, the United States now leads the world in imprisonment–not just by rate but in absolute terms as well, with 1 out of every 150 Americans behind bars.  This is largely a consequence of the War on Drugs, which is a war the American government wages upon its own citizens.  In the years of the Cold War and since, we have become substantially less free.

One right that is still largely intact is the Freedom of Religion, but most versions of American Christianity today bear little resemblance to the teachings found in the Gospels.  In this country today, people tend to worship the American Jesus, more known for killing “hajis” than offering salvation.  Christianity has become a state religion in this country as it was for the Roman Emperor Constantine, and it is put to the same use of justifying military power.  Perhaps even worse than using the Prince of Peace for war, the president (provided he is of the right party, of course) is now viewed by most as an avatar of God on Earth if not God himself.  Many American Christians have rendered everything unto Caesar and have nothing left for God.

The world is a far freer place than it was twenty years ago, but America is not.  Kierkegaard once wrote “What slave in chains is as unfree as a tyrant!”  As the tyrant of the world, America is enslaved to all.  Truly, America has gained the world, but lost her soul.

11 Comments »

Why should the Devil have all the best lines?

Consider the words of Hermann Goering:

“Of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can hope to get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

I am not a pacifist. My concern is that those who have cried in the past for “No More Brothers’ Wars” have been enthusiasts for the regime of which Goering was a member and have defined brotherhood in his, its and their preposterous “racial” terms. Such is not in fact the basis of Western civilization. That is the recapitulation in Jesus Christ and His Church of all three of the Old Israel, Hellenism, and the Roman Empire.

How, and I do not mean these questions rhetorically, can those formed by that recapitulation be in any sense faithful to it by taking up arms against each other? How can nations long ago called into being either directly or (because the bonds thus forged led to political union) indirectly by the baptism of kings and chieftans, so that those nations have the baptismal covenant as their fundamental charter severally and collectively, abrogate that covenant and charter by waging war against each other? How can individual persons united by a common baptism raise their hands in anger against each other?

How can anyone who sees every human being a child of the One True God, Who desires that everyone become part of His one family and community of faith, go into battle against any other actual or potential member of that family and community, any other child of the One True God, any other human being whatever? This is the genius of monotheism in international affairs, as much in principle, or as little in practise, the witness of Islam as of Christianity, not because they are both worshipping the same god (they certainly are not), but precisely because they both affirm that there is One God, to Whom all must relate equally, which means that all can and may relate to Him equally.

No more bothers’ wars, indeed. Which means no more wars at all. And that, in turn, means the hard, hard work necessary in order to prevent them, of the kind not put in by those responsible for doing so in 1914, or in 1939, or since 2001. It means not making promises that cannot be kept, most spectacularly to defend the Poland that, after six years of blood, toil, tears and sweat, we Britons ended up signing over to Stalin as if he were any better than Hitler. It means accepting that an Originally Sinful humanity cannot be perfected either in this life alone or by human effort alone, so that schemes to spread “freedom and democracy” at the barrel of a gun are intrinsically doomed and must be utterly eschewed.

Wars, though very occasionally unavoidable, are unconservative in that they are colossally expensive, morally and socially disruptive, liable to embitter old enemies while creating new ones, good for decadent and globalist big business, and productive of baby booms that think they can start the world again by imposing their tastes in that vein for decades on end. The use, threatened use, and thus simple possession of nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological weapons is absolutely contrary to the just war tradition that is intrinsic to our heritage as the True West: Hebrew, Greek and Latin in Christ. We see from the above that any practically conceivable war at all may very well be ultimately incompatible with that heritage. It is precisely the avoidance of war that necessitates the individual and collective discipline and determination of which conservatives approve.

And no more brothers’ wars means no more fathers’ wars, not least since those sent to war tend to come from working-class backgrounds, where starting to have children often still happens earlier than has lately become the norm. Think of those very young men whom we see going off or coming home, hugging and kissing their tiny children. Our societies urgently need to re-emphasize the importance of fatherhood. That includes paternal authority, and thus paternal responsibility, at key points in childhood and adolescence. That authority and responsibility require an economic basis such as only the State can ever guarantee, and such as only the State can very often deliver. And that basis is high-wage, high-skilled, high-status employment. All aspects of public policy must take account of this urgent social and cultural need. Not least, that includes energy policy: the energy sources to be preferred by the State are those providing the high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs that secure the economic basis of paternal authority in the family and in the wider community. So, nuclear power. And drill, baby, drill.

But that authority cannot be affirmed while fathers are torn away from their children and harvested in wars. You can believe in fatherhood, or you can support wars under certainly most and possibly all circumstances, the latter especially in practice today even if not necessarily in the past or in principle. You cannot do both. Which is the conservative position? Which makes present in the world the Fatherhood of God proclaimed by Jesus Christ?

No Comments »