← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · SARTRE
Thread ID: 14088 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2004-06-07
2004-06-07 12:08 | User Profile
Folks,
An example why I parted company with ESR after 911.
SARTRE :saddam:
[URL=http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0604/0604neocon.htm]On Israel, neoconservatism, and its discontents[/URL] By Ariel Natan Pasko
With America seemingly bogged down in Iraq, there are those looking for scapegoats to blame. Neoconservatives, Likudniks, and Israel have become frequent targets, besides the standard fare of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice. Attacks from the left and the Democrats, can be seen as purely partisan, but attacks from the right, need further clarification.
I want to start by saying I don't claim any special expertise in the minutia of the history of conservative thought. But the areas I do claim some knowledge in, I feel, are sufficient to give an educated opinion on what's really going on, in this neo vs. paleo thing in American conservatism today, what it has to do with Jews, Israel, international affairs, and the evolving "Clash of Civilizations" taking place in the 21st century.
But first, a brief look at the history of religious -- i.e. cultural -- and political thought, as I see it. I hope after reading this you will better understand what I'm going to say about the above.
As we all know, early Christianity broke away from Judaism. It was a protest movement. Although the Christian or New Testament criticizes the Jewish civilization of the time -- especially the priests and Temple cult, some of which was already being voiced by the Rabbis -- many historians view these as veiled critiques of the excesses of Roman pagan culture, not really Judaism itself, so much as Greco-Roman culture's inroads into Roman-occupied Judea, and its people. Under severe persecution by the Roman authorities for a couple hundred years -- long after any semblance of Jewish autonomy ended -- Christianity stressed the imperfectability of "This World" -- an idea that helped to move it further away from Judaism -- promising its adherents a great life in the next world, heaven.
Simply put, Judaism with its legal system -- Torah and Halacha -- for the Jewish nation, living in its own homeland, believed in ultimate perfectibility of the world under G-D's Laws. Christianity, first having rejected "The Law", later rejected this understanding of the nature of social life. Without getting any deeper into the differences between Christian and Jewish theology, one can summarize thus: Judaism's ultimate fulfillment is achieved by the group, in one's lifetime, in this world. Christianity's ultimate fulfillment is for individual believers to gain "eternal life" after death in the next world.
Judaism desires the establishment of a "Messianic Nation-State" in the Land of Israel -- run according to the Torah, Jewish Law -- to lead the Jewish people onto individual and group, spiritual and social perfection. Judaism's goal is to establish a "Model State" and society, whose purpose is to influence mankind, in proper individual practice and social organization to worship G-D, i.e. national and universal redemption. Christianity having rejected the group concept of a "Chosen Nation," substituted individual salvation for national and universal redemption. Christianity sees the world as ultimately imperfectable, which led to a separation of religion and politics best expressed by the Christian Testament statement, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G-D what is G-D's," a clear call for the separation of religion and state. Judaism sees state power as a necessary requirement -- not evil -- along the way to messianic redemption.
One further point, Judaism's primary goals are meant first and foremost for the Jewish people -- nation of Israel -- and then as a byproduct of completion, to influence the whole world toward Godliness without any thought of converting people. Christianity is individualistic and otherworldly, but missionary -- i.e. it tries to gain as many followers as possible.
Now to complete the triangle, to better understand the "Clash of Civilizations" taking place in the 21st century, one needs to know where Islam fits in. Islam can be summarized as more group-oriented than individualistic, law-based (they have Sharia Law), universalistic, missionary, and this world oriented. Therefore, whereas Judaism is for the Jews -- i.e. nation of Israel -- Islam like Christianity aspires to convert all mankind. Whereas Judaism aspires to political control over only one territory on earth, the Land of Israel -- i.e. the Promised Land -- Christianity's kingdom is of the spirit, and Islam aspires to control the whole world under Allah's rule. Both Judaism and Islam have legal traditions capable of governance, Christianity does not. And finally, whereas Christianity puts an inordinate emphasis on the individual, and Islam makes him subservient to the group and state, Judaism holds the two values in balance.
Although its true that after Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 335C.E.; the Roman empire's adoption of Christianity as state religion; Christianity had a thousand year fling with state power in parts of Europe, but that's just it, it was a fling. The revolt of princes and kings against the Catholic Church, the renaissance and reformation that led to the rise of secular state power and modern life in the West, returned European culture and society to the pristine vision of earlier Christian thought, separation of society and politics from religion. With that separation, and the later attack on the "divine rights" of kings, modern democracy arose with its emphasis on individual rights and liberties, the pragmatic -- as opposed to ideological -- and consent of the governed. One can now begin to understand how pluralist democracy developed in the Christian western world and has not developed in the Islamic east.
Terminology has been evolving over the centuries.
