This is a no-brainer in my opinion. The New World Order is a slow, gathering POLITICAL threat to our sovereignty, freedoms, and institutions, which could be successfully opposed by political means. The threat coming from rogue regimes and terrorist groups in position of WMD’s is a threat of mass destruction, which, furthermore, could occur in the near future. In order for there to be an American sovereignty to protect, there must first be an existing, functioning, free America. Sadly, though, I predict that many of our readers, chiefly members of the Anti-War Party, will see the political danger of the New World Order as a greater threat to us than the physical threat of American cities being destroyed by nuclear weapons or rendered uninhabitable by dirty bombs or of tens of thousands of Americans being killed by biological or chemical weapons.

Furthermore, if some such devastating attack occurs, nothing could be more certain to lead to the construction of an ever vaster national security state, the loss of basic freedoms, and expanded American international involvement in global policing and global institutions—the very things that the anti-NWO voters fear the most. Such is the loss of a sense of proportion by many people today.

I agree with Mr. Auster. It astonishes me how certain conservatives can keep quoting George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on foreign policy—keep clear of alliances and so forth—expressing foreign-policy views that our founding statesmen would not express in 2003. Why am I sure they wouldn’t? Because I’m assuming that Washington and Jefferson would, in 2003, still believe in the principles of our Founding.

To protect American liberty at a time when it took weeks to cross the ocean and when chemical and biological weapons were unknown, we needed mainly to stay clear of alliances while being as friendly as was reasonable with foreign powers. We were fairly safe from European aggressors (there were no others yet), provided we kept a strong Coast Guard patrolling our waters. It didn’t always work: the burning of Washington by the British in the War of 1812 was regrettable, but it wasn’t a catastrophe and had no long-lasting effects on American society.

The antiwar Right types are so obsessed by their theory of American decline that they forget to look at the practical, gritty details, such as the fact that thousands of us can be killed by a spoonful of certain germs, which can be brought into the U. S. undetected; that thousands of us have already been killed by terrorists who hijacked four airliners, and that this could happen again; and that the members of the Axis of Evil, or their successors if we allow them to have any, can wreak terror upon us with such ease as to horrify anyone who isn’t so blinded by ideology as to forget what everyone now knows. If we don’t destroy those who would, if they could, destroy us utterly, we won’t have the luxury of debating the alternatives offered in this poll.

Since Bush represents the New World Order in the eyes of the anti-war right, it occurs to me that the subtext and real meaning of this poll is:

Who represents a greater danger to the interests of the American people:

o Saddam Hussein

o George W. Bush

Furthermore, as of Monday at 4:30 p.m., those who think that Bush is a greater threat to America than Hussein are leading in this poll by more than two to one. Is this going to turn out to be representative of VFR readers as a whole?

I must admit that I voted that the NWO was the greater threat. In the long term, I think that it is. As far as supporting an attack on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, I have to agree that allowing deranged rogue regimes like the above to acquire WMD is an extremely dangerous immediate threat which we cannot afford to ignore, if nothing else for the reason (as Mr. Auster mentioned in his first post) that a successful attack on their part would open the door for an even more rapid expansion of Tranzi/NWO power.

It is nevertheless very difficult to believe that President Bush really has the security of the US in mind when he still resolutely refuses to 1) seriously protect the borders of the United States, thus allowing God-knows how many terrorist cells to enter the nation; 2) continues to allow the transfer of high-level military technology to China (It was announced last week that the firm who manufactures the “smart bombs” is relocating its entire facility to China) - a nation known to sell dangerous weaponry to rogue states; 3) get rid of or punish the legion of incompetent corrupt government bureaucrats who are reponsible for allowing the attack of 9/11/01 to proceed with such apparent ease in the first place (Norm Mineta being a good example, the entire upper level of the INS being another).

I also question whether it will be possible to seriously oppose the NWO politically once they gain total control - which is evidently now the case in Europe. Once the Tranzis have opened the pipeline of 3rd world immigrants for a long enough period, they will have a guaranteed majority of the elctorate unless they’ve miscalculated the ability of the Muslims to resist the corrupting influence of the West’s degenerate popular culture. It should be fairly obvious that the extermination of traditional Christianity and Judaism is a central goal of the entire NWO/Tranzi religion. Since the Muslims share this objective, the strange alliance between Islamists and Tranzis is logical in a sense.

That’s a powerful post from Carl. It’s an awful situation we’re in. Nevertheless, Bush is at least addressing the most immediate and manifest threat. If we are to oppose Bush’s larger open-borders agenda, we must first stay physically alive, functioning, and free as a society. And the war on Iraq will help secure that.

