← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · oldrightlibertarian
Thread ID: 4197 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2002-12-26
2002-12-26 17:14 | User Profile
THE DESPAIR OF THE NEOCONSERVATIVES by Thomas Fleming [url=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRight/HardRight122402.html]http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRigh...ight122402.html[/url]
The human capacity for self-deception and self-righteous indignation is almost unlimited. Take the case of discredited Bush speechwriter David Frum. Like the rest of the neoconservative brotherhood, Frum has made a spectacle of himself over the years, telling any tales that will serve the neoconservative cause while pretending to be "an objective observer" of the conservative movement, and sucking up mercilessly to the Republican Party. But let a Republican fall from grace, and heââ¬âand they allââ¬âare after him like jackals attacking a wounded lion.
Trent Lott is a poor politician and unworthy of respect (except to the members of his party); Strom Thurmond, whom I met several times, was an odious character throughout his career. They are not my leaders, but the leaders of David Frum's party, and any Republican employee with a spark of loyalty or decency would have treated the leaders he was helping to topple with a least a modicum of respect. But not content with attacking Lott's character and purging the GOP and the conservative movement of the "racists," namely, anyone who politely disagrees with quotas, affirmative action, forced busing, and the judicial destruction of the US Constitution, Frum now goes on to say it is time to get rid of the anti-Semites.
Who are these anti-Semites? Why, the paleoconservatives, whose existence as a movement he denies. Does he contradict himself, very well then, he contradicts himself, for he contains multitudes (or, as they say back in Strom's home state, he's more full of s-t than a Christmas turkey). By the way, for the neocons who don't know American literature, that was a reference to Walt Whitmanââ¬âthe multitudes part, David, not the turkey.
It used to be said that an anti-Semite was anyone who won an argument with Norman Podhoretz. Frum goes farther. Now an anti-Semite is anyone who uses the term neoconservative. See, it's a codeword. (Forgive me: I can't help writing like an adolescent when I so much as think about NR's new kids on the block.) The logic is staggering. Trotskyists reinvent themselves and make up a word for their assumed identity, but we are anti-Semites if we dare use it in print. And since when is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Virtually everyone, gentile or Jew, who writes for the Weekly Standard and National Review is a neoconservative, and so are Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, and the editors of Crisis. (For the record, we have published some academic neoconservatives and admire many of their heroes like Edward Shils and Edward Banfield.) What Frum apparently means is that he regards neconservatism as some kind of Jewish conspiracy with gentile front men. Now that's anti-Semitic paranoia.
The sheer nuttiness of Frum is worth reading, if only as a reductio ad absurdum. (That's a Latin expression for neocon, David.) Bob Novak, for example, is a newcomer to conservatism, because he once supported Wendell Wilkie. I know Frum is only a poor Canadian (Next, we'll be accused of anti-Canadism), but can't he check an almanac? Wilkie was out of politics and Novak had turned conservative before Frum was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Frum insists that Irving Kristol was a conservative before 1972, but pace (translation, "peace to") my late friend Russell Kirk, whom the neocons accused (along with George Bush I and the Pope) of being anti-Semitic, Irving Kristol evolved at best into a Truman Democrat. Novak's liberalism, in other words, was slightly to the right of the godfather's conservatism.
But wait, there's more. Novak used to be a liberal because he supported civil rights. Frum says this even while declaring that support for civil rights is a sine qua non (that means, "without which not" or "something essential") of "mainstream" (i.e., neo-) conservatism. In a nasty bit of innuendo he would like us to believe that Novak, born and brought up Jewish (and later became a Catholic convert) is really an anti-Semite like all other paleoconservatives. Americans used to call this kind of broad-brushed tarring of enemies "bigotry"ââ¬âand some of us still do.
Perhaps Frum would feel more comfortable back in his own homeland, where he could make it illegal to criticize David Frum. In Canada, it is already illegal to prefer one ethnic group to another and actionable even to mention Biblical strictures against sodomy in a sermon. From the beginning, the neoconservatives (if you'll pardon the expression) have worked to eliminate all vestiges of conservative thought from the conservative movement. Now, presiding over a movement they have destroyed, the David Frums want to silence all dissent.
You may think I making all this up in order to slur poor Frum, who has told lies about me in print on several occasions before I told him I would never give him another interview. (His response was to call me "weird" and "a failed poet"ââ¬âor was it a "failed classicist"?) Read his hilarious piece (on National Review On-Line, the best internet source for unintended humor) for yourself, and you can find out what weird is.