And to complicate matters, there are several spheres of discourse, economic organization, social-political policy, and inter-state relations -- i.e. foreign policy. Classical Liberalism is not the same as the term Liberal today. Classical Liberalism, a term most related to the economic organization of society -- i.e. the belief in the efficacy of free-markets and free trade -- found expression in the 17th to 19th century revolt against mercantilism -- or state-supported trade. Today liberalism stands for big government and its involvement in the economy -- i.e. the welfare state -- social leniency and the PC or politically correct movement -- which includes government involvement to enforce social leniency, and as the war in Iraq taught us, a non-interventionist foreign policy. Quite a distance from Classical Liberalism, isn't it?
So too, the meaning of conservatism has also changed over time. Originally, supporters of the monarchist order in Europe, conservatives have adapted to democracy, and incorporated free-markets just as liberalism metamorphosized to New Deal policies of big government and big spending. But, whereas conservatives believe in free-markets and free trade and small government in the economic realm, they tend to stand for "traditional family values" in the social realm and are not adverse to big government in social policy. Those truly "Classically Liberal" (i.e. small government or no involvement) in all three spheres, economic, social-political, and foreign relations, are the libertarians -- not the party per se, but the movement.
Which brings us back to the discussion I alluded to in the first paragraph.
What is all this talk about neos and paleos? Paleoconservatives, or traditional conservatives, or old-style conservatives claim that they represent "true" conservatism. They say that the neoconservatives are for the most part, escapees from the New-Old Left of the New Deal or 1960's. Paleocons say that neocons are interventionist in foreign affairs, whereas traditional conservatism is more isolationist. Paleos claim that neocons are not adverse to big government to achieve their goals, of extending American power and influence overseas. Paleocons accuse neocons of lack of interest in domestic economic issues and are more socially lenient that traditional conservatives. In that regard, for the most part, Pat Buchanan and the other paleocons are somewhat correct.
On the other hand... So what?
As I said earlier, terminology is evolving. 21st century terminology -- what's a conservative -- might not be the same as 20th century terminology, just as the term Liberal has changed its meaning in time.
In America today, there are economic interventionists and those who are for freedom from control; there are social-political interventionists and those who are for freedom from control; and there are foreign policy interventionists and isolationists. The only relevant issue is where a person, group, party, or policy stands on this triad. The current terminology blurs distinctions and labels help to muddle thinking.
Pat Buchanan, Rep. Jim Moran, Louis Farrakhan, David Duke and others, all blamed the Neo-Cons -- read Jews -- and Israel for the war in Iraq. More recently, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings and retired general Anthony Zinni have also. So did elements on the far-left in America, the PC people, and the Islamists. It's true that many neoconservative thinkers are Jewish, and the war -- in theory -- benefited Israel (who doesn't like to see their sworn enemy defanged?), but many other neoconservatives aren't Jewish, and the war also benefited the entire western democratic world. Pointing out that many neocons are Jewish is the equivalent of pointing out that many Nazis or Ku Klux Klan members are white Christians. So what?
Blaming all Christians for the Klan or Nazis, just as blaming "the Jews", well I think you get the point.
The war in Iraq simply was America's attempt to suppress rogue state behavior, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terror-supporting regimes, and reshape the Middle East, whether others understood it, agreed with them or not. Whether America should act multi-laterally, uni-laterally, or be isolationist is an issue worth discussion. But, blaming one group, "the Jews" is simply anti-Semitic. All the accusations that it's "Likudniks" -- the ruling party of Ariel Sharon in Israel -- in the White House directing policy, bemoans the fact that the Bush Administration policy toward Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking -- the roadmap process -- might in fact be on a collision course with Israel, but, more of that later.
The biggest area of disagreement between paleocons and neocons is on interventionism overseas. Neoconservatives, like Reagan before them, have been willing to fight the "Evil Empire" and "Axis of Evil". Interventionism, couched in religious imagery, rights and wrongs, is a hallmark of Neo-conservative thought. So too, it dovetails with the Christian fundamentalist element in the Republican Party and elsewhere.
But I thought you told me earlier that Christianity withdrew from the political sphere, you might now be asking yourself?
Yes, that's true I did. But that was primarily in Europe. The early Puritans who helped found America believed in government involvement in society. The early settlers of America were profoundly influenced by the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Hebrew was one of the languages considered for use in early America as the "national language".
Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson's original design for the Great Seal of the United States showed Pharaoh and his Egyptian charioteers pursuing the Israelites across the parted Red Sea, while Moses stood on the opposite shore, bathed in a light from a blazing pillar, extending his arms upwards and beseeching the L-RD to close the waters over Pharaoh and his army. The motto they selected was "Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to G-D".
