In our time, the only challenge for someone who’s peddling nonsense is to keep up a steady supply for the public’s insatiable appetite. Not that our most powerful citizens aren’t happy to satisfy the national hunger. Thus, on July 8 in D.C., at the annual gathering of Christians United for Israel, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a characteristically manipulative religious speech in order to inspire fellow Christians to go to war with Iran, one of Israel’s many enemies. Speeches were also given by televangelist blowhard John Hagee, by Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, by Vice President Pence, and by National Security Advisor John Bolton. In other words, by every member of Trump’s inner chamber of Zionist hawks.

Cue the conservative nationalists, Yoram Hazony & Co., their purpose being to provide an ideological superstructure for American-Israeli Power. That is to say, the conservative country club is to support, or at least not question, the prevailing assumption that American foreign policy in the Middle East should be Zionist in character. Here Hazony & Co. can rely on men like Daniel McCarthy, who helped Hazony organize the national conservatism conference, and whose altogether positive write up on it is a perfect example of why he is widely known as a company man in right-wing media.

More central to the Zionist cause, though, are the useful Christian idiots. Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, and John Hagee—men whose Christianity is perpetually for sale, like a whore on the corner—keep the gullible evangelical crowd in its subservient, “philo-Semitic” place. An easy task, that, as these persons believe the recreation of Israel is part of biblical prophecy that will lead to Armageddon and the second coming of Christ.

The Christian intellectual right, too, is transcendentally dim. Far from seeing the Zionist problem, far from understanding politics in a coldly rational and strategic sense, one whose only goal is victory, the Christian intellectual right is now diverted by a vague Catholic integralist fantasy, the more diverse and inclusive the better. For instance, Matthew Schmitz, a senior editor at First Things, writing contra Amy Wax in The Catholic Herald, declares: “Cultural distance nationalism, rightly understood, should lead to something like Hazony’s multi-racial, pan-Christian vision.” Having, as he often does, made a positive reference to Martin Luther King Jr., one of Conservatism Inc.’s most cherished idols, Schmitz goes on:

Catholic migrants from Central America now have more in common with our Puritan forebears than do most Europeans. Their Church still proclaims the bodily resurrection of Christ, still believes in original sin and predestination, still opposes the evil of contraception. These are things the Puritans professed but many Protestant bodies, and many residents of formerly Protestant states – including Wax’s favoured “First World” countries – no longer believe. Central Americans should be favoured over Europeans under any immigration policy based on cultural distance.

This is a perfect example of the liability that is the Christian right. Schmitz envisions a nation where “Catholic migrants from Central America” will further a Christian revival. That most of those immigrants would likely vote for the anti-white left—as they’ve long done—escapes Schmitz in his enthusiasm. What matters is that they “proclaim the bodily resurrection of Christ, still believe in original sin and predestination, [and] still oppose the evil of contraception.” The evil of contraception! Which poor blacks also need to recognize, to be sure. After all, what America needs is another 40 million minority children for the welfare state and the vexed healthcare system to support.

Notice that Schmitz has no interest in importing French traditional Catholics or pious Bavarians, let alone Poles or Ukrainians. He is comfortable, in other words, with eradicating the vestiges of earlier American Catholic culture. A blueblood groomed to submit to groupthink, Schmitz is trying to make Catholicism safe for contemporary liberalism, so that he and his friends don’t get exiled from the ACELA corridor cocktail party circuit, where Russell Reno and the like moneygrubbers can ask the well-healed to pledge their “higher allegiance,” that is, to donate money to the “non-profit” that publishes First Things, a magazine that is hardly less “inclusive” than the progressive Catholic magazine Commonweal.

Still, Schmitz’s approach would eventually turn our country into a third-world dump. Wax understands this, and it’s not irrelevant here that, like me, she is secular, for her take on immigration isn’t answerable to any a priori agenda, in contrast to Schmitz, who is in the grip of his Catholic bias. Like David French, Schmitz conceives of culture mainly in terms of religion, but there is much more to culture than that. Besides, how effective has multi-racial, multi-cultural Christianity been at opposing the left’s seemingly inexorable cultural hegemony? Worse than useless. Although Schmitz and the others at First Things have been highly critical of French’s myopic moralism of late, his criticism of Wax is fundamentally the same as French’s, as should only be expected from such a weak type, who is no more serious about “political enmity” than the other PC pretenders at First Things.

