Even though Lawrence Auster goes to greath lengths to show that he is not a Neocon, this is more apparent than real. If we strip Neoconism down to its bare essentials it is the belief that the United States military should be used in the service of Israel. Once we understand Neoconism in this light there is no question that Mr Auster is not only a Neocon, but a fanatical one.
However, things often get more complicated because Neocons are never honest or straightforward about their real intentions. Beginning in 2002 they sold the American people on the idea that Saddam's Iraq was stockpiling tons of weapons of mass destruction in order to give to terrorists (al-Qaeda?) or to attack the United States, possibly killing millions. Of course it didn't take too long for everyone to realize that that was just a gigantic propaganda ploy -- but it worked. But before the truth behind the WMD scandal could even get its boots on, the cause for invading suddenly changed to a humanitarian mission. We were bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq. But both these arguments -- WMD and democracy -- were simply the public rationales for the war, and not the reason.
Lawrence Auster never hesitates to impugn the "democratization" of Iraq, but this debate is just shadow boxing. Except for those who have been lobomitized by right-wing talk radio, I doubt anyone believes that the Neocons in Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq to turn it into a democracy or even that a westen democracy is possible anywhere in the Arabic world. The United States, though, simply cannot build large military fortifications in Iraq and pretend that this mission is all about helping the Iraqi people, so it becomes necessary to give the war a humanitarian gloss. This is just propaganda: putting "democratic" perfume on their imperial pig. Mr Auster is a certified Neocon and it doesn't matter that he criticizes the "democratization" of Iraq because this isn't the essence of Neoconism, but only one of its transient apparitions.
So it doesn't matter that Mr Auster flays the Neocons for claiming that we are building a democracy in Iraq because it's not the real Neocon agenda. The real Neocon agenda is the use of the US military, and the military of other nations, to eliminate Israel's enemies. Does Mr Auster oppose using our military on behalf of a foreign power?
In early 2003 you could find Mr Auster promoting every paranoid Neocon conspiracy about Saddam Hussein developing a nuclear weapon in which to blackmail the entire world. In the immediate aftermath of the war, as the WMD lies began to come into focus, Mr Auster also didn't hesitate to cite the "humanitarian" benefit of the war.
In a post dated April 10 2003 entitled Thanks, America Mr Auster shows a picture of a very young Iraqi boy looking up and smiling at an American soldier. Mr Auster writes "Thanks to George W Bush and the United States of America, this boy will not have to grow up under the monstrous tyranny of Saddam Hussein." This is quite unusual because it seems at this point that Lawrence Auster doesn't understand his own version of Islam. Is this young child not a Muslim? Will he not grow up to wage war against the West in the name of jihad? Is he not a danger to our civilization?
In other post dated April 09, 2003 entitled Baghdad, Liberated Mr Auster cannot help but be swept up in the jubilation of the U.S military "liberating" a Muslim city. Given that Islam is a cancerous growth upon western civilization, should we really believe Mr Auster is ecstatic that we've "liberated" a whole city of these fanatics?
Although we'll elaborate on the idea in later posts, it's clear enough that Mr Auster's current view of Islam isn't something born out by his dispassionate look at the facts, but rather his anger at the Iraqi people for failing to obsequiously lay down their arms and accept the new occupiers. The escalation of violence in Iraq, and the failure to uncover large caches of WMD, makes every proponent of the war look like an ignoramus. In his fury, Mr Auster blames the Iraqi people, and then Islam for making him look like such a fool.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Lawrence Auster: Super Neocon
I don't intend to use this site to comment on Lawrence Auster's general worldview or political associations, but rather to provide a detailed rebuttal of his more asine and far flung ideas. As I mentioned in my previous post, Lawrence Auster calls himself a "traditionalist," but this really means very little. In reality, Lawrence Auster is a Neocon and while not all Neocons are identical his ideas about the world and his interests clearly place him in the Neocon camp. However, before we continue to elaborate on this idea, I think it's important to insert some background information on why Mr Auster considers himself to be a "tradionalist."
It all began in 2002 when the Bush Administration began its propaganda campaign to convince Americans, and the rest of the world, on the dire need to invade Iraq. The Neocons came to the forefront of political discourse at this time because they were seen -- rightly -- as the intellectual force spearheading the drive to invade Iraq. The reasons at the time were mostly about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the threat they posed to the United States. Also, there were subtle suggestions that Iraq may have had a role in the 9/11 terror attacks. But we all know this story.
