One of the charges Auster likes to level at paleocons is “anti-Americanism,” usually when he’s talking about our foreign policy views. He believes that the term describes The American Conservative, Antiwar.com, and me.
He needs to define the term. On domestic policy, Auster would probably agree that the federal government is an anti-white and feminist tyranny. Its goals are redistributing wealth from whites to blacks, rearranging natural sex roles, demographically transforming the nation and robbing it of its wealth. An American patriot should oppose his government, the way a Russian patriot might have opposed the Soviet Union or an Iraqi patriot Saddam Hussein.
Where most of us differ with Auster is that he believes that once it’s away from the homeland, the American government magically transforms into a defender of the country. When dealing with Mexican invaders or parasitical blacks the political class believes in using the tax payer as a cash cow they extort to buy votes, power and self-righteousness. In their relations with foreign governments and organizations, all of a sudden the exact same people who are actively working to destroy the historical American nation are defenders of the West!
Why do some who agree that the ruling class is decadent and evil, line up behind those they berate in the area of foreign policy? We are to believe that the very same government that continues to let Muslims into the country every single day is defending us from Islam when its representatives are in the deserts of Iraq. The neocons are at least consistent in foreign affairs since they accept the welfare state and the counter-culture of the 1960s; the US government, which institutionalized these things, isn’t the enemy to them. It is for us.
Instead of believing that the government manages to be benevolent and wise only in foreign affairs, we should be able to see that it does the exact same things abroad that it does at home. It borrows from the Chinese and taxes the American citizen so it can push the ideals of the New Left and favor certain ethnies (blacks and Hispanics at home; Bosnians, Jews, Kurds, Georgians and Tajiks abroad) while oppressing others (whites at home; Arabs, Russians, Pashtuns, Persians, and Serbs abroad). A cultural Marxist doesn’t become a conservative when he’s commanding an army.
Auster needs to tell us what he means by “anti-Americanism” before he flings the term around. Today the ruling ideology is multiculturalism. But if anyone can be an American, no one is. And if the term “American” is meaningless, “anti-American” is too. How can a people that doesn’t even exist have enemies to fight?
Perhaps we can define Americanism as loyalty to the ideas of limited government and free markets plus reverence for the ethnic group that founded the country. In that case, I’m more pro-American than Auster will ever be. Still, it makes no sense to approve of Washington’s adventurism as it does nothing to reduce the size of government or defend the interests of the historic American nation. Once again, the wars we’ve seen are exactly what you’d expect from the same people who gave us affirmative action, disparate impact laws, school busing and race replacement immigration.