There are certain tells with right-wing Israeli assets. For instance, Tommy Robinson in the UK, backed by American Likud cash, will never actually tell you he’s opposed to immigration or wants less of it. The Robinson op is about hostility to Muslims, not a desire for less immigration to Britain, which is why he’s constantly talking about how much he loves Sikhs and Hindus, not to mention Israel. The sad thing about him is he’s yet another British Tommy, making sacrifices for a country not his own.
My theory of the case is that because Israel has no inherent interest in reducing immigration to America, none of these ops are of any particular utility to a restrictionist, and indeed, that black people are going to be a more reliable partner when it comes to reducing immigration than partisans of Israel, because they have a material interest in having less of it.
Which brings us to David Frum, the neoconservative pundit who coined the Axis of Evil line, who recently did a podcast talking about JD Vance with Rory Stewart. Frum is obviously a handler of some kind, and his various proteges have played a big role in managing right-wing discourse for some time, if you look at Mytheos Holt, Tina Nguyen, and of course Vance. He’s more or less the only mainstream pundit who’s allowed to make the case against open borders in places like The Atlantic.
But if you look at the way his proteges behave, is there anything about them that would lead you to conclude that he is actually trying to reduce immigration to the U.S? No. Quite the opposite actually, it almost all seems pretty counterproductive, with Mytheos trying to poison the well by talking about befriending white nationalists, and Tina going after right-wingers constantly.
So the better way of thinking about Frum is that he’s a Tory-Israeli asset trying to get American conservatives to expend blood and treasure on behalf of the British empire and the state of Israel, and in the interest of increasing his credibility with them, saying he’s against open borders.
There are several interesting things about the Frum interview. Vance was writing pieces about the Iraq War in the early Obama years, pushing back on liberal ideas about it—Frum says he was defending the good conduct of American troops, which is perfectly fair, but the point is he wasn’t questioning the wisdom of the war itself, and writing for the Axis of Evil guy’s website.
Frum lauds Vance’s political talent, but the word he uses is “mirroring,” that he would mimic back the rhetoric he heard. A less condescending way of putting that might be that he was a mentee. Vance also worked for the very neoconservative AEI, long before his change of heart on certain things and around the time they were shilling for the Sacklers, who killed many of his Appalachian brethren.
Vance of course had no time for Trump in 2016, what Frum says is between the election and Trump’s inauguration, Vance’s view changed, and he started to wonder if Trump could be worked with. No problem there.
The problem is we have a very neocon background, a purported change of heart, but then his private views about Benjamin Netanyahu and American strategic posture toward the Middle East are more or less nothing new. He’s rewriting history to claim Bibi was against the Iraq War, when Bibi actually told Congress toppling Saddam would be great.
This whole thing has the aspect of an imposture. Matthew Petti put it on Twitter that he’s trying to gain street cred with a deeply war-skeptical public, while not actually confronting either the Israelis or Saudis. That’s exactly right. Breaking with the Likud line is one of the most credible signs a politician can make that they take American interests seriously. Myself and a few others have been trying to get him to, but the hour is getting late.
Excellent analysis.
Advocating for hostile foreign powers is NOT MAGA.
It is MIGA.
Or MUKGA.
That ain't American.
Thanks for your clear-eyed observations.