However, a more neglected story was the extent to which the Iraq war divided the conservative movement. While most self-identified conservatives did support the Iraq war this itself is not very meaningful because average 'Joe Conservative' always roots for the Republicans. At the more intellectual level, though, there was a serious break in conservative ranks; ranks that were solid and unified during the Clinton years. As the war brought the term Neocon into the spotlight it also brought the term paleo conservative, not into the spotlight, but at least out of the warehouse of the Unknown Political Lexicon. Though much more could be said about this, for our purposes it is enough to know that Lawrence Auster sided with the Neocons, celebrated the Iraq war , spread the propaganda about Saddam Hussein threatening the world with a nuclear weapon, and was a stalwart defender of President Bush. This alone surely qualifies him as a Neocon although now he never mentions the fact that he supported the war, and tries to blame the Neocon's idealistic project for building a democracy in Iraq as the problem rather than the war itself.
So why is Lawrence Auster a Neocon? As unpleasant as this may sound, a Neocon is first and foremost a supporter of Israel but also, secondarily, one who wishes to create a climate of permanent hostility between the West and Islam. We know that Lawrence Auster is Jewish, but not all Jews are Neocons, but nevertheless we can surely say that, like feminism, Neoconism is a Jewish movement in the sense that it seeks to promote singularly Jewish interests. So we shouldn't let Lawrence Auster get away with labeling himself a "tradionalist." He invented this label to dissociate himself from the paleo-conservatives, primarily Buchanan, who were against the war, but also the mainstream Neocon movement since it supports or at least is rather silent about immigration.
Since Lawrence Auster regards Islam as a threat to Israel he has fabricated a largely fictious monster, which most call "radical" Islam, but he simply labels as Islam. There is no moderate Islam. It's all radical, and by radical Mr Auster means of the same type that perpetrated the 911 terror attacks. The slaughter of three thousand innocents is the norm for Islam. All else is wishful thinking.
In the coming posts we will explain why Lawrence Auster's view of Islam isn't accurate or even rational, but largely a fantasy that tries to lure the entire West in the pursuit of serving the interests of Israel. Above all else, this disqualifies Mr Auster from the ranks of conservative or even an American, because in reality he is a dangerous propagandist whose only concern is to foment more war.
It all began in 2002 when the Bush Administration began its propaganda campaign to convince Americans, and the rest of the world, on the dire need to invade Iraq. The Neocons came to the forefront of political discourse at this time because they were seen -- rightly -- as the intellectual force spearheading the drive to invade Iraq. The reasons at the time were mostly about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the threat they posed to the United States. Also, there were subtle suggestions that Iraq may have had a role in the 9/11 terror attacks. But we all know this story.
However, a more neglected story was the extent to which the Iraq war divided the conservative movement. While most self-identified conservatives did support the Iraq war this itself is not very meaningful because average 'Joe Conservative' always roots for the Republicans. At the more intellectual level, though, there was a serious break in conservative ranks; ranks that were solid and unified during the Clinton years. As the war brought the term Neocon into the spotlight it also brought the term paleo conservative, not into the spotlight, but at least out of the warehouse of the Unknown Political Lexicon. Though much more could be said about this, for our purposes it is enough to know that Lawrence Auster sided with the Neocons, celebrated the Iraq war , spread the propaganda about Saddam Hussein threatening the world with a nuclear weapon, and was a stalwart defender of President Bush. This alone surely qualifies him as a Neocon although now he never mentions the fact that he supported the war, and tries to blame the Neocon's idealistic project for building a democracy in Iraq as the problem rather than the war itself.
So why is Lawrence Auster a Neocon? As unpleasant as this may sound, a Neocon is first and foremost a supporter of Israel but also, secondarily, one who wishes to create a climate of permanent hostility between the West and Islam. We know that Lawrence Auster is Jewish, but not all Jews are Neocons, but nevertheless we can surely say that, like feminism, Neoconism is a Jewish movement in the sense that it seeks to promote singularly Jewish interests. So we shouldn't let Lawrence Auster get away with labeling himself a "tradionalist." He invented this label to dissociate himself from the paleo-conservatives, primarily Buchanan, who were against the war, but also the mainstream Neocon movement since it supports or at least is rather silent about immigration.
Since Lawrence Auster regards Islam as a threat to Israel he has fabricated a largely fictious monster, which most call "radical" Islam, but he simply labels as Islam. There is no moderate Islam. It's all radical, and by radical Mr Auster means of the same type that perpetrated the 911 terror attacks. The slaughter of three thousand innocents is the norm for Islam. All else is wishful thinking.
In the coming posts we will explain why Lawrence Auster's view of Islam isn't accurate or even rational, but largely a fantasy that tries to lure the entire West in the pursuit of serving the interests of Israel. Above all else, this disqualifies Mr Auster from the ranks of conservative or even an American, because in reality he is a dangerous propagandist whose only concern is to foment more war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)