Oh, just one more point. Frum says that someone told him that among ourselves paleoconservatives now use the term "judeocritical" instead of anti-Semitic. Another masterpiece of infantile innuendo. In thousands of hours of conversations with the so-called paleconservative leaders, I have never once heard such an expression. They desperately want to think we lie awake worrying about the brilliance of Krauthamer, the savagery of Frum, the wit of Jonah Golberg, and the devastating good looks and robust good health of John Podhoretz, but, although they may find this impossible to believe, whole weeks and months go by in which I do not so much as hear the word neoconservative, much less read the "mewling and puking" they ask us to admire.
They cannot believe this, because in their solipsistic (oh, just use a dictionary) universe, these little fellows make up their world as they go along. They have to. Lacking all knowledge of history, literature, philosophy, and science, they have to construct useful myths to inflate their imaginary significance. If they had any importance, it was during the Reagan years, when they destroyed the conservative movement. Now, they are just an echo of New Republic leftism, usefulââ¬âto some extentââ¬âin continuing the destruction of the old republic and in tearing up what is left of civilization, but incapable of saying anything that leftists have not been saying for 200 years. In that sense, they really are conservative.
To be an NR conservative these days, you have to applaud Norman Podhoretz's Christophobic new book as a great Christmas book. Podhoretz, in his latest incarnation as biblical scholar, "proves" that Isaiah's prophecies do not apply to Jesus Christ. Season's Greetings from National Review. Will Herberg, the righteous Jew who served as NR's religion editor, must be rolling in his grave.
Finally (and this really is finally), neoconservatives don't care one bit about anti-Semitism, because they care nothing at all for Judaism. Believing Jews and brave Israelis alike would spit on these little slanderers and cowards. If they ever wake up and find something to believe in, something to love, something to risk lives and careers on, then they might be worth something either as enemies or friends. Even a gang-banger who loves his brothers and his territory is more worthy of respectââ¬âthough the negrophobic neoconservatives can never find anything good to say about real black people in America. The dirty little non-secret of the neoconservatives is their paranoid hatred and fear of African Americans. Beneath their angry diatribes against Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their denunciations of affirmative action lies the recognition that black males are men, whose virile capacity for both joy and violence intimidates them. I have heard this repeatedly from unnamed sources close to their movement.
We know what they hate (Arabs, blacks, Christians, conservatives, America down to 1970), but what do they love? Certainly not Israel, which is to them a purely abstract notion to be invoked in their struggle for wealth without work and success without talent. To neoconservatives, real Israelis, whom they are egging on to kill and die, are only pawns in their own dirty little gameââ¬âand many Israelis know this.
There is a terrible struggle going on in the Middle East, and we (I only speak for us at Chronicles) would like to see both Israel and the United States survive and thrive in a world where Islamic aggression is the main enemy we face. Sensible Americans should be forging alliances based on America's strategic interests and our respect for an ally we ought to regard as a European colony in a hostile Islamic world. Using the charge of anti-Semitism to silence dissent is not only a dangerous tactic that will surely backfire by alienating more and more non-neo-conservatives, but it is also a despicable and cynical abuse of the authentic sufferings of Jewish people.
I would say "For shame," but Frum and his epicene little friends are incapable of shame or honor or courage. When the Jihad comes to North America, he'll be banging on our doors, begging us to protect him from the big bad Arabs. The sad part of it is, I'll probably let him in. I guess that makes me a Christian, whichââ¬âin David Frum's eyesââ¬âmakes me an anti-Semite.
2002-12-26 18:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by oldrightlibertarian@Dec 26 2002, 17:14 **But not content with attacking Lott's character and purging the GOP and the conservative movement of the "racists," namely, anyone who politely disagrees with quotas, affirmative action, forced busing, and the judicial destruction of the US Constitution, Frum now goes on to say it is time to get rid of the anti-Semites.
Who are these anti-Semites? Why, the paleoconservatives, whose existence as a movement he denies**
Interesting. The neo's going from ignoring us to attacking us. I'd say WFB was getting ready to write In Search of Anti-Semitism Part II, except unlike then, paleoconservatives like Sobran, Francis, and Buchanan have already been purged from any possible position of influence within the GOP mainstream.
Makes me wonder exactly what he's talking about when he says "get rid of". Wonder if the neo's and their mainstream buddies are getting ready to up the ante once again, just like their buddy Ariel Sharon, in their fight against their enemies, and jetison what residual deference to conservative and constitutional deference that's left.
If they do, they must understand it's a two way street.
2002-12-26 19:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 26 2002, 12:54 The neo's going from ignoring us to attacking us. I'd say WFB was getting ready to write In Search of Anti-Semitism Part II, except unlike then, paleoconservatives like Sobran, Francis, and Buchanan have already been purged from any possible position of influence within the GOP mainstream.