To return to Zionism, Christion Zionists see themselves in a holy war against Muslims, allied with Jews for the sake of what they weirdly call “Judeo-Christianity.” We encounter this phrase often on the right, and as with the celebrated “permanent things,” it’s not at all clear what it refers to. Indeed, for the powerful, it seems to be little more than a convenient political construct, while the unthinking, largely Christian public goes along for the ride, like sentimental liberals who cannot but root for Black Lives Matter. Although Islam, in many ways, is quite incompatible with the modern West, we shouldn’t overlook the significance of the fact that the principal Christian beliefs—namely, that God became man in Christ and substitutionary atonement—are blasphemy from a Jewish or Muslim perspective. Accordingly, there are Rabbinic attacks on Jesus and Christians in the Talmud. In contrast to the Christian Trinitarian concept of God, both Judaism and Islam insist on God’s absolute unity. Islam is closer to the truth than Christianity, according to Moses Maimonides, who said that Jews may pray to Allah because the Muslim and Jewish conceptions of the Deity are the same.

Throughout history, Jews and Christians have not been friends so much as enemies. Although many on the dissident right may be reluctant to concede the point, there was a lot of Christian persecution of Jews in European history, particularly by Catholics, and today Jews tend to equate gentile nationalism with the Holocaust. From a historical point of view, then, it’s hardly surprising that Yoram Hazony wants American nationalism to be essentially Zionist, and that he is so anxious regarding white ethnocentrists like Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor, though of course neither is anti-Semitic. As a rule, Jews are wary of gentile cultures, and Hazony seems no different.

Given Israel’s many enemies and its precarious state, Zionists may gain from vague, quasi-moral talk about “Judeo-Christianity,” insofar as it advances interests that depend on American wealth and power. But the opposite seems to be true for American Christians. Exactly what benefit do they get from Israel, their so-called greatest ally? On the other hand, that our disappointing President benefits from his Zionism there is no doubt. As Stephen J. Sniegoski recently observed in an acute essay at this webzine, “Last-minute funds from multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson were quite likely the key to Trump’s hairbreadth victory in the 2016 election.” Those crucial donations may have inspired a sense of obligation in Trump the longtime dealmaker, and considering the collective influence of his Jewish family members and his Zionist foreign policy team, it’s little wonder that Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Syria’s Golan Heights as part of Israel, placed severe sanctions on Iran, and, in a ridiculous gesture, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Adelson’s wife, Miriam.

To be sure, Zionism, in itself, isn’t a problem for America. Indeed, insofar as it embodies Western values, Israel is a force for good in the Middle East. The problem is that just as from the neoconservative movement to the current nationalism movement Jewish interests have determined how America defines itself, so Zionist interests have determined our foreign policy in the Middle East. Bibi Netanyahu assumes Israeli expansion and aggression in the volatile region will be supported by the U.S. Meanwhile, lobbying groups in D.C. strive to keep the public from perceiving this immense liability, diligently propagating the view that Israel is our friend, while Iran, suffering under sanctions, is “a threat.”

These are talking points that very few conservative journalists dare to question since, like the Republican party, many mainstream right-wing publications receive abundant Zionist funding, many are owned by Zionists, and as a group Zionists, like so many overly sensitive women

Christopher DeGroot is the editor of The Agonist. He writes a weekly column for Taki’s Magazine, and his work has also appeared in Spectator USA, The American Spectator, The Daily Caller, American Thinker, Frontpage Magazine, New English Review, Jacobite Magazine, The Unz Review, VoegelinView, Splice Today, Expansive Poetry Online, and Ygdrasil, A Journal of the Poetic Arts. His Twitter handle is @CEGrotius., are quick to react to criticism with hysterical charges of “anti-Semitism.” Another apt comparison would be to the Islamic jihadists who, in response to any criticism, think they are justified in murdering the “infidels.”

One of the sharpest comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict belongs to Murray Rothbard, who was ethnically Jewish:

On the one hand there are the Palestinian Arabs, who have tilled the soil or otherwise used the land of Palestine for centuries; and on the other, there are a group of external fanatics, who come from all over the world, and who claim the entire land area as “given” to them as a collective religion or tribe at some remote or legendary time in the past. There is no way the two claims can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. There can be no genuine settlement, no “peace” in the face of this irrepressible conflict; there can only be either a war to the death, or an uneasy practical compromise which can satisfy no one. That is the harsh reality of the Middle East.

