People Who Hate Each Other Against the War

The following exchange was taken from a 2002 interview with Gore Vidal on Doug Henwood’s WBAI radio show, after Henwood brought it to Vidal’s attention that Tom Metzger was offering videos of one of Vidal’s lectures for sale on his website.

Doug Henwood: There is this long-standing, kind of right-leaning nativist critique of Empire and centralizing power. What affinities or lack of affinities
do you feel in that?

Gore Vidal: Well, look at Pat Buchanan, who borrowed a great deal from me, for “A Republic, Not an Empire.” That is what I’ve been saying for half a
century, that we’re not in the Empire business, or we should not be in
the Empire business, because we’re not very good at it, and we have so
much wrong in our own country. So there is a moment, I would suspect,
that the far-right has to have something positive to talk about, instead
of worrying about getting rid of the inferior breeds, or what they think
of as the inferior breeds. So, the anti-imperial is an interesting
thing for them to take up, ’cause I’d think they’d be on the other
side. But as many people want to join that, why not?

As Trump’s schizophrenic rhetoric continues to erratically oscillate between blunt statements in support of non-interventionist principles and random threats to attack other countries under dubious pretenses, it all seems rather surreal. One begins to wonder whether it is even possible to convince our government to act in America’s interests in any meaningful capacity. Perhaps not, but who cares? We specialize in unlikely alliances and the stubborn exploration of far-fetched possibilities here, so let’s go for one more.

As Trump contemplates engaging in further military action in Syria (and who knows where else,) I would love to see a joint AltRight / far left war protest event. The sight of people who typically spend all day trashing each other on twitter (and occasionally even physically battle each other in the streets) come together for a day of solidarity against war, would send a striking message. Instead of “Unite the Right,” or “Bash the Fash,” a rally should be held called “United Against War” or maybe even “People Who Hate Each Other Against the War.”

Many on the right would reflexively point out that the anti-war left (what remains of it) despises the AltRight with such visceral ferocity, that they could never partner with them on anything, even for a moment. “Nazis” (a term which has expanded in recent years to such an extent that it could now include just about any non self-hating white person,) we are told, are to be punched, attacked, not spoken to, and certainly not courted as allies. For their part, the far right is just as much of an obstacle to any kind of cooperation, given their inability to coordinate (even with one another) except when satirizing / ironically sniping at their own movement, usually from the anonymous peanut gallery. In my observations, the far right in the US contains a significant number of people who just cannot seem to restrain themselves in any way from being aggressive assholes, even when it comes to casual conversation. It’s also worth noting in the case of Syria, much of the AltRight is less motivated by general non-interventionist ideals. Their opposition to US involvement is rooted in their admiration of Putin and Assad as leaders. They don’t wish to stay out of the war because it’s none of our business and a waste of time. Rather, they oppose it because Russia and Syria are the “good guys” fighting our enemies (ISIS, ) while Assad “protects Christians,” “is a family man,” etc. Many AltRighters would be more than eager to launch full scale Conquistadorian invasions of sovereign countries under other circumstances. The fact remains though, a lot of people who hate each other agree that we should stay out of Syria.

Given the levels of polarization among dissidents and the divergence in motivations, you might still be asking, “What’s the point in even trying to work together on this? Why bother?” Well, because in this particular instance, it would be worth it. Getting involved in another pointless and misguided war is such a terrible idea, that it is worth preventing at almost any cost. In fact, the only way supporting wars like these make any sense at all is from the accelerationist perspective, since every new catastrophic US policy blunder serves to speed up the collapse of the US from its own weight, potentially making room for something new and improved to replace it that much sooner. I won’t support the war on that basis though, even as cynical as I am. After all, this isn’t just about us. There are other countries’ fates at stake, other people’s lives being needlessly jeopardized. Instead, I’ll keep the accelerationist contingency provision in my pocket as a cheap consolation prize, a souvenir to be admired in the eventuality of yet another misadventure.

On a mildly encouraging note, there does appear to be an emerging market for unlikely alliances against increased intervention in Syria. Glenn Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson and both seemed broadly in agreement of their skepticism of the need for the US to escalate our involvement. Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks seems to be firmly against beating the War drums for military action in Syria, as is his paranoid AltLite nemesis, Alex Jones. Could a genuine AltRight figure like Richard Spencer share a stage with a far left personality, even an Antifa or prominent SJW, to denounce the war, without the spectacle turning into a total shitshow? Would anyone agree to be part of any of it? Probably not. You never know though until you put the offer out there and see what happens. To borrow a quote from the Lawgiver’s scene in Battle for the Planet of the Apes: Who knows about the future of US foreign policy? Perhaps, only the dead.

Because We Live HERE (and Not On the Korean Peninsula)

Back when Trump made the retarded decision to bomb Syria and betray the non-interventionist ideals he articulated in his campaign (and I use the word “articulated” very loosely here as in the case of Trump, a term like “blurted out” is probably a more accurate way of putting it,) I wrote a foreign policy article which also briefly addressed the situation with North Korea:

We got involved in the Korean War (in 1950,) which was a disaster. 65 years later we still maintain a substantial military presence there (for which we receive practically nothing in return) and face a potential nuclear threat.

Do you ever wonder why Uruguay or Argentina is not worried about the North Korean nuke threat or ISIS? They are not dumb enough to stick their noses in places where they don’t belong. The North Korean nuke threat to the USA is entirely self created. After 60 years South Korea should be ready and able to fly on their own. If they can’t now, they never will.

Fast forward a few months, and here we are again. American politicians just can’t resist being busybodies in the world, and Trump’s egotistical disposition, thin skin and an assortment of neocon advisers have led him once again to bring us closer to unnecessary conflict.

Once again we have people defending Trump thinking this is some sort of 4D chess to get North Korea to make a deal and disarm. Like really, stop me if you’ve heard this one before. North Korea is not dumb enough to give up their military deterrent. In fact they addressed this rather humorously in their own words back in April of 2003 when Bush was making similar reckless statements:

On Friday, North Korea said it would never give up its nuclear programs. The North compared U.N. inspections to “taking off our pants” and giving Washington an excuse to invade.

Source: N. Korea Hints It May Accept U.S. Talks, April 12, 2003, Associated Press

So yes we already know what the game is here… North Korea has no intention of giving in or making a deal other than something ambiguous they can sucker the US into agreeing to, which they will later violate without any fear the US will do anything about it. To add insult to injury, we actually send food aid to North Korea despite the fact that they openly hate us. Why would we be sending any food or money to a country which perceives us as a mortal enemy? Why not take the food that we send to North Korea to the inner cities, where it will (however so slightly) improve the quality of life for people in our own country?

These talks about disarmament and deals distracts from the main issue though, which is that we have no business being over there. Our continued intrusion into the conflict only exacerbates the situation for all parties involved. That a country threatens us should not in itself be a condition for engaging in war talk, if the reason for the threat is based on our being somewhere we don’t need to be in the first place. They don’t want to attack us because they wish to invade and occupy the continental United States or its various unincorporated island territories, like the scenario depicted in the shitty PC remake of Red Dawn (only slightly less preposterous than the original.) Who cares about North Korea and what kind of state they run? We shouldn’t, because we live here, and they only wish to attack us because we are meddling over there…where they live.