Well written article, but I take issue with several points - first of all:
‘It was the conflict in the Holy Land (not Afghanistan) which motivated Osama bin Laden’
Implying that bin Laden was primarily motivated by Palestine is quite ahistorical - did you mean to do that?
It’s pretty established that bin Laden was motivated - in his own words as a start, by 1 US military presence in Saudi
2 US sanctions and actions against Iraq
3 His general grievance about US supported regimes (esp Saudi), and the domination of Muslims by US/West
Yes he listed Zionism/Palestine etc as an issue, but it was a clear afterthought - seemed like he increased the salience of it a bit later in his propaganda just because to his surprise he found that bashing on about the Palestinians got him ‘odd’ sympathy in certain Western circles.
Is this what is being taught these days? That 9/11 was about the Palestinians???
Clearly it was a multi-factor decision to do 9/11, without a single cause, but my point is that a Palestinian peace process would have significantly reduced the likelihood for 9/11, because it would have normalized relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel quicker, which means less funding and support for Salafists in general, including bin Laden. It's a complex picture, but Palestine is part of it.
Ok as a general point I suppose you can argue that, but there WAS a Palestinian peace process going on in 2020-21. The Camp David summit was in July 2020 - Clinton later attributed the failure of that to Arafat. There were still ongoing negotiations late in the Clinton administration - the Bolling Air Force Base talks in Dec 2000 with Israeli & Palestinian negotiators, and in Jan 2001 the Taba summit - Israel offered 97% of West Bank, all of Gaza, land swaps, compromises on Jerusalem and refugees etc. Yes the advent of Bush and Sharon then put things on pause and the second intifada acclerated etc. Even so, there wasn’t a complete stall in 2001, there was the Mitchell Report in April 2001 and the Tenet Plan in June 2021.
This is getting a bit wordy, but in general Sept 11 attacks don’t seem to me to be about the lack of attempts at an Israel-Palestine deal. You are just arguing that if Israel had made more concessions at Camp David or Taba that bin Laden would have backed off? Anyway I get that this isn’t a main part of your argument, but it still seems misleading to me to attribute 9/11 attacks to Palestinian issue
I take exception to labeling anti-war conservatives as paleo-cons. I am a left-libertarian-leaning person myself, but there are some conservatives whose writing I respect, including Charley Reese. In fact, Reese is one of my favorite columnists of all time, a principled, individualistic, you-can't-put-me-in-a-box thinker. Here is what Reese said about the "paleo" label"
"I am a traditional conservative, not a neo- or paleo- or any of those other buglike classifications. As I have often said, you can read George Washington's Farewell Address and know exactly where I stand on every issue, foreign and domestic. I'm with the first George all the way. (https://archive.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese148.html)
I am much less enamored with Lew Rockwell, given some of the groups he has associated with. Still, in fairness, I would point out that he is no paleo-conservative, either:
'the term I once used, 'paleolibertarian,' . . . became confused because of its association with paleoconservative, so it came to mean some sort of socially conservative libertarian, which wasn't the point at all . . . in the end, I think we have to be happy with the term libertarian." (https://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberal-post-interview.html)
The problem with Frum's article, that I was attempting to point out, is that he unfairly wanted to paint all opponents of the Iraq War as raving racist antisemites, which, as you note, was not true. In effect, this "guilt by association" tactic led to that faction being boosted and promoted and given outsized influence, which overshadowed some of the more reasonable folks you are talking about.
My other point is that you can be an interventionist, internationalist, and a globalist, and still oppose what we did in Iraq, but Frum ignored those voices as well.
How can you oppose democratic nation building in Iraq but support it in Palestine?
Because that *is* what the Two State Solution would be -- artificially building some mythical peaceful Palestinian state where there are no preconditions for one.
The 2SS was part of the millenial bipartisan "end of history" delusion. The same era that saw America occupy Iraq also saw the US acid test of democracy in Gaza (2005 elections by Condoleeza Rice) and the accession of China to the WTO (2000 under Clinton).