Americans need to ask themselves whether it’s worth being involved with this tragic situation and with Israel’s other enemies. Here, a major problem is the public’s lack of interest in foreign policy, something few people take the trouble to examine in depth. Likewise problematic is the uncritical acceptance of profoundly biased perspectives and opinions—the norm, as it were, in the corrupt and spineless media. In “An American Vulnerability,” an essay at my web journal The Agonist, Nicolas Hausdorf makes some perceptive points on these subjects. It is worth quoting him at length:

Geopolitical knowledge is Herrschaftswissen, or power-knowledge, which elites have an interest in isolating and monopolizing. For in the absence of popular approval, democratic scrutiny, and accountability, backroom deals can be negotiated between trade delegations and a horizon of constraints can be imposed on domestic policy-making. Such constraints usually don’t come to the fore until the promises of newly-elected officials fade away against the inertia of more discrete long-term strategies and obligation. Meanwhile, every deal struck creating de facto conditions beyond the reach of voters becomes further leverage against the public. Want economic independence? Well, those supply chains outsourced to Vietnam just won’t make this easy.

Although the problem of geopolitical ignorance is not specific to the US, but is increasingly common throughout the Western world, it is by far the most consequential in the US. In France, an imperial tradition of explaining politics with maps still persists in an academic discourse traditionally heavily focused on political geography which frequently seeps into public debate. In Russia, Vladmir Putin often speaks publicly in geopolitical categories. Russia’s most prominent intellectual, Alexander Dugin, is the author of a tract on geopolitics (Foundations of Geopolitics). Little wonder that Putin’s realism seems so shocking and hostile to incredulous Western audiences, who are not accustomed to conceiving of politics as primarily a positioning of military bases, fleets, and short-range missiles, and who fail to see what “value-based” interventions are generally all about.

Like the deluge of propaganda that has long facilitated America’s interventions in the Middle East, the political and media rhetoric on Venezuela has exposed this core weakness of US political culture once again: Dishonest media pundits use a simplistic culture-wars binary—socialism versus “free markets”—to reduce the complexity of international politics to a kind of morality play. Policy decisions, moreover, are frequently analyzed in terms of the personalities of politicians, a psychologisation of political discourse that conveniently overlooks the role of powerful networks and their long-term interests and strategic objectives.

It is clear that a citizenry that readily accepts this distorted simulacrum of politics is not capable of issuing a veto against a foreign policy undertaken by elites that have rarely benefited the citizens, even as the latter continue to pay the price for irresponsible elite ambitions. The lack of interest in international affairs must thus be understood as a crucial vulnerability of the democratic system. If America is to emancipate itself from its role as a golem of foreign powers and a spiteful transnational oligarchy, Americans will have to start paying attention to foreign policy. Geopolitics and geography are not exotic fads for map nerds. In an inescapably global world, they must above all be understood as a cultural immune system.

Again, outside of alternative media, one can hardly criticize Zionism from the right without facing reflexive charges of “anti-Semitism.” Rather strange, this, given Zionism’s left-wing origins. It goes without saying that criticizing Zionism does not entail anti-Semitism—after all, Jews themselves are disproportionately represented among critics of Zionism. Certainly, in criticizing Zionism, one should avoid the paranoid belief that Jews control the entire world. But neither should we be afraid to criticize Zionism just because some may smear us as “anti-Semitic.” Just as many conservatives, worried about being smeared as “racists,” shrink from criticizing black misbehavior and cultural dysfunction, so they lack the integrity to criticize Zionism, lest they be attacked as “anti-Semites.” Yet nothing could be more foolish than failing to identify false friends simply because people may say unpleasant things about you. A man who allows his enemies to decide his fate is a man who deserves defeat. Far better to follow William Blake’s maxim: “Always be ready to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you.”

Many Israeli Jews, a Jewish friend tells me, are baffled by the credulity of American Christian Zionists, and by the unwillingness of American conservatives to resist the Zionist foreign policy status quo. This is a cynically amusing situation, but also a very dangerous one. Oli Smith reports:

In an unprecedented move, Israel has expanded its attacks on Iranian targets, with two bombing strikes on Iran-run bases in Iraq in the space of ten days. The Israeli Air Force carried out the military strikes with F-35 jets, according to Asharq Al-Awsat, an Arabic-language newspaper published in London. News of the attacks comes just a day after the US and Israel tested a missile defence system which used targets “similar to Iranian nuclear missiles.”

…

Last week, a senior Israeli minister Tzachi Hanegbi boasted that Israel was the only country in the world that has been “killing Iranians.”

He said: “Israel strikes the Iranians hundreds of times in Syria, sometimes admits it and sometimes foreign reports reveal it.

Sometimes the chief of staff reveals it, sometimes the outgoing air force chief reveals it, but it’s all coordinated policy.”

In response to the Israeli-US moves, the head of Iran’s navy announced [a] series of joint military drills with Russia.

The drills will take place in the same waters in which the US has accused Iran of attacking and seizing international vessels.