**
Exactly, which is why I wonder what the reason is for the attacks lately.
and jetison what residual deference to conservative and constitutional deference that's left.
On which side? Ours or theirs?
2002-12-26 20:19 | User Profile
Before Vanguard News points it out, notice in his next to last paragraph that Fleming is careful to add his usual obligatory genuflection to Israel.
Don't want our criticism of Frum misinterpreted, do we Tommy?
And he points out that he "speaks for us at Chronicles." Make sure they know everyone in Rockford knows the score, Tom. No one is leaving the reservation.
Lew Rockwell would be proud.
So typical of Fleming, which is why I'm through with Chronicles.
2002-12-26 20:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 26 2002, 19:16 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 26 2002, 12:54 The neo's going from ignoring us to attacking us. ÃÂ I'd say WFB was getting ready to write In Search of Anti-Semitism Part II, except unlike then, paleoconservatives like Sobran, Francis, and Buchanan have already been purged from any possible position of influence within the GOP mainstream. ÃÂ
**
Exactly, which is why I wonder what the reason is for the attacks lately.**
Well it seems the overriding concern of the neo cons has always been, as Gottfried and Scotchie note, to
not allow Fleming, Francis, Clyde Wilson, M.E. Bradford, or any of the other authentically conservative voices into the left's political conversation. As Scotchie puts it: "The Old Right faces a long road ahead. Every day is Monday.
The neo cons seem to be worried that their Berlin Wall against paleoism entering the mainstream conversation and openly critiquing their positions might be showinga few cracks, and are using their time honered tactics of crying "anti-semitism" at any serious challenge to their monopoly on power. Its all very cryptic, but reading between the lines that's what seems to be happening.
> and jetison what residual deference to conservative and constitutional deference that's left.**
On which side? Ours or theirs?**
Well I was referring to the likelihood that the neo cons are going to embark on a new anti-semitism jihad, akin to 1986 and 1992 if their long term goals start to be seriously challenged and they feel the paleo's are responsible for it. It does leave some questions over what we will do though if they embark on this, and obtain the support of the GOP and neo con dominated conservative mainstream.
If it appears that, as Scotchie noted in
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=4485&hl=scotchie]The Search for an Authentic Conservatism[/url]
re: the mainstream conservative establishment > **Like our own "conservatives," the French right had morally corrupt and/or senile leaders who largely called for "rabibochage" (making up with the enemy for the good of France). **
then it would involve a similar decision on our part as faced those Free French fighters who supported De Gaulle, i.e. recognition that the government and constitution that nominally bear legitimacy as the receptor of patriotic Frenchman's loyalty is actually dead letter, and true patriotism involves overthrowing that illegitimate entity, nominally allying one's self with some parties previously regarded as our diehard enemies (as De Gaule did with the Communists) to do so.
2002-12-26 20:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by Buster@Dec 26 2002, 20:19 **Before Vanguard News points it out, notice in his next to last paragraph that Fleming is careful to add his usual obligatory genuflection to Israel.
Don't want our criticism of Frum misinterpreted, do we Tommy?
And he points out that he "speaks for us at Chronicles." Make sure they know everyone in Rockford knows the score, Tom. No one is leaving the reservation.
Lew Rockwell would be proud.
So typical of Fleming, which is why I'm through with Chronicles.**
True, this is typical of both mainstream paleoconservatism (Chronicles) and mainstream paleolibertarianism (Rockwell), to try to mute the charges of anti-semitism somewhat, to maintain the credibility of alarge portion of "conservatives" who tend to asssign some credanceto these types of charges, and otherwise maintain itself marginally in the mainstream.
I know it can be frustrating to some, but Fleming and mainstream paleoism do at least discuss and address these charges openly and articulately, although they do aloways try to put the obligatory apologies in. Its a little bit like the way critics of government polocies, in authoritariancountries, always try to close with dutiful avowals of patriotism and loyalty.
2002-12-27 05:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by oldrightlibertarian@Dec 26 2002, 17:14 ** ... When the Jihad comes to North America, he'll be banging on our doors, begging us to protect him from the big bad Arabs... **
The Jihad has come to North America. David Frum is one of the leaders. The chance of an Arab invasion of this continent is zero; Frum (& the neos) are upping the ante precisely because most Americans have been so sheep-like since 9-11-01.
Fleming and Philip Jenkins might be the only two people alive believing that "clash of civilizations" hooey that finally made me dump my subscription to Chronicles.
Some of us