Although America was founded on the principle of opposing state support for religion, and believing in separation of church and state, a strong element of American culture has included moral involvement in politics. American exceptionalism and idealism have always been the counterbalance to American pragmatism. Protestantism in America has always had two wings, those who wanted government involvement and those who didn't, so, you get the call for economic liberty, and yet, the call for banning alcohol, the temperance movement. Which leads to the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, and Christian Conservatives of today.
Since the fight against Nazism and Fascism in World War II, and the Cold War through the 1980's, America understood the necessity of engaging the world. After "winning" the Cold War, even if America thought it could go to sleep -- as evidenced by Buchanan-type isolationism reminiscent of the 19th century and the 1920's -- September 11th woke it up. American's now understood the world could become a very dangerous place, if they ignored it. The only question is whether the US wanted to barricade itself inside and pray, or confront the dangers that lurk outside. Neocon thinkers only saw the dangers a little earlier than most.
Neoconservative thinkers want to use American power and prestige globally -- while the US is the sole superpower -- to make the world "safe for democracy" and free-markets, i.e. for America. There are those neocons who are part of the American idealist tradition. As escapees from the Left -- repentant true believers -- they have all the zest of the "born-again". But there are other neocons, who are tempered by the pragmatic side of American political tradition. They also see global intervention as in America's long-term interest. Both believe in the use of state power overseas.
Liberal pluralist democracy as in America and the West, evolved from an underpinning of Christian culture, secularization, and the separation of religion and state. Although there are those willing to use state power to implement "moral values" in society, in general, there is an aversion across American society to excessive government intervention. But, use of state power overseas, for the purpose of guaranteeing those freedoms at home, does seem to be a legitimate aim to most.
I believe the Jewish neocons have another element, not yet fully addressed by any other commentator.
I've spoken about American idealism, now I want to address the Jewish element in Neoconservative thinking. As I described earlier, Judaism as opposed to Christianity, believes in the ultimate perfectibility of the world. This Jewish messianic belief is really the ultimate "idealism". Christian messianism as I earlier said, really gave up all hope for the world's improvement and transferred that hope to the next life, Jewish messianism never did.
Jewish messianism -- although perverted -- can be found in the thought of the son of recent Jewish converts to Christianity, Karl Marx. Many Jews were communists and socialists because they saw improvement in the workingman's lot -- a Jewish moral value -- and once secularized, felt close to Communism's desire to "fix the world". Jewish idealism can be seen in Jewish involvement in the trade union movement in America. Jewish idealism can be seen in many of the liberal social causes that Jews flock to in America. Remember, I didn't say they were properly applying that messianic drive, only explaining where it comes from. Many Jews, fairly assimilated into the US and bereft of real involvement in Judaism -- and its laws -- buy into the democracy, individual liberties, and free enterprise system of America.
I believe a residue of Jewish idealism "to fix the world" is what truly drives many Jewish neocons.
American political culture has many elements, but one has to look at how very profoundly it was influenced by the Hebrew Bible. America has seen itself as the new Promised Land. America like the Israelites of old, is an ideological nation, seeing itself as more moral than "Old Europe". America has seen itself as having a mission. Most countries in the world are ethnically based. Before the rise of colonialism, and the modern nation state, which redrew borders, most people lived in homogeneous population groups. Nations came about by biological proximity and linguistic similarity. It's true that empires sometimes mixed things up, but for the most part, countries, people, and nations coincided. America was different; it was born out of ideological fervor, law in hand -- the constitution -- with a purpose.
So too, were the ancient Jews.
This similarity, between America and Israel is probably the greatest reason for the strong support America has had for the Jewish state. This I believe is why the neocons have been successful in capturing the imagination of America. It's not that Ariel Sharon and the "Likudniks" have brainwashed Bush, or that the Jewish neocons have "cabaled" the Washington policy establishment, but that America and Israel have an underlying cultural connection and similar policy objectives in the short run. The State of Israel, as a modern democratic state -- not yet that Messianic State -- is part of the American vision for the world.
Today you have Christian conservative elements and secularized assimilated Jewish neoconservative elements driving American policy. As Fundamentalist Christians, Christian Zionists support Israel because of an overlapping of mutual values and because it plays out their own "End-of-Days" theology. As secularized, assimilated Jews, these neocons are a hodge-podge of Jewish idealism and America first ideology. What Pat Buchanan and the other anti-Semites don't understand about the neocons is that they don't work for Israel's interests, or Jewish interests, but for America's interests.
Back to the third part of the triangle and the "Clash".
Islam as explained briefly above is more collectivist than Christianity. Thus one can now understand why when secularized elements in the Arab world took charge in the 1950's, they aligned themselves with their natural cultural cousins, the Communist Bloc. Combined with the desire of Islam to conquer the world and put it under Allah's dominion; one can see why Arab socialism held sway. Previous to their love affair with the Soviets, the secularized Arab thinkers had been enamored with fascism and the Nazis. But the underlying point is their, totalitarianism -- whether religious or secular -- and their missionary fervor. Arab socialism is at bay, but Jihadist Islam is on the march.
