← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · SARTRE

The Old Right/New Left/Neo-Nazi Alliance by Steven Zak

Thread ID: 18252 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2005-05-15

Wayback Archive

SARTRE [OP]

2005-05-15 19:07 | User Profile

[URL=http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18038]The Old Right/New Left/Neo-Nazi Alliance[/URL]

How much difference is there, really, between the far-Left, the far-Right, and overt white supremacists? How do the public stances of Michael Moore, Pat Buchanan, and David Duke compare? Proponents of both extreme views now think and sound so much alike, they sound like soulmates. Somehow these fringe characters have moved so far around the edges that they have arrived at the same territory, spouting identical positions in copycat rhetoric on such issues as Iraq, the broader War on Terror, and the Jewish state of Israel.

Their own words are the best evidence. Take their view of America's war against terrorists and Islamic fascism. The two camps, if they can even be distinguished as such, are rabidly antiwar in precisely the same, delusional fashion:

“There were no WMD's. There was no connection to 9/11. This war was a malevolent hoax.” - Llewellyn H. (“Lew”) Rockwell Jr. (“libertarian” head of LewRockwell.com)

“There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told.” - Michael Moore (leftist)

“Iraq had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, could not defeat us.” - Pat Buchanan (paleoconservative)

“There is no credible evidence that Iraq poses any real threat to the United States. Dozens of other nations have weapons of mass destruction.” - David Duke

But the extremists’ “pacifist” anti-Americanism just scratches the surface. Dig deeper and you’ll find that, for these fringe members, the current war only provides more proof of the cunning and manipulative nature of the Jewish race:

“It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.” - Michael Moore

“Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.” - Pat Buchanan

“So, for whose benefit does America wage this war? The answer is Israel, Israel, Israel!” - David Duke

“The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington and meets with the puppet in the White House. He then goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress ... It is time for the United States Government to stand up and think for itself.” - Ralph Nader

“The Founding Fathers of the United States deeply feared that a foreign government [like Israel] might gain this level of control over a branch of the United States government, and their fears have been vindicated.” - Juan Cole (leftist University of Michigan history professor)

“The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers....We White people of America have done nothing so far which would frustrate the Jews’ expectations or their ambitions of becoming the world’s slavemasters.” - Neo-Nazi author and publisher Ernst Zundel (Canadian neo-Nazi)

That the fringe adherents, both Left and Right, are most fundamentally anti-Jewish can be summed up in a favorite and pregnant Anti word: neocons:

“Neo-conservatism...has unleashed a series of wars against foreign countries that posed no threat whatever to the U.S.” - Lew Rockwell Jr.

“President Bush...was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us.” - Pat Buchanan (paleoconservative)

“The warmongers anxiously want this war NOT to appear to be a result of the Israeli Fifth Column trying to strike down Israel's enemies one by one.” - David Duke (white supremacist/”former” neo-Nazi)

“We still tiptoe around putting a name to...the neoconservatives’ agenda on U.S.-Israeli relations...It's time, however, that we say the words out loud and deal with what they really signify. Dual loyalties.” - Kathleen and Bill Christison (left-wing columnists for ”Counterpunch”)

“Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.” - Pat Buchanan

“Jewish roots and currents...make the neocon movement nothing more than a Jewish supremacist apparatus.” - David Duke

These gadflies, though, won't concede that they are first and foremost anti-Semites. As they would have it, they're just honest critics of malevolent Jews:

“They charge us with anti-Semitism – i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a ‘passionate attachment’ to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America.” - Pat Buchanan

“Certainly, there are a number of stories sloshing around the news now...The purveyor of anthrax may have been a former government scientist, Jewish...with the intent to blame the anthrax on Muslim terrorists. Rocketing around the web and spilling into the press are many stories about Israeli spies in America at the time of 9/11....” - Alexander Cockburn (columnist and editor of far-left magazine “Counterpunch”)

“But if you care to lay out the clear and copious evidence of ... Israel's obvious foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, then you are automatically labeled ‘anti-Semitic,’ probably the most hateful and onerous title that can be conferred on a human being.” - David Duke (referring to a theory popularized by Antiwar.com’s Dennis “Justin” Raimondo)

“Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98 percent control. That's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there's no critical look at the policies the U.S. (and they themselves) support in the Middle East.” - Noam Chomsky

“I have no plan whatever for challenging ‘the Jews’ for what's done in their name. At the same time, I understand the...unnaturally bloated Jewish influence in American cultural affairs and political life (particularly relating to the Middle East) ....” - Bradley Smith (Holocaust “revisionist”)

“Revisionists are not at all irrational hateful people but scholars who offer legitimate criticisms of the Holocaust story.” - David Duke

“Indeed, it is the charge of anti-Semitism itself that is toxic.” - Pat Buchanan

Their point is that if Jews really are the enemies of the state, one cannot be charged with anti-Semitism merely for pointing that truth out. This convenient argument expunges the record of anti-Semitism these forces have so justly earned. After all, one can’t be accused of holding to a venomous worldview that doesn't exist. This frees them to pursue their toxic, anti-Jewish agendas.

