The Neocons' New Coalition Partners
(Alternative Right) -- by Paul Gottfried --
Richard Spencer’s references to Alex Knepper and his erotic activities while working as David Frum’s assistant bring up what is not an isolated embarrassment. It betokens what may be a widening problem for the neoconservative camp and given the influence of the neoconservatives, for the entire authorized Right. (Fortunately our side will not be involved, since we have no more investment in the present conservative movement than we do in the Obama administration.) It is highly doubtful that Knepper’s solicitation of sexual favors, “posting many pieces on a chat site for gay teens,” began the day before yesterday. Presumably there was a cover-up going on for a while, that is, as long as Frum could keep Alex’s critics at bay. Finally despite his value as a gutter journalist, Knepper became too much of a liability to be kept any longer (pardon the double entendre), and so Frum gave him the heave ho with expressions of “regret and remorse.”
I do recall a time when those who stupidly or opportunistically tried to see the good side of their new masters assured me that the ascending neocons were “serious about family issues.” They might have sounded like a cross between Trotsky and Ariel Sharon on foreign policy; and they might have drooled incessantly over Latino immigration, the Civil Rights Act, and the memories of their anti-Stalinist Marxist favs. But when family issues came up, one could supposedly count on them. This may have been the case for a few years, but by now the old story has worn thin. On family issues, the neocons are social-cultural leftists, and it is likely they’re going to drag all their dependents and lickspittles, and particularly their Christian stooges, in the same direction.
The neoconservatives have had a cozy relation with gays for some time, a truth that can be ascertained by looking at the staff of New Criterion, the catamites of Allan Bloom, and many neocon friendships in the New York-Washington Corridor. This however is no reason to ascribe ideological positions to those who feel comfortable around gays. De gustibus non disputandum! And one can always point to the fact that truer conservatives in an earlier period showed the same erotic propensities and were often exposed by the Left for their indiscretions.
The difference between then and now however is that none of these earlier homosexual conservatives or their well-wishers went around legitimating alternative lifestyles. It was simply assumed that individuals, including conservatives who thought of themselves as Christians, had their failings; and it was they who would have to cope with such flaws as idiosyncratic sexual preferences. But since the early 1990s, when the Wall Street Journal began bashing Buchanan for insulting the “San Francisco Democrats,” which was taken as a coded reference to gays, the neocon camp has been keen on homosexual rights, even pushing in some well-publicized instances the institution of gay marriage.
Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, and John Podhoretz are only three of the more prominent advocates in the “conservative” communion of extending marriage to gays. And for the last ten days, we’ve been treated to one tirade after the other against New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, for failing to show sufficient respect for Gay Pride parades. Paladino’s remark before a gathering of Hasidic Rabbis in Brooklyn that they should not “allow their children to be brainwashed” by those who treat homosexual relations as a norm, was perfectly appropriate. Such brainwashing goes on in our public schools incessantly; and I’m sure that Frederic Dicker of the New York Post, Charles Krauthammer on FOX, and other neocon talking heads know what Paladino said is directly related to reality.
But he is clearly not on the same page with Human Events’s “conservative of the year” in 2009, Dick Cheney. Unlike the scorned Paladino, Cheney is passionately in favor of gay marriage and showcases his lesbian daughter. While Cheney’s value as a “conservative” has more to do with his foreign policy belligerence than with his conception of marriage, indisputably his work as a gay activist has not damaged his “conservative” image. By contrast, the spunky Italian hard hat Paladino is being savaged night and day by neocons for taking the opposite position.
Earlier in the year, when every neocon celebrity came out enthusiastically for Obama’s concession to the social Left, to get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, I naively assumed that the reason was the one I heard Krauthammer give: “We’re going to need the military and so why exclude anyone who wants to serve on the basis of sexual preference.” I won’t get into the arguments that could be marshaled on the other side, for example, about gay officers trying to extract favors from those with lower ranks. But presumably if I thought like a neocon, that the primary mission of the U.S. is to get repeatedly into military crusades for democracy, I might have seen Krauthammer’s point.
Unfortunately, by now the neocons, and especially the children of the founding fathers, seem to be intent on accommodating gays, that is, people they’re more likely to run into in Starbucks than their well-wishers who live in fly-over country. And I don’t blame the neocons for preferring sexually ambiguous Jewish publicists whom they meet in their own social world to the cognitively deprived goyim who hang on their every word. I might prefer the company of urbane metrosexuals to those fools who weep over Glenn Beck’s incoherent encomia to MLK.
My question is what will happen when the latest neocon move to the left becomes an authorized position in their movement. Will those who depend on neocon favors go along with the move or will there be some opposition? My prediction is as follows. The drones will fall into line, with their usual rhetorical dishonesty. Just as in the case of the transformation of the Reverend Dr. King, from a quasi-Marxist philanderer and crass plagiarizer into a conservative theologian and Augustinian Christian, gay marriage will become a new exemplification of “family values.” There is no way one could do verbal justice to the sleaziness of kowtowing movement conservatives. I still vividly recall the way The Gambler, Bill Bennett, came out for hyper-Zionist Lieberman for vice-president in 2008, after having devoted years of his life to inveighing against abortion. Supposedly Lieberman, who voted for late-term abortion, was good on “democratic values” and therefore deserved to be president. Perhaps Bennett’s sponsors threw him payola for this highly publicized endorsement...MORE...LINK
Related: David Frum's "intellectual" stable of Jewish Zionist, Christian-hating pedophiles at FrumForum: the essence of neoconservatism?
Chris Moore comments:
This scandal is the way to reveal the neocons for what they are: a stable of perverted, incestuous, racist, warmongering, greedy, statist swindlers and Israel-firsters who despise Christianity and its moral restraints. They want an authoritarian State to be the "guardian" of morality (based on their mandates), and want to pharisaically pull the strings of it all. All the neocons care about is power and establishing their own tribal supremacy; they have no principles, honor, codes or loyalties otherwise. Since Christianity is a potential rival to State power, and since it proselytizes, they see it as a threat to the leviathan that they and their neolib partners essentially control that needs to be snuffed by any means necessary; gay marriage is one means to Christian eradication.
Neocons and neolibs truly despise freedom from their coercive authority, and there can be no freedom from statist tyranny anywhere in Western Civilization without the private (ironically, what should now be considered “secular”) moral authority that Christianity represents, and the neocons recognize this -- which is why they want to exterminate it and any other religious rivals.
America is well down the slippery slope to moral oblivion. Homoeroticism or minimal tolerance of homosexuals is one thing; institutionalized acceptance and endorsement of deviance is another.
This is the problem with the neocon/neolib element in general, and the kosher-nostra wing in particular: they demand the state institutionally endorse/protect the “deviant,” because they fear (or affect to fear) that the Jews will be labeled “deviant” next. This provides all other deviants entrée into civil society on their coattails -- which they welcome as part of their coalition, and fellow “victims.”
I personally don’t believe this pathology is truly motivated by fear; I believe overwrought claims of vulnerability are and always have been a ploy to grow the State into the space previously occupied by Christian moral authority. Kosher-nostra Jews need the State to occupy this space since their ethno-ideology is too elitist to proselytize, hence the State becomes the bigoted and lazy man's stand-in for the hard work and good will of using free speech to change hearts and minds.
Swindlers always take the easy way out.
Comment by "Chris Moore" on Bumbling Towards the Biosingularity, by Guillaume Durocher - What is the source of such conflicts? Different populations within a society become emotionally attached to various symbols and fight to impose these in ...
1 day ago