Arimathea | Philosophy | Paleos and Jews: European and American | Comments
Page views: 2522445
Total entries: 1461
Total comments: 225



Monday, January 12, A.D. 2009
Paleos and Jews: European and American

My post from yesterday—“Gaza and Jew Hatred”—dealt with the recent spike in anti-Jewish outbursts in the West. For today’s related post, I refer you to Ilana Mercer’s recent entry at VDARE—“Paleos Must Defend the West . . . And That Means Israel, Too”—where she considers how the European paleoconservatives differ from their American counterparts regarding the state of Israel. She notes that the notoriously anti-Semitic European Right has been generally quite supportive of Israel in its fight against Hamas, while American paleoconservatives have been rather critical of Israel. I suppose that she means Patrick Buchanan; I do not know who else might represent traditionalist conservatives who also complains about Israel’s supposed war mongering. Her article is worth considering.

Mercer holds that Europe’s “blood and soil” conservatives have a better instinctual appreciation for Israel’s struggle to survive, while she argues that American paleocons criticize Israel from parochial concerns. I think that she is correct. Buchanan’s annoyance at Israel originates not in anti-Semitism, as his enemies frequently claim, but in his belief that America’s influential Jewish community pressures American foreign policy to do what is not in America’s best interests—for the sake of Israel. He thinks that America’s neoconservative agenda has entangled us in other peoples’ problems. Yet, Mercer argues that it is in the self-interest of the West to support Israel as a fellow Western nation on the frontlines of Mohammedan terror. The European Right fears the creeping tide of sharia in their midst, while American paleoconservatives believe that the oceans and energy independence will keep the barbarians from the gates.

I agree with Mercer, as I am hopelessly lost to the clash of civilizations thesis. I think that the evidence is clear, but I confess that I am a sucker for the epic. I tire of the West’s technocratic babbling about managing risks and population intervention and the rest of that soul crushing social science jargon. We cannot even say crusade? What would Washington, Lee, or Patton think about our political and cultural leaders, curdled in cowardly paralysis?

At the basic level, we must admit a certain incompatibility between the West and the Mujahideen. Our thoughts are not their thoughts; their ways are not ours. The Anglican archbishop’s advice notwithstanding, our legal system cannot operate alongside sharia. If we value our own side and our own ways—if we wish for them to continue to exist—we cannot accommodate the banner carriers of Mohammedanism. There are several options available to us.

We could isolate the breeding grounds of jihadists, limiting them to the areas where the scimitar has already conquered the Dar al-Harb. Of course, this offers no hope to the oppressed dhimmis under the infidel yoke. Moreover, this plan would require a post-petroleum economy, and the West is not technologically advanced enough to sever those poisonous pipelines without having to suffer significant economic hardships. In the land of mammon, few are willing to forgo material benefits for long-term civilizational survival.

We could follow the Projet Coulter: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” When Ann Coulter published those words on September 13, A.D. 2001, the entire political spectrum denounced her. Yet, it is obvious that it is a winning strategy. Of course, the West no longer breeds men such as Cecil Rhodes and Horatio Herbert Kitchener. We no longer have the stomach for unpleasant necessities. Besides, I, myself, find the attacks on Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki reprehensible. I disagree with the Left about waging “politically correct” war, but morality has a place even in battle.

We could also set a middle passage and allow some trade, study, and cultural intermingling with very strict provisions. This route is the most realistic but, if taken, the most likely to devolve back into the current mess. Without active resistance, one’s guard relaxes, and then the barbarians storm.

With these options and others, allies are needed and useful. It is difficult to see how, on a per capita basis, at least, we could have a better ally in this fight than the state of Israel.

Posted by Joseph on Monday, January 12, A.D. 2009
Philosophy | PoliticsPermalink

I agree with your analysis, though regret your mention of Ann Coulter. Surely there is a more credible source than her who has advocated the blanket destruction of Muslims? Ok, maybe not. So perhaps it was a necessary citation. We delude ourselves if we ever think that such an option is not on the table. Perhaps Ann Coulter is the only one who would ever say it out loud, but if any Muslim State were to launch a serious attack on Israel, her proposed strategy would not only be on the table but might be actually be used.

As long as the West maintains its historical support of Israel, however, that won’t be necessary. Israel has a way of fending off the aggression of states by shamelessly killing those it deems as a threat to its security. The recent aggression in Gaza is a perfect example. Such aggression tends to keep “wipe Israel off the map” rhetoric to, well, rhetoric.

The loaded nature of my choice of words - “shameless killing” and “aggression” - is not lost on me. It is the language of the raving left, and in my view, is generally used inappropriately in reference to Israel. But the sheer scope of the death and destruction wrought on Gaza recently makes such terms appropriate. Contrary to the raving left, however, I do not object to this tactic. For that’s what it is, a tactic. A thousand eyes for one. To reason with the unreasonable is madness. The only way to deter the kind of violence perpetrated by Hammas is to disregard the humane. Is it evil? Certainly. But as the left’s favorite President, Jimmy Carter, once said, “All war is evil; but sometimes, it is a necessary evil.” When the premise of a group’s existence is that it’s wants your destruction, even the most ineffective attack must be dealt with in a dramatic way.

Israel is our best ally because they are the only ones who are willing to do evil against our nation’s biggest enemies. They take a lot of heat for it, too. They don’t ask that we help, they merely ask that we stay out of their way (and lend a supporting statement every now and again.) I think it’s the least we can do.

Posted by Jack The Ripper on Monday, January 19, A.D. 2009

Jack, your opinion approximates my own as expressed in my previous post on Gaza. You cannot reason with the Palestinian terrorists, and I fear that a majority of the Palestinian population might be counted among the the invincibly deluded. Future recruits for Hamas are plenteous in the hellholes of the “Arab street.” The Middle East Media Research Institute covers the Palestinian media, and you can see on that site some of the endless stream of hatred toward Israelis that the Arab population ingests every day. Something akin to our lengthy and intense denazification program in postwar Germany would be needed to “re-educate” the Arab world, and that, of course, won’t happen.

Posted by Joseph from Arimathea on Monday, January 19, A.D. 2009
Previous entry (all realms): Gaza and Jew Hatred
Next entry (all realms): Boy Movies

Previous entry (Philosophy): Gaza and Jew Hatred
Next entry (Philosophy): Questionable Misogyny
Leave a comment

Christian / First Name: (required and displayed)

E-mail: (required but not displayed)

Location: (optional and displayed)

Web site: (optional and displayed)

Please write your commentary here: (Click here to add Smileys)

Please submit the word that you see below:

Your comment will be posted after Joseph makes sure that it is neither spammy nor unpublishable.