October 25, 2003
NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.
From: Gideon Isaac
I am tired of the bashing of neoconservatives on your site. The latest is a review by Paul Craig Roberts of Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest For Empire.
Neoconservative "ideas are destroying our country" says Professor Ryn. He adds that Neoconservatives are really Neo-Jacobins, and their ideas are a "recipe for perpetual war." They have a "fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue." They want to "remake America into an empire" to "impose virtue on the world."
I see myself as a neoconservative, and I do not advocate invading any country that is not a threat to us, even if that country has mass graves and torture chambers like Iraq did. It is not "fantastic" to say that we are closer to a monopoly on virtue than Saddam Hussein was, and is.
Let's look at the last two invasions we took part in. Afghanistan had become a training camp for Islamist extremists from all over the world. We found maps of American cities in their camps.
Then came Iraq. We did not invade because we felt more virtuous than Iraq. We invaded because we were afraid that Saddam would amass nuclear weapons and give them to Al Queda. Saddam was no innocent victim. He tried to assassinate the father of the current President Bush, and he had used chemical weapons at Halabjah on his own citizens, and he used them in the conflict with Iran. He also had at one time an active nuclear weapons program (see the book "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Daring Escape of the Man Who Built Iraq's Secret Weapon" by Khidr Abd Al-Abbas Hamzah).
So should we now invade Iran? Iran assassinates dissidents at home and abroad. Iran military parades are accompanied by slogans such as "We shall crush the US under our feet." Iran has a nuclear program. Fidel Castro visited Iran a while back, and told the Iranians that the American Imperialists were very weak. (And America certainly has weaknesses, such as porous borders, and a relatively small fraction of citizens who have been in the military.)
Professor Ryn even sees a reason that neoconservatives want immigration—supposedly because the hordes of young Mexicans pouring into the US are a convenient source of cannon fodder.
I've never heard even the most enthusiastic advocate of immigration argue this. I can't speak for other neo-conservatives, but for me, just seeing what is happening to France with its unprecedented demographic changes is warning enough against unrestricted immigration.
6 to 8 million Frenchmen are Moslem, out of a population of 62 million. The Moslem population is young and rising, and has 3 to 4 children per woman as opposed to 1.4 children for other non-Moslem women. Moslem immigrants come from countries where radical anti-Semitism is nurtured by the media, by politicians, and by religious education.
Instead of French culture moderating their attitudes, their attitudes change France. Slogans such as "Death To Jews" are routinely shouted at large scale Arab or left wing demonstrations in Paris and other cities. And Jews, in this case, are the canary in the coal mine—the people who hate them tend to have other anti-Western attitudes as well.
So, yes, let's be careful about whom we admit to this country, but let's not assume that what goes on in other countries is none of our business. It unfortunately is.
Peter Brimelow comments: Although we have repeatedly said that VDARE.COM is not a full-service webzine, and focuses only on immigration and the National Question, some our syndicated columnists, like Paul Craig Roberts, are outspoken on many other issues. This is a problem for us, because there is no doubt that the immigration reform coalition, like all coalitions, is split on other issues—and especially on the war. We run Gideon Isaac's letter in the spirit of fairness within the coalition (and will NOT be publishing ripostes, at least on its foreign policy aspects).
I might add, on a personal note, that I have reason to regard many of the neoconservative leaders as personal friends—and even, perhaps surprisingly, as allies on the immigration issue. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and also adversaries.