A "liberal interventionist imperialist", if I have that right, would be more Zionist than Murray.
I would have supported a Palestinian monarchy akin to Jordan; Brzezinski supported the Taliban. You might be constructing a strawman here with the term "democratic." The purpose was to get a stable government in Palestine akin to the house of Saud, not to bring gay rights or low taxes to Palestine. I'm not sure you understood my article at all, which was mostly about denouncing the national building attempt as farcical, quoting Brzezinski as the strongest opponent of that farce. I don't think you even know who Brzezinski is, at all, and I meant that sincerely and not pejoratively. If you want to understand my position, there's a way to do that, but you actually have to read my words.
No serious leftist would consider someone who describes themselves as a 'liberal imperialist' to be a leftist. Leftists are supposed to oppose capitalism and imperialism. Liberalism (freedom of choice) and leftism (worker control of the means of production) are two separate ideologies. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily--I don't think imperialism was *entirely* bad, and I'm more of a liberal than a leftist or even, really, a conservative at heart--but you don't qualify as a leftist. Frankly, I think that's a good thing--I'm all for a bigger welfare state a la Scandinavia but actual socialism collapses every time it's tried.
You don't respect non-flamboyant gay men? What, everyone has to live up to the stereotype? British and European conservatism in general is much less tied up with Christianity and much more about defending the nation, so if they spend all their time opposing Islam being a gay conservative makes a lot more sense. The head of the AfD was a lesbian for a while. And, honestly, since exclusive homosexuality isn't really under conscious control I can't blame a gay guy for not wanting to flame. If it ain't his thing, it ain't his thing.
A lot of the silly philosemitism came from Christians trying to genuinely make amends after the Holocaust. They can't say another religion might be true--that goes against the whole idea of Christianity--but they can say you laid the foundation and they couldn't have done it without you. (And the 'Athens and Jerusalem' formulation has some truth to it--most cultures have a few wellsprings, the Chinese have ancestor worship, Legalism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism for example.) Give the evangelicals a break, they're getting replaced by alt-right guys who are much more antisemitic.
As for the WASP elite...they were running things through 1965 or so as you say, and given what happened to the country after that date I can't blame conservatives for being nostalgic. They were never the only people in there but our new meritocratic elite isn't doing a markedly better job in a lot of ways.
I'm not sure about the idea that attacking Iraq was bad. It was bad that we invaded in 2003. It would have been right to invade as soon as we knew they were gassing Kurds. So, 1988.
Your post is well thought out and well delivered. I definitely yield to you on your knowledge of the subjects brought up, but do have one point of inquiry on the normies/expert bit.
In a democracy, you need to convince the normies (i.e Rogan, Dave, myself, etc.) of the validity of your side in hopes they vote your way. Bringing on experts (i.e. Murray) to a podcast is an opportunity for normies to get questions asked and for experts to answer or refute arguments. That is the opportunity to win over normies. Murray had that shot and seemed to fail to convince normies. That's it. That is the point of all of this. Whether Rogan claims never to be an expert is beside the point, the people need to be convinced and he gives the experts the platform to reach the normies. The experts should be better prepared.
Well written article, but I take issue with several points - first of all:
‘It was the conflict in the Holy Land (not Afghanistan) which motivated Osama bin Laden’
Implying that bin Laden was primarily motivated by Palestine is quite ahistorical - did you mean to do that?
It’s pretty established that bin Laden was motivated - in his own words as a start, by 1 US military presence in Saudi
2 US sanctions and actions against Iraq
3 His general grievance about US supported regimes (esp Saudi), and the domination of Muslims by US/West
Yes he listed Zionism/Palestine etc as an issue, but it was a clear afterthought - seemed like he increased the salience of it a bit later in his propaganda just because to his surprise he found that bashing on about the Palestinians got him ‘odd’ sympathy in certain Western circles.
Is this what is being taught these days? That 9/11 was about the Palestinians???