Take the above-mentioned Juan Cole, who accuses Zionists of holding “romantic” notions of “eternal ‘peoples’” and “mystical” connections to a “land”:

Nineteenth century romantic nationalism of the Zionist sort posits eternal “peoples” through history, who have a blood relationship (i.e. are a “race”) and who have a mystical relationship with some particular territory...But there are no eternal nations through history...Since there are no eternal nations based in “blood,” they cannot have a mystical connection to the “land.” People get moved around.

He all but screams at Jews, “You were dispossessed. Get over it!” Yet in the same breath, Cole argues that Zionism is evil because it deprives Palestinian “peoples” of a “land” to which they're apparently mystically connected:

Personally, I think that the master narrative of Zionist historiography is dominant in the American academy...Usually the narrative blames the Palestinians for their having been kicked off their own land, then blames them again for not going quietly.

Such incoherent arguments show their thinking is warped with an animus against a certain group of people. This allows Cole and all the above to conclude, if the Jews have a home, they must have displaced others and are therefore oppressors; and if Jews are displaced, well, that’s life.

Little wonder, then, that the far-Left is now ready to embrace the Buchananite Right:

“Over the past few years I have been gaining much respect for one Patrick J. Buchanan...[America] has been high-jacked by a neocon cabal that does not have their best interests, or this country's best interests, at heart.” - Web column by Craig Colbert, ”A liberal's second look at Pat Buchanan.”

And thus do hateful minds meet, far ‘round the fringes of the political spectrum.

:argue:

Consider reading our Global Gulag column on the above essay.

[URL=http://batr.org/gulag/051605.html]Israel-First NeoCons = anti-American Turncoats[/URL]

SARTRE

CornCod

2005-05-15 19:55 | User Profile

The fact that people of various ideologies have, by differing roads, come to the conclusion that an ethno-religious group dosen't have the best interests of the US at heart, is a partial confirmation of the fact that it is indeed true.

White Nationalists, the Far-Left and Paleo-Libertarians are three groups that have little reason, unlike mainstream Conservatives and Liberals, to engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty to preserve their hold on the levers of power simply because they have no power. In short, they have the luxury of being able to tell the truth, at least in regards to Israel and Zionism.

As a Nationalist, I really don't think much of Paleo-Libertarians and the Far-Left. What they preach is a lot of nonsense. However, I would give the aforementioned groups at least credit for some kind of intellectual honesty. Neo-Conservatism is a dishonest charade by militant Zionists and their gentile belly-servant stooges to put a phony gloss on their ethno-religious agenda. The Paleo-Libertarians and the Far-Left actually believe in what they are doing. Neo-Cons are just engaged in trickery. The last reletively honest Neo-Con was Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor of "First Things" About 8 or 9 years ago Neuhaus was effectively ex-communicated from the Neo-Con universe for trying to introduce new ideas into Neo-Conservatism without Jewish permission.

Notice how the malicious Jew in the article here so easily conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism without even seriously considering the issue. Typical self-serving Neo-con methods. Smear, smear smear without debate. More and more intelligent people from all sorts of idelogies and walks of life are finally figuring out the intellectual dishonesty of the Zionists. Lets hope it is not too late!

xmetalhead

2005-05-15 20:18 | User Profile

A guy with a name like Steve "Zak" writing on FrontPage lamenting about Far Left and Far Right "anti-Semites" joining forces, or at least engaging in similiar rhetoric......whaddya expect?

For the Neocons, there's only One Party Line, which if you veer anywhere away from pre-approved views, you're nothing but a hopeless "anti-Semite".

Angeleyes

2005-05-17 16:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE] Nineteenth century romantic nationalism of the Zionist sort posits eternal “peoples” through history, who have a blood relationship (i.e. are a “race”) and who have a mystical relationship with some particular territory...But there are no eternal nations through history...Since there are no eternal nations based in “blood,” they cannot have a mystical connection to the “land.” People get moved around. [/QUOTE] Land and blood. China. Japan. They come pretty close. Egypt. Closer. The Basques. Closest? German nationalism can show a powerful, millenia long linkage between the Germanic peoples and their land. The 'Green' Irish.

Is the author trying to say that because Zionism as nationalism is of suspect validity, having been formed in the diaspora, that all nationalism is built on foundations of sand? He should have stuck with his limited case of Zionism, or offered examples, like the Celts vis a vis Central Europe, Italy-Rome vis a vis Tunisia/Libya for his 'people move around' closer.

The juxtaposition of rhetoric is interesting, possibly revealing, even if it seems a comparison of soundbytes versus an analysis of developed thought.

Worth reading, since raising the BS flag has inherent value. :taz:

[QUOTE=SARTRE][url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18038"]The Old Right/New Left/Neo-Nazi Alliance[/url] [/QUOTE]