No True Neocon

It grieves me sore when buffoonish charlatans sully the good name of neoconservatism. I’ve spent years advancing the neocon cause, and can do little more now than simmer in watching it being glibly stained by association.

We all know what true neoconservatism represents. Though so many presently seem mesmerized into not caring. But apathy isn’t an option when facing an erection 💄 this important. We have an opportunity in 2016 to elect a true neocon. And to do that we need a flagship magazine of rock solid neoconservative values. Values that imbue our actions.

Actions such as: build a border wall visible from John Podhoretz’ chin gut; end the H1B program, chain migration, and birthright citizenship; stop legal immigration until all German refugees may be humanely resettled here; cease every dysgenic third-world breeding program, both foreign and domestic; offshore AIPAC; reintroduce the donor class to Eisenhower’s tax brackets and the parasite class to hunger; and deploy America’s lavishly funded military in our defense for once.

That’s exactly what a true neocon would do.

As a tactic, it actually is precisely that. The tactic being to offer a thoroughly self-serving bill of particulars under false label, and promptly commence a fusillade of No True Scotsman indignities against whoever notices the disparity. The devil can cite scripture for his purpose, just as a globalist can cite Reagan for his. And so “conservatism” has come to be the strain of liberalism most accommodative to corporate profits. It’s all so eye-rollingly tedious that even the herd is starting to look askance.

Of course no publication more epitomizes contrived conservatism’s nexus of oily flimflam and sanctimonious outrage quite like National Review. I do not know how that enterprise has been able to collect such a coterie of men so small they have to look up to see their own penis.

Regardless, this piece, long in a series of anti-Trump apoplexies, is a typical trove of No True Conservative fuming. It’s probably worth no more of a spirited thrashing than its multitudinous forebears, though I was interested in learning just what a true conservative should be most inclined to conserve. Here are the points presented as arrived upon:

Freedom
Liberty
The Constitution
Lower Federal Debt
Lower Taxes
Smaller Government

In other words, Liberia. Though proceeding through, the first two items are simply gauze for the gulls. It’s mere tautology to say a man wants more liberty for himself; how much for those opposed to him is the question. No one but those inside American flag shirts are much interested in granting their antagonists greater freedom, and certainly not on principle. Similarly, being pro-constitution is nothing more than a cultural concession to those wholly uninterested in its constraints. Lowering federal debt is beneficial–if I or my children have a stake in its service. Though Paco’s future burden is not an issue that concerns me. Lower taxes also are noble in principle, and I am a vocal advocate in regard to the productive middle class. Though experience has made plain that most Americans would be better served burning cash in great open-air furnaces than allow it to pool too deeply in purses of the plutocrats.

Finally, there is small government. This being another item I support in general, as there has been no more malign steward of national wealth than the modern Western state. Though small government in and of itself is not only no guarantor of civilizational conservation, the correlation appears negative.

Excluding microstates, below is a listing of “conservative” countries whose government spending is below 20% of GDP, and “liberal” ones whose spending is north of 50%. See if Rich Lowry will vouch for the former’s bonafides.

Small government conservatives:
Bangladesh
Burma
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ethiopia
Guatemala
Indonesia
Nepal
Niger (that’s Nee-ZAIR!)
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Sudan
Turkmenistan

Big government liberals:
Austria
Belgium
Cuba
Denmark
Finland
France
Greece
Slovenia
Sweden

I can hear the exasperated grumblings from labor-unit libertarians now: That’s not a valid conclusion since all of those destitute small government countries are populated by…nevermind! Just as I assume the inclusion of Commie Cuba will be sufficient to scuttle the thought process of most sealed-in-amber cold warriors. Though the most obvious conclusion is the one assiduously avoided by respectables of every stripe: it’s not how much a government spends, but in whose interests. And comprehending that is what no true neocon will ever allow.

9 thoughts on “No True Neocon

  1. Pingback: No True Neocon | Reaction Times

  2. “Nee-ZAIR” — They should just relabel themselves with an ambiguous scribble and pronounce it “The country formerly spelled like that turrble word.”

  3. Great piece. It’s been amazing to watch them drum out every conservative voice and their absolutely hysterical reaction to Trump. The Twitter wars have been hilarious and it was satisfying to see some of these assholes get taken out rather than their targets. Fuck you and your virtue signaling boys, you’re the same disgusting pieces of crap you accuse the SJWs of being.

  4. The National Review truly is required reading for conservatives – as a warning of what comes of ingratiating yourself with your enemies, that is. Its “political stance” is one long, grovelling retreat from the sensible views it once held. It keeps thinking that if it throws one last principle overboard, the non-whites and libs will stop hating it.

  5. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/10/11) | The Reactivity Place

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s