A "Clash of Civilizations" as Huntington called it, between the West -- led by America -- and the Islamic world is in the offing. Isolationists like Buchanan, really don't have America's best interests at heart. Sure America can close its borders, but to stop the kind of terror that 9-11 symbolizes, it would have to become the type of police state, that it abhors. In the process, becoming just like all that is wrong with the Arab-Islamic world. Pro-active intervention overseas, driven by "End-of-Days" theology, Jewish or American idealism, or just plain old American pragmatism, is the best and probably only way to prevent many more 9-11's.
Islam desires to create the "ideal" social order globally, so does the United States. America sees its model -- democracy, individual liberty, and free enterprise -- as universally applicable, so does Islam. That's a sure prescription for conflict. But whereas Islam has never had a reformation, is authentic to its Arab imperialist roots, whether in the Wahabbiist version being exported by Saudi Arabia, or the Khomeini variety from Iran -- and maybe soon Shiite Iraq? -- America and Christian Western culture is conflicted. Will it follow the Christian Conservatives and neocons in their "Crusade for democracy and free-markets" or will leftist-liberal elements in America, allied with Islamists -- homegrown and imported -and their backers in Europe, gain sway?
Jewish neocons I believe, will ultimately fail. Christianity at its roots is ultimately other world oriented and Western civilization has little interest in "fixing this world". I don't believe they have the lasting power. Islam in contrast does, and you can count on them to continue their charge toward victory throughout the 21st century.
The modern State of Israel and most Jews in it; like most Jews throughout the world and in America; have become secularized in the last 200 years. They're weak in Jewish tradition and observance. Watered down Judaism combined with democracy, and free-markets, isn't far away from American culture. That's why Israeli leaders today and American leaders see eye-to-eye on most issues. Judeo-Christian culture, a phrase used by some people in America, really is Christian culture wedded to some Jewish elements. Although used by some Jews also, the term really stands for "traditional values" more than any overarching cultural symbiosis. Authentic Judaism, including the sense of peoplehood, and desire for life as an independent nation, is only taking place in Israel. Torah -- that G-D given Law -- not democracy and free enterprise is supposed to be implemented there. Its values are meant for the Biblical Promised Land, where messianic fulfillment is supposed to take place, not in the "promised land" of America.
The transference of Jewish idealism in a secularized and Americanized form, by Jewish Neo-conservatives, is doomed to failure. Messianic redemption, the setting up of a Model Nation-State -- i.e. polity -- and society in the Land of Israel, as prophesized by the Jewish prophets in the Hebrew Bible, is meant primarily as stated earlier, for the Jewish people, though it will have universal meaning. If America led by neocons and Christian fundamentalist try to usurp that role from the Jewish people's state, they will either, at worst come into direct conflict with G-D's unfolding redemptive process, or at best end in utter failure.
America's current Middle East peace-making policy, the "roadmap" that envisions a Palestinian state is just such an example. It's the beginning of conflict between Israel and America. How can America be "helping" Israel and the Jewish people, when it threatens to take part of the Promised Land away?
America, will never "fix the world" with democracy and free-markets, because that isn't a holistic world-view that encompasses both spiritual and worldly realms -- as Judaism has. America will not perfect the world, because it doesn't have the cultural underpinnings to do it, and because it is not America's role in history. It will never bring democracy to the Arab-Islamic world, unless some form of "Islamic Reformation" takes place first.
The best that America can hope for is to play a supporting role in helping Israel in it's messianic mission, combating the spread of Jihadist Islamism, while holding out a torch of freedom to the rest of mankind. The sooner the neocons see that and the limits to America's power, just as they initially saw the value in attacking Saddam Hussein's regime, the faster they can avert another tragedy for America!
Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: [url]www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko[/url]. (c) 2004/5764 Pasko
2004-06-07 20:03 | User Profile
'In America today, there are economic interventionists and those who are for freedom from control; there are social-political interventionists and those who are for freedom from control; and there are foreign policy interventionists and isolationists. The only relevant issue is where a person, group, party, or policy stands on this triad. The current terminology blurs distinctions and labels help to muddle thinking.' Right, so it doesn't matter if the social intervention is made to prop up the foreign intervention -- which is in turn made to serve the interests of various non-Western nations, such as Israel?
Sure thing. Sadly, I have seen this piece emailed about beyond ESR. I think it was on 'Conservative Books.' We can't seem to delouse the occupied terroritory of DC even slightly, despite the growing recognition of King W.'s lunacy.
2004-06-07 21:43 | User Profile
AY,
You are entirely correct. Same problem that existed with GOPusa.
