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:
Lower Federal Debt
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:
Central African Republic
Niger (that’s Nee-ZAIR!)
Big government liberals:
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.