Clearly it was a multi-factor decision to do 9/11, without a single cause, but my point is that a Palestinian peace process would have significantly reduced the likelihood for 9/11, because it would have normalized relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel quicker, which means less funding and support for Salafists in general, including bin Laden. It's a complex picture, but Palestine is part of it.
Ok as a general point I suppose you can argue that, but there WAS a Palestinian peace process going on in 2020-21. The Camp David summit was in July 2020 - Clinton later attributed the failure of that to Arafat. There were still ongoing negotiations late in the Clinton administration - the Bolling Air Force Base talks in Dec 2000 with Israeli & Palestinian negotiators, and in Jan 2001 the Taba summit - Israel offered 97% of West Bank, all of Gaza, land swaps, compromises on Jerusalem and refugees etc. Yes the advent of Bush and Sharon then put things on pause and the second intifada acclerated etc. Even so, there wasn’t a complete stall in 2001, there was the Mitchell Report in April 2001 and the Tenet Plan in June 2021.
This is getting a bit wordy, but in general Sept 11 attacks don’t seem to me to be about the lack of attempts at an Israel-Palestine deal. You are just arguing that if Israel had made more concessions at Camp David or Taba that bin Laden would have backed off? Anyway I get that this isn’t a main part of your argument, but it still seems misleading to me to attribute 9/11 attacks to Palestinian issue
Agree; we need a complete shut down of pundits speaking with a British accent until we can figure out what’s going on.
non-political ASMR videos and nature documentaries only
I take exception to labeling anti-war conservatives as paleo-cons. I am a left-libertarian-leaning person myself, but there are some conservatives whose writing I respect, including Charley Reese. In fact, Reese is one of my favorite columnists of all time, a principled, individualistic, you-can't-put-me-in-a-box thinker. Here is what Reese said about the "paleo" label"
"I am a traditional conservative, not a neo- or paleo- or any of those other buglike classifications. As I have often said, you can read George Washington's Farewell Address and know exactly where I stand on every issue, foreign and domestic. I'm with the first George all the way. (https://archive.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese148.html)
I am much less enamored with Lew Rockwell, given some of the groups he has associated with. Still, in fairness, I would point out that he is no paleo-conservative, either:
'the term I once used, 'paleolibertarian,' . . . became confused because of its association with paleoconservative, so it came to mean some sort of socially conservative libertarian, which wasn't the point at all . . . in the end, I think we have to be happy with the term libertarian." (https://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberal-post-interview.html)
The problem with Frum's article, that I was attempting to point out, is that he unfairly wanted to paint all opponents of the Iraq War as raving racist antisemites, which, as you note, was not true. In effect, this "guilt by association" tactic led to that faction being boosted and promoted and given outsized influence, which overshadowed some of the more reasonable folks you are talking about.
My other point is that you can be an interventionist, internationalist, and a globalist, and still oppose what we did in Iraq, but Frum ignored those voices as well.
> I don’t respect non-flamboyant gay men.
I think you're the only person I've ever seen be honest about this (among the people who believe it). Refreshing.
"Douglas Murray has a fetish for Jews, to the point that it makes me uncomfortable. Are you trying to have sex with me, Douglas?"
Unironically yes he is
How can you oppose democratic nation building in Iraq but support it in Palestine?
Because that *is* what the Two State Solution would be -- artificially building some mythical peaceful Palestinian state where there are no preconditions for one.
The 2SS was part of the millenial bipartisan "end of history" delusion. The same era that saw America occupy Iraq also saw the US acid test of democracy in Gaza (2005 elections by Condoleeza Rice) and the accession of China to the WTO (2000 under Clinton).
A "liberal interventionist imperialist", if I have that right, would be more Zionist than Murray.