The question has been does it do any good to crack their readership? Before 911, I would answer that there were many readers who were willing to look at the "big picture". Now the requirement to maintain 'PC' purity is a condition for such editors.
Wish I had even a small degree of confidence in the public. However, based upon the numbers, the moron quotient is the only factor that is on the rise.
Boycotting this election is again, the only sensible option.
Time to invent a new name for traditional conservatism !!!!
SARTRE :thumbsup:
2004-06-11 04:03 | User Profile
SARTRE,
Yes you most Right, take a look at this stuff. Enter Stage Right is both PC an Neocon!
[QUOTE]American Renaissance vs. Enter Stage Right
Enter Stage Right Interview (May 24, 2000) [url]http://www.amren.com/stageright.htm[/url]
Jared Taylor?s Reply (May 27, 2000) [url]http://www.amren.com/morseresponse.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.amren.com/[/url] [/QUOTE]
2004-06-11 11:14 | User Profile
Faust,
Once appeared on the Charles Morse radio program after writing this essay, [URL=http://batr.org/view_/080701.html]Zionism, Racism and anti-Semitism[/URL]
No room for common ground with him.
SARTRE
2004-06-12 03:27 | User Profile
SARTRE,
Great article.
"A tragic mistake that is common to any discussion on politics is that racism is bad. The dictionary clearly states that racism is: "the notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior", and "discrimination or prejudice based on racism". Now consider for a moment the merits or the flaws in this definition. Ethnic groups regularly take pride in their heritage and traditions. Many view their culture to be preferred to others. Most classify others as different to them and seek to bond with their own kind. And when conflict develops between their own people and another ethnic crowd, ranks close within your own. This is a natural outcome of the human condition that has existed from the beginning of civilized community. "-SARTRE
Charles A. Morse is nothing but a cultural Marxist Neocon! [QUOTE]Jared Taylor Responds to Charles A. Morse
May 27, 2000
The following letter to Enter Stage Right is in response to the article on that site posted by Charles A. Morse entitled ââ¬ÅRacist Group Targets the Right.ââ¬Â
t is disappointing that after three hours of on-air conversation Chuck Morse persists in misunderstanding what I have to say. My views on race and national identity are essentially the same as those of such prominent Americans as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. For Mr. Morse to call these views ââ¬Åhateful, un-American, eugenic, national socialist garbageââ¬Â is to display a breath-taking ignorance of American history and social thought.
Up until perhaps the 1950s, virtually all whites thought of their country as racially and culturally European, and could not imagine it otherwise. Until 1965, the United States had an immigration policy designed to keep the country white, and Congress was persuaded to change immigration law only on the false promise that there would be no perceptible shift in the racial demographics of the country.
I strongly oppose our current immigration policy, which, by allowing nearly one million non-whites to enter the country every year, is expected to reduce whites to a minority in 50 years or so. Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, and every President up through Eisenhower would have been horrified at the prospect of such a transformation, but I suppose Mr. Morse would accuse them of promoting ââ¬Ånational socialist garbageââ¬Â too.
To claim that Western cultural achievement is great only insofar as it has abandoned group or racial consciousness is to pretend that Western culture became great only since about1950. This is so silly and obviously untrue it is difficult to believe anyone would make such a claim. On the contrary, since that time, Western culture faces a growing and potentially fatal crisis: the widespread folly of believing that Hmong and Haitians can carry that culture forward as meaningfully as Europeans.
Everyone knows that when a neighborhood changes from white to black or Hispanic the texture of life changes. That is why whites move out. They prefer the kind of society whites build and it is entirely right and natural for them to do so. Whites have been browbeaten into hiding their true feelings but they know very well that demographic change that is unacceptable at the local level can hardly be desirable at the national level.
I have never claimed, as Mr. Morse writes, that whites are ââ¬Åsuperior to non-whites.ââ¬Â Whites are, on average, more intelligent and law-abiding than blacks but north Asians are, on average, more intelligent and law-abiding than whites. This does not mean that I want the United States to become Asian. Whites have the right to build a society that reflects their own culture and in which their own destiny can unfold, free of the unwanted embrace of people unlike themselvesââ¬âjust as all people have that right.
If we were discussing any non-white nation, Mr. Morse would surely agree. If large numbers of whites were moving into Nigeria or Mexico, changing the folkways, challenging the dominant language, supplanting the culture, and threatening to reduce the inhabitants to a minority he would recognize this as cultural imperialism. It is only whites who have been convinced that it is a sinââ¬âMr. Morse calls it ââ¬Åevilââ¬Âââ¬âto wish to preserve the ways of their ancestors. If they do not awake from this suicidal delusion they will be pushed into oblivion by racial groups that do not hesitate to advance their own interests at the expense of whites.
Jared Taylor Editor, American Renaissance [/QUOTE]
2004-06-12 11:20 | User Profile
Faust,
JT has it right.