Concerning these events, Michael Snyder writes:

The reason this is being called “an unprecedented move” is because this is the very first time since 1981 that we have seen Israeli airstrikes inside Iraq.

Needless to say, these latest airstrikes have absolutely enraged the Iranians. It looks like the Israeli government has determined that any Iranian military targets outside of Iran itself are fair game, and it is probably only a matter of time before Iran strikes back in a major way.

And if Iran ultimately decides that one of the best ways to strike back is to start hitting targets inside of Israel, that could be the spark that sets off a major war in the Middle East.

Which is precisely what the world does not need and what the U.S. has no interest in being a part of.

Says Sniegoski,

Given what Trump has already done for Israel and the Adelsons, it would be quite reasonable that the couple would believe that Trump would take a more militant stance toward Iran, even making war, in his second administration when he would not have to worry about re-election. Also, there is no evidence that any Democratic candidate for the presidency would do as much for Israel.

Trump, of course, wants to get re-elected in 2020, but knows that a war with Iran would make that virtually impossible, the public being fed up with our endless military follies abroad. Still, assuming he wins a second term, war with Iran may be a greater possibility than it is at present.

In any event, for its unyielding support for Israel, America has nothing to show but a more unstable Middle East, the resentment of the proud Arab world, and a massive amount of wasted resources. And now, having become more brazen in its expansions, and more insolent toward its neighbors—things it gets away with because it’s protected by American money and power—Israel increasingly finds itself isolated. This situation cannot go on as it is, and it cannot end well, either.

Notes

It’s well known that the politically correct McCarthy, as editor of The American Conservative, ran Ron Unz out of that publication, even though Unz was the magazine’s publisher. McCarthy’s writings themselves over the years also attest to his careerism. In a 2001 piece at LewRockwell.com, “The Cult of Father Abraham,” McCarthy was fiercely critical of the Claremont Institute, and of the tireless Lincoln idolater Ken Masugi in particular. Having risen through the ranks of Conservatism Inc., McCarthy has nothing negative to say about Claremont today, but rather is a frequent contributor to its two publications, of which he speaks very highly. Again, in “Make-Believe Conservatism” and other earlier writings, McCarthy was quite harsh on National Review: “From the very beginning National Review was an imposture,” he said among other things. Last November, on a panel (sponsored by The National Review Institute) with former National Review editor John Sullivan, McCarthy was all praise for the magazine’s work through the years. Once anti-state and pretty libertarian, McCarthy now takes populist and nationalist positions that one won’t find at, say, Reason magazine. Of course, a man has a right to change his mind, and a man who hasn’t done so over the years has probably been dogmatic, intellectually lazy, or both; but in McCarthy’s case, one has the distinct impression of a professional conservative—as opposed to a principled intellectual—whose writing and editing conform to the agendas of donors and to the interests of the moment. In a 2003 article on H.L. Mencken, McCarthy asked: “If Mencken were alive today, who would publish him? For all the acknowledged power of his style, Mencken’s politics wouldn’t make the grade for the New Criterion or the American Spectator, or presumably any of the other major (neo)conservative publications that toe the same line.” And yet the editor of Modern Age—the former defender of H.L Mencken against his neocon critics, formerly so contemptuous of the National Review purges, and about as polemical as Paul Gottfried or Peter Brimelow—doesn’t publish anything remotely dissident right. McCarthy selling out, as it were, is disappointing in itself, but especially unfortunate since, unlike Jonah Goldberg, David French, and other mainstream conservatives, he’s a very capable writer and editor.

Who, for her vulgar part, wants a “Book of Trump” in the Bible, given how good Trump has been to the Israelis. To be sure, Trump is loyal to them, though not to his white working-class voting base.

By liberalizing the right and keeping white ethnocentrism off the table.

The excitable character of many Jews, much commented on throughout history, and an object of humor among Jews themselves, may be more than just a reflection of their awareness of their past persecution by gentiles. I suspect that it, like the unusually uxorious nature of Jewish husbands, has something to do with the psychological dominance of mothers in Jewish families, a phenomenon that may make for a rather feminine sort of conditioning, and for a disproportionate number of neurotic characters. Is it merely a rumor that John Podhoretz and David Frum, during their recurring nightmares about “white nationalists,” are given to crying out for “mother dear”?

Christopher DeGroot is the editor of The Agonist. He writes a weekly column for Taki’s Magazine, and his work has also appeared in Spectator USA, The American Spectator, The Daily Caller, American Thinker, Frontpage Magazine, New English Review, Jacobite Magazine, The Unz Review, VoegelinView, Splice Today, Expansive Poetry Online, and Ygdrasil, A Journal of the Poetic Arts. His Twitter handle is @CEGrotius.