I would have supported a Palestinian monarchy akin to Jordan; Brzezinski supported the Taliban. You might be constructing a strawman here with the term "democratic." The purpose was to get a stable government in Palestine akin to the house of Saud, not to bring gay rights or low taxes to Palestine. I'm not sure you understood my article at all, which was mostly about denouncing the national building attempt as farcical, quoting Brzezinski as the strongest opponent of that farce. I don't think you even know who Brzezinski is, at all, and I meant that sincerely and not pejoratively. If you want to understand my position, there's a way to do that, but you actually have to read my words.
No serious leftist would consider someone who describes themselves as a 'liberal imperialist' to be a leftist. Leftists are supposed to oppose capitalism and imperialism. Liberalism (freedom of choice) and leftism (worker control of the means of production) are two separate ideologies. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily--I don't think imperialism was *entirely* bad, and I'm more of a liberal than a leftist or even, really, a conservative at heart--but you don't qualify as a leftist. Frankly, I think that's a good thing--I'm all for a bigger welfare state a la Scandinavia but actual socialism collapses every time it's tried.
You don't respect non-flamboyant gay men? What, everyone has to live up to the stereotype? British and European conservatism in general is much less tied up with Christianity and much more about defending the nation, so if they spend all their time opposing Islam being a gay conservative makes a lot more sense. The head of the AfD was a lesbian for a while. And, honestly, since exclusive homosexuality isn't really under conscious control I can't blame a gay guy for not wanting to flame. If it ain't his thing, it ain't his thing.
A lot of the silly philosemitism came from Christians trying to genuinely make amends after the Holocaust. They can't say another religion might be true--that goes against the whole idea of Christianity--but they can say you laid the foundation and they couldn't have done it without you. (And the 'Athens and Jerusalem' formulation has some truth to it--most cultures have a few wellsprings, the Chinese have ancestor worship, Legalism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism for example.) Give the evangelicals a break, they're getting replaced by alt-right guys who are much more antisemitic.
As for the WASP elite...they were running things through 1965 or so as you say, and given what happened to the country after that date I can't blame conservatives for being nostalgic. They were never the only people in there but our new meritocratic elite isn't doing a markedly better job in a lot of ways.
The idea that neocons are certainly Israeli ultra nationalists is hilarious.
Bush pressured Sharon to let the stupid election than Hamas won happen lol.
Douglas Feith and Richard Perle are/were. Wolfowitz or Bill Kristol aren't. It really depends who you see as being the real NeoConservatives.
No question neocons vary in their views towards Israel, but they are definitely not uniformly Israeli ultra nationalists.
https://forward.com/opinion/9839/sharon-warned-bush/
Even Sharon was ambivalent at most about going into Iraq.
Oy vey, sounding a bit anti-semitic here. Yikes sweatie.
didn’t read the article, which is annoying. I address antisemitism directly and openly.
I'm being sarcastic.
I'm not sure about the idea that attacking Iraq was bad. It was bad that we invaded in 2003. It would have been right to invade as soon as we knew they were gassing Kurds. So, 1988.
Excellent article
“I don’t respect non-flamboyant gay men. If you got it, flaunt it.”
Why do you care if some gays are not flamboyant? Many gays are obviously gay even when they are not doing exaggerated impressions of ditzy women.
<It never adhered to Dave Smith’s libertarian “respect for the universal right of ethnic self-determination; live and let live.”>
Are you implying that Smith thinks it did? That would be weird.
Your post is well thought out and well delivered. I definitely yield to you on your knowledge of the subjects brought up, but do have one point of inquiry on the normies/expert bit.
In a democracy, you need to convince the normies (i.e Rogan, Dave, myself, etc.) of the validity of your side in hopes they vote your way. Bringing on experts (i.e. Murray) to a podcast is an opportunity for normies to get questions asked and for experts to answer or refute arguments. That is the opportunity to win over normies. Murray had that shot and seemed to fail to convince normies. That's it. That is the point of all of this. Whether Rogan claims never to be an expert is beside the point, the people need to be convinced and he gives the experts the platform to reach the normies. The experts should be better prepared.
The anti-Islam, anti-immigration Murray should join the Democrats? Because his reception with Dems will go over great I’m sure.