Always maintained a neutral position for Middle East policy. Favor the discontinuation of ALL foreign aid. Crazed capitulation based upon coercion and intimidation to hold that Israel is an ally is insane. However, Sharon has proved that even with swallowing hard, American interests cannot consider any beneficial relationship with Zionists.
Have made an effort to seek out genuine conservatives who profess to be Jewish. The net result is that only those who converted to Christianity and abandon loyalty to Israel can be considered friends. Publishers that spiked articles, were always over my opposition to Zionism.
Guys like Morse will destroy any movement. Allowing any Israel-First supporter into your ranks is suicidal. Zionist-Christians are fools practicing a false doctrine. The acid test for a legitimate Republic requires that such thinking be exposed as counter to the reasons why this nation was founded.
We both know that the prospects for a restoration are impossible through the system. Suspended new essays because the sheeple have gulped the phony Bush political heresy. Boycotting another election and doubt there will ever be another effective option to cast a ballot.
Not a fan of any Middle East tyrants, but understand the basic reason behind those that resort to violence against the U.S. Unless there is a political break from the claws of Israel, the ââ¬ÅWar of Terrorââ¬Â will continue to be waged by any administration that is selected. The skull of death is the result from Zionist control over America. The bones of corpses is the only future from fighting the wrong enemy, once again . . .
When the Morse view is supported by shills like Bill Oââ¬â¢Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and the public drinks the kool aid, the ââ¬Ëchosenââ¬â¢ just expand their torture. The very few internet sites that ââ¬Ëget itââ¬â¢ are subjected to constant hack attacks and assaults. The people who most need to read the reality, close their minds as quickly as you can say Shalom.
OD folks are rare champions and the few left worth knowing. How many times does to take to drive home the facts of life? The GOP has systematically discredited their distorted version of conservatism. As long as a fifth column is allowed to foster their deceit, whatââ¬â¢s the point are were can we go? Stated previously, a new identity and label needs to be created to reflect the meaning and values of paleoconservatism. In an age of Terrorism by government design, the prospects to motivate men of conscience and principle, who understand the real war, is remote.
SARTRE
2004-06-12 22:35 | User Profile
SARTRE,
Yes, I agree. :cheers: [QUOTE]Faust, JT has it right. Always maintained a neutral position for Middle East policy. Favor the discontinuation of ALL foreign aid.[/QUOTE]
I have no stake in and want no part of the Zionists/Arabs wars. I am no a fan of both groups. I disagree with the Rightist who have taken the pro-Arab side. I don't want anything to do with the :saddam: s or the :caiphas: s!
2004-06-13 12:01 | User Profile
Faust,
Your position is the exactly the correct one! Submit if the question was posed in such clear terms that many if not a majority of Americans would agree. Since this viewpoint is not allowed within the established party system, it is impossible to gain the nomination from either party for a major offer. We all know the consequences of this reality.
Criticism of the Zionist 'final solution' does not imply that the Arabs regimes are models of individual liberty. Obviously the fight belongs to those who identify with their feud.
However, the problem (and where our interests come into play) is when the Israeli-First loyalists, pervert our national interests, with their sick devotion to their primary allegiance. The scam that there is a common bond with Likud totalitarianism is the root delusion that NeoCon sites enforce.
We have lost our country to betrayers. Where is Joe McCarthy when he is needed again? Since our country never fought a civil war (the Northern aggression was to meant to prevent secession), the future only hold complete enslavement, without active resistance.
After this selection cycle, the crack down on dissent will begin in earnest. Expect that few sites will public and the debate will shift to silencing all anti-Zionist voices. The example of David Duke illustrates the course that will be employed. The Patriot Act will focus on its broad definition of a terrorist and the net result is that George Orwell's vision will be viewed as the 'good old days' . . .
Open to OD members, for alternatives? Does anyone conclude that the few remaining American have the will to resist the kosher despotism?
Regretfully, the country refuses to address the real issues of elitism NWO and their global design for total control. If you can't confont a criminal like Sharon, what are the prospects to taking on the real manipulators of the planet?
SARTRE :angry:
2004-06-14 06:00 | User Profile
Leave aside 9/11. If that was bin Laden following through on the warning he gave Bush not to defile the Saudi Desert with metal killing machines, it would be an instructive act, if the people had been told. Not pretty, but as McVeigh would have said, necessary, to put historical aggression in a proper objective light. The deaths and destruction were repayments to Republicans. To bad others had to fall.