With Carl I actually voted for the NWO, though before I read his comment. It is true in my view that the rogue state + WMD + Islamist terrorism nexus is the most immediate and dire threat; but I focused in on the specification “overall” in the poll question. I think it more likely overall that Western civilization will be utterly destroyed by NWO suicide than by Islamist attacks.

To summarize my view, I find the pessimism of both the pro- and anti-war sides credible.

I voted for the Axis of Evil. The issue of global government is a serious one, but as Lawrence said it is long term and political. Moreover, recent events have seriously undermined the United Nations, and I suspect that many Americans who are not hard left or urban liberals, now see the UN for what it is. Allowing Libya to chair the U.N commision on “human rights” has also brought it into disrepute with many Americans. To give Bush credit, he has asserted our soveriegnty over the U.N in choosing to take action without U.N sanction, kept us out of the Kyoto treaty, the International Criminal Court, and a number of other treaties which would have constrained us. For all it’s faults, we need to keep the Republicans in power for as long as possible.

At the same time Carl makes some very important and valid points, especially on immigration, border control, and the transfer of military technology.

“I also question whether it will be possible to seriously oppose the NWO politically once they gain total control - which is evidently now the case in Europe.”

I believe it will be possible. Americans are different from modern Europeans.And I certainly cannot see Evangelical Christians submitting to U.N government. We did it once before, in 1776, and we could do it again, if need be.

“We did it once before, in 1776, and we could do it again, if need be.” — Shawn

Count me in.

I agree with Mat and Carl, that the bigger threat comes from within, and globally from the wider NWO, blindly well intentioned they may be. For the West to survive, it must retain firstly and foremost the genetic capacity to maintain civilization, and a then a homeland; without these a renaissance to recreate and reinvigorate the institutions of civilization and traditional culture is impossible. Islamic terrorism can not threaten any of these, but in the worst case scenario would only galvanize us against the external enemy, and the traitors who brought thousands of Muslims into our countries. Of course Sadam is an evil man, but he has not the capacity to destroy America - at the terrible and highly unlikely worst he could explode a nuclear weapon in a large city, and this, while utterly horrific, would not destroy America. I take Mr. Auster’s point that a WMD terrorist attack would lead to greater government control and US international intervention but it could also force people away from the cities, an escape from alienating urbanization that is destroying civil society, and most importantly provide the ultimate horrific shock that might change people’s and the elite’s views on immigration, and provoke a reawakening of our natural and historic cultural and ethnic identity. The latter is more important than the former because what it prevents is permanent. Greater Federal Government imposition and American internationalism are policies or institutions that can be overturned. This is not the same with immigration. It would be very difficult if not impossible to deport the millions of Muslims in Europe and the US and as there numbers increase harder still. What shock will we need?

The NWO, meanwhile, is destroying America in all but name, and with higher fertility amongst the lower class and muslims/hispanic/blacks and mass incompatible illegal and illegal immigration we effectively won’t have a country soon to save. As for it being a long term issue, it is a moot point whether we have already crossed the Rubicon. Each year the UK has quarter of a million - the same size of the entire UK Defense Force - largely incompatible, illegal and legal immigrants enter, then breed rapidly, and sponsor relatives. Every year then is critical. Indeed if dysgenic trends amongst all races continue, gene technology aside, we will continue our slide in degeneracy for two or three centuries ultimately losing the genetic capacity to reach civilization. The flame of civilization whose baton has been passed on from the Greeks to the Romans, Byzantium’s, then Western Europe and the Anglo Colonies, will be extinguished when we become minorities in our homelands and the standard of our race is driven to a lower rank. Only a foreign civilization may remain in the Orient.

While I abhor the intellectual dishonesty of some paleo’s who praise ignorant, selfish left-wing peace protesters and European leaders, I agree with Matt that some of the concerns the paleo’s raise, as well as some of the concerns the pro-war camp raise are legitimate.

That’s an interesting juxtaposition of views between Dan and me. I’m saying the wiping out of an American city would be an inconceivable disaster that transcends in the short run the threat of the New World Order. Dan is saying that such a mass terrorist attack, far from ruining America, would be the only thing that could wake America up and make it start to defend itself from the NWO in real terms.

It helps to remember that the NWO includes immigration.

The greatest threat to America is still socialism. Lest we forget most of the member groups of Al Qaeda were originally created by the KGB, and the evil of socialism still infects many nations as well as our own. Whether it’s called environmentalism, political correctness, or Nazism, socialism in all its varieties is the worst religion of all time and until it is utterly defeated it will remain the greatest of perils.
Which is why I voted “Neither.”

Dan, If the sight of airliners hijacked and crashed into buildings by incompatible immigrants - allowed into the nation by a corrupt pro-NWO government - failed to awaken the American people from their stupor over this issue, what on earth makes you think a nuclear blast would? My bet is that such a thing would open the door for more government control of citizens, and more handover of sovereignty to the UN or (more likely) its successor.