Israel, or Jewishness in the Zionist version, on the other hand, has been responsible, at a minimum, for:
1. the war on Iraq
2. the policy of state targeted assassination (government sniper killing of non-combatants) of Sheik Yassin of Palestine, leading to the mutilated bodies in Fallujah in revenge retaliation, followed by US atrocity slaughter of 600 (as reported). And to open season on Americans everywhere in the world like they were sitting ducks in a shooting gallery. Again, too bad it isn't the ones responsible for cozying up to Netanyahu that pays for the "price of one bullet" policy -- they want to die for Jeezus anyway, so let them, without killing everybody else. God loves those who lay down their lives cheerfully, without whining, quietly, out of everybody else's sight.
3. (probably) the Abu Ghraib pictures, hullaballoo, torture template, and general grotesquerie management of the whole thing so that all they come off with, until proven otherwise, which shouldn't really be that difficult if it were willed, is an unfortunately beheaded Nick Berg.
4. the corruption of newsrooms, such as the NYTimes pathetic Judith Miller rubbing noses with Chalabi because Wolfie, Safire, and Pretty Boy Perle told her to. That goes to the Jews, too.
5. The play-out of Ronald Reagan's death as a cult rebirth experience (occult trappings), and who asked for that?
(BUSH: OUR MIDDLE EAST MISSION HAS JUST BEGUN....)
So, in general, this "fie on both your houses" attitude is vile prejudice against Arabs. Anti-Semitic, actually. (What one is if they really don't hate Jews; after which point it can pass from something you flirt with (Foxman) to actual phobic convulsion-response at the thought. -- which is compatible with straight face at the barbershop.)
2004-06-15 23:45 | User Profile
[url=http://www.realnews247.com/Who%20Runs%20the%20Media.htm]http://www.realnews247.com/Who%20Runs%20the%20Media.htm[/url]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bradley Smith Holocaust Revisionism by CODOH, PO Box 439016, San Diego, CA 92134 The Revisionist
In Our Hands
by Joseph Sobran
ONE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO SAY THIS, but many people believe that Israel now holds the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in its hands. This is what is known as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
The odd thing is that it is held by many Israelis. In an essay reprinted in the May 27th issue of The New York Times, Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than 100 Lebanese civilians in April: "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own..."
In a single phrase -- "in our hands" -- Shavit has lighted up the American political landscape like a flash of lightning.
Notice that Shavit assumes as an obvious fact what we Americans can say publicly only at our own risk. It's surprising, and refreshing, to find such candor in an American newspaper (though his essay was reprinted from the Israeli paper Haaretz).
The prescribed cant on the subject holds that Israel is a "reliable ally" of the United States, despite Israel's long record of double-dealing against this country, ranging from the killing of American sailors to constant espionage and technology theft. The word "ally" implies that the relationship exists because it's in the interests of this country, though Israel's lobby is clearly devoted to the interests of Israel itself, and it's childish to suggest otherwise.
You expect that from the Israeli lobby; lobbies are lobbies, after all. But it's unnerving that the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media should be "in our hands," as Shavit puts it. Bill Clinton, a lover of peace since his college days, raised no protest when the Israelis drove 400,000 innocent Lebanese out of their homes in "retaliation" for rockets launched into Israel (wounding one Israeli) by a faction over whom those 400,000 had no control.
Congress, of course, was supine as usual at this latest extravagance of Israeli "defense." Congress too is "in our hands."
A recent article in The Washington Post likened the Israel lobby's power to that of the gun and tobacco lobbies. But there is one enormous difference. Newspapers like the Post aren't afraid to criticize the gun and tobacco lobbies. They will say forthrightly that those lobbies seek goals that are dangerous for this country. They don't dare say as much of the Israeli lobby.
But much of the press and electronic media are "in our hands" in a more active sense: They supply misleading pro-Israel propaganda in the guise of news and commentary, constantly praising Israeli "democracy" and ignoring Israel's mistreatment of its non-Jewish minorities -- mistreatment which, if any government inflicted it on a Jewish minority, would earn it the fierce opprobrium of our media.
No decent American would think of reducing American Jews to the status of Palestinians in Israel. The idea is almost absurd. Yet Americans are taxed to subsidize the oppression of Palestinians, on the flimsy pretext that they are helping an "ally" in America's own self-interest to be hated and despised by the whole Muslim world.
All this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.
Very few in America are doing anything to change this sorry state of affairs. Shavit wrote his article in the desperate hope of turning back his countrymen and his government from a morally and politically perilous course. At least he can hope. It's harder for us, when our own government isn't in our hands.
Joseph Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist who now maintains a Website at [url=http://www.sobran.com]http://www.sobran.com[/url].
Back to Index Page
CODOH - Box 439016/P-111, San Diego, CA, USA 92143 Home Bradley Smith Search Revisionism Freedom Email
2004-06-16 02:08 | User Profile
The American people are waking up as to who the Jews (Zionists) really are.