It is a question of 3 million versus 3 thousand, just as the world trade centre was one thousand times more shocking than the terrorist death of 3 people. Some of the intellectual elites who have been fooling themselves on issues like immigration and race would be shocked into questioning some of their basic assumptions, or at least be open to other viewpoints. The average person, already instinctively suspicious of political correctness would also be a willing listener and foot solider. Those already aware of the consequence of mass immigration would find a new audience. Rhodesia and South Africa did not have this shock; they went under. An event of atomic magnitude would eclipse the call for authoritarian tolerance, break through the self-imposed censorship barrier that prevents rational thinking.
Rage (following shock and grief) would be the prevailing emotional sentiment, and overwhelm the soft-totalitarian imposition of “tolerance” and “sensitivity”. The “peace” protesters demonstrating against American policy near ground zero a day after the attack, would not have been just verbally confronted by a few, but threatened with death or actually lynched - the police unable and probably unwilling to stop them. If, as Carl suggests, the US were to be handed over to the UN or successor and continue policy like mass immigration there would be a mass uprisings, chaos, even civil war. Members of the police force, army, government as well as public would rebel. It is this kind of situation which the liberal-state could not prevent, unlike a “hard totalitarian” state like Iraq or Stalin’s Russia where people fear that they or their family could be taken by the secret police and tortured or killed. Subtle propaganda is the ideological fabric that artificially holds the liberal state together; it cannot enforce its authority over the violently unwilling.

I abstained from voting in this particular VFR poll (also didn’t vote for “Other” here).

Someone who favored the sad but totally necessary attack on and thorough rooting-out of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, I was originally strongly opposed to that campaign’s being followed by an attack on Iraq. I won’t cite the reasons — they’ve all been cited on this forum: things like the apparent lack of a clear-cut link of 9-11 to Saddam Hussein; a horror of the prospect of expanded federal power in this country which further war inevitably would bring, setting back perhaps a generation certain reforms we all had hopes might be possible in the aftermath of the Cold War; the existence of better alternatives for absolutely guaranteeing the survival completely intact of our friend and brother Israel; the seeming insanity of waging a war which open borders and multi-culti would make us lose demographically and culturally in thirty or forty years anyway, no matter what the outcome now; a horror of imposing our way of life on anyone who hasn’t seen fit to choose it voluntarily; etc.

I no longer oppose the attack on Iraq, but am in the middle between opposing it and supporting it, just a bit more toward the “supporting it” side. My reasons for having moved from way over on the “anti” side, to slightly on the “pro” side of neutral (still not all the way over on the strongly “pro” side of the attack), also have been cited copiously in this forum and needn’t be cited again — things like the validity of not waiting til a suitcase nuke actually explodes in some U.S., European, or Israeli city, and the realization that in dealing with some of these Muslim minds we are not necessarily confronting something the Western mind can understand, as evidenced for example in that Rafsanjani speech in which the madman actually said that dropping nukes on nuclear-armed-and-ready Israel would be sound strategy because the latter, being so small, would suffer annihilation thereby while being unable through nuke retaliation to inflict a mortal wound on the much bigger and therefore less vulnerable-to-extinction Arab world — making a nuclear holocaust of unimaginable proportions suffered by the Muslim countries an acceptible price to pay for Israel’s death in Rafasanjani’s eyes. When one hears overt and totally insane threats like that, one is almost forced into decisive pre-emption. And there are other reasons, all cited in VFR blog entries and threads many times, which are persuasive.

The people whose blog entries and posts brought me from where I was to where I am now on the opinion spectrum (no, not an earthshaking shift) include Richard Poe, Rush Limbaugh, Lawrence Auster, Matt, and Shawn (as well as many others). I find I still have reservations about all this — many of them.

If this administration decides after Iraq that it is necessary to attack more countries in that part of the world, could it please do a better job of explaining the need than it has done hitherto? Pres. Bush seems too closed off to everyone except his handlers (not just on this issue, but on others as well, such as immigration). He isolates himself. Probably they all did, but didn’t others at least make some effort to pay lip service to the need to appear open? This one smugly doesn’t even do that.

The logic of those that see the Axis of Evil as the more important threat is the same logic that has held major social reform back for decades. Let’s suppose the Axis of Evil voters are the enablers.

The enablers seem to be making the following argument at one point or another. The enablers say that to be taken seriously in the future by the allies of the mass invaders of America and the mass destroyers of the enablers’ cultures, the enablers must ally with (enable) what these “mainstream” allies want to do (such as attack Iraq now) if there is a rational basis for going along. The enablers point to the real threat of WMD to intensify their argument and to sort of terrorize their opponents.