"WHEN THE TRUTH COMES INTO THE LIGHT, THE LIES WILL HIDE IN THE DARK",,,,,,,,,,,,by Ponce
2004-06-21 05:15 | User Profile
[url=http://www.enterstageright.com/cgi-bin/gm/archives/00003399.htm]ESR Responds[/url]
ESR IS JEW LOVERS CENTRAL!: According to some of our detractors anyway. By accident I stumbled upon a web site called "Original Dissent" which had a thread debating how Jew-loving ESR is.
Enter Stage Right has always struck me as a neocon stronghold, though undoubtedly it became more of the same after 9/11. Some of the most obnoxious Zionist neocons over at Free Republic were enamoured with it in the late 90's, which was a sure sign that ESJ was a false front a la Ayn Rand.
I like to think that FReepers are still in love with ESR but that's a debate for another day. For the record, ESR is not a front organization for anyone. It's funded by donations from the public and money out of my pocket.
Also, ESR isn't a "neocon stronghold". In the run up to the war we offered opinions from both pro and con and continue to do so. In this week's issue we're running at least one person who was opposed to the war. While I myself was (and remain) in support of the war, several regular contributors were opposed.
Finally, Sartre, you didn't part company with ESR, I stopped running your pieces. There is a difference. I don't have any problem with you or the paleo-con movement but your continued attacks on ESR -- which seems to be some sort of bête noire for many paleos -- is wrongheaded. Our common enemy is the left, not others in the right.
I think that's what bothers me the most about paleocons -- or at least many of them. If someone doesn't subscribe to "traditional conservatism", in their view it isn't a difference of opinion or that the person is wrong, that person is a moron shill who has been bought by Israel. Neocons are "kool-aid" drinkers who are too stupid to question what comes from George W. Bush. It's an arrogance which bothers me to no end. There is no room for disagreement...unless you buy their platform you're one of the sheeple.
For the record, Justin Raimondo offered to write a response to an earlier defense of neoconservatism and I gladly accepted. He ended up not writing anything so the neocons had the first and last word. I have an opens submission policy and will run almost anything as long as it is a responsible critique of an issue or group.
Read on.
2004-06-21 13:32 | User Profile
TD,
Selected memory must be a congenital affliction of NeoCons. Challenges to their denial are brushed aside, ignored and avoided. The root cause of their supporting an antagonist nation is at the core of the parting of the ways. Note the cryptic admission that foes of Zionism will be silenced, for they flung the NeoCon test of loyalty. And we are suppose to believe that there is some common ground? How many examples are necessary to demonstrate the true nature of NeoCon betrayal!
There is nothing "conservative" about or in an internationalist foreign policy. But within the International con game, the benefit of Israel ALWAYS supplants the interests and security of the American people. Coming from one more of the scores of Liberty challenged Canadians, siding with the ultimate victim culture, only proves the vastness of the wasteland in the northern tundra. America First is the solution. Frauds that choose a ââ¬ÅChosenââ¬Â design should volunteer their blood and treasure and avoid admonishing traditional conservatives for our own staunch defense of the principles necessary for a genuine Republic.
NeoCons and NeoLibs are both pretenders. Now with the statement: ââ¬ÅESR isn't a "neocon stronghold", the reader can judge for themselves if dishonest is the real underlying editorial standard. The final conflict is a war of ideas, values and truth. Opinions are not all equal. There is nothing sacred in tolerating deception, nor is sleeping with vipers a virtue. The real enemies of America are the ones who demand a global empire that serves only the ââ¬Åcollectivistsââ¬Â at the cost of ordinary citizens and the sacrifice of their posterity. By their rules, the Messiah is the STATE and Zionism is their religion.
The line in the sand is drawn, only the blind or the fool rejects the nature of the struggle. Judas subscribes to the NeoCon doctrine. What sane American would willingly surrender the dream of a free people for the greed of a totalitarian elite? The sickness of supporting despotism as a defense for domination is the essential dogma of the NeoCons. Defenders of Liberty are not arrogant, but enablers of genocide are legionnaires of the gulag garrison.
If it quacks likes a duck and walks with a goose-step its must be a NeoCon bird of prey. Therefore, OD members, by what color would you call this foul fowl called ESR?
SARTRE :saddam:
2004-06-23 22:39 | User Profile
Reminds me of that Sullivan clown on Rush today. Some lady was blasting the practice of giving all of that taxpayer money to Iraq, while our own people, her neighbors, where in need of the exact same. Sullivan kept rambling on about his GOP talking points for the day, and completely ignored her "Americans first" plea. The same with this ESR goober. He claims no neocon affiliation, then immediately launches into a "what's wrong with paleocons" jab. The GOP says we forget the past and unite, as long as we forget only what represents paleocons and blindly follow some neocon directive.
Then again, allowing or even supporting on OD the "strong WN influence" that strangely resembles the SPLC/ADL rantings of the negative stereotype of paleocons is also highly suspect behavior. The enemy has many faces, but the truth has only one.