The problem is the U.S. is always under a security threat, and worthwhile things never come cheap; there will always be hard choices to make. Every President has had to use or threaten to use military power to defend the U.S. There is no reason to believe this is about to change after the threat of the moment is gone, after Korea, after Vietnam, after the Iranian hostages, after the Cold War, after Gulf War I, after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after North Korea, after China, after France, after the U.N., etc. The enablers always come down on the same side of the argument. The enablers are always saying they will do something just as soon as the “more immediate” threat is gone. In the meantime, decades pass while the “less immediate” threat of mass immigration and mass cultural destruction increases.

This argument does not concern the current war, which needs to be supported fully while it lasts. I will be glad to hear about any defects in this argument.

One of the defects in Mr. Murgos’s argument is that it happens to have no basis in reality. As best as I remember, none of us who said that the axis of evil is a greater overall threat than globalism said or hinted at anything like what Mr. Murgos has inferred, i.e., that we feel we must curry favor with the neocons on their issue, in the (vain) hope that that will persuade them to care about our issue.

This is the kind of thing that comes from seeing the neocons as the source and meaning behind everything that’s happening. Once people start thinking this way, the thought does not occur to them that a person says that A is more important than B because he happens to believe that A is more important than B. No, it must be because he is seeking a deal with the neocon backers of A.

A second defect in Mr. Murgos’s argument is his assumption that if one thinks A is more important than B, that therefore one will do nothing about B until A is completely solved. Such an approach was not implied either in the question nor in anyone’s answers.

Mr. Murgos makes excellent points. I can see ways to criticise them but also ways to refine and further affirm them.

This poll question was a very hard one for me to answer. I finally abstained from voting.

Of course there is the weakness pointed out by Mr. Auster in Mr. Murgos’ argument — we shouldn’t view the poll choice of resistance to and self-defense against the lunatic rogue states as being dependent on whether or not some political faction agrees with our view of the importance of the other poll choice — that is, we shouldn’t link the two choices in that way.

But I think Mr. Murgos means there IS a link between the choices, because dealing with the problem we choose to confront first may affect whether, how, and to what extent we go on afterwards and deal with the second.

Mr. Murgos, then, might be right to link them in this sense — if something must be done about A and B, and if attending to A (pressing though that be) risks putting us on a track that takes us further and further away from ever coming back and adequately attending to B, we really must think hard about whether or not there aren’t alternative ways of dealing with A such that both A and B can be attended to satisfactorily.

If it becomes certain at some point that one or the other knives is going to kill us, it’s hard to muster much enthusiasm for putting up a fight against either.

Also, I don’t think Mr. Murgos meant to limit his criticism to just the neocons, but aimed it instead at the entire range of nefarious forces pressing us at the moment.

I appreciate the comments. It looks like it is back to the drawing board.

In the meantime, I suspect the idea I am trying to uncover is to attempt bargains despite the risks. In other words, admit the risks of not joining endless wars but insist on a price. For example, agree to support a $75 billion war tax only if the other side agrees to stop spending money to care for illegal immigrants. It seems that to not do so will result in a war tax and a tax to help illegals.

I agree with Mr. Murgos’s last point. But, as Matt in particular has been arguing lately, the problem is that the people who care the most about immigration reform have removed themselves so far from mainstream political debate that they are not in any position to offer such a deal.

I guess it ought to be noted that it isn’t just bad marketing on the part of antiwar paleos, as though they ought to stipulate a physical danger they don’t really believe in and engage in the national security debate as a matter of PR. I don’t have any problem with sticking to unpopular non-mainstream principle. The problem is exactly that the paleo response has been unprincipled: it has been based on a “see no evil” approach and on a failure to recognize and respond to objectively legitimate concerns. (An alternate in some cases is that it is based in a sly anti-Americanism that isn’t willing to fully show itself. It is entirely possible that the underlying position is principled but bears ill will toward the United States, in which case it is worthwhile to make that clear since it is important to know when we are not engaged in an honest discussion).

I would be the last person to object to something merely on the basis that it is not mainstream, though.

Matt and Lawrence have both illuminated a major flaw with the Paleos - a drift into irrationality and anti-Americanism which only serves to utterly marginalize Paleo ideas altogether. Thus we are left politically powerless in terms of being able to resist the Tranzi/NWO. If Buchanan, for example, had simply concentrated on pointing out serious flaws in the neocons’ and Bush administration’s national security argument - like the three points raised in my earlier post of March 17 - instead of resorting to Zionist conspiracy theories - we might at least have a voice on the immigration and technology transfer issues. As it stands, we are on the way to winning a war with Iraq while losing the battle to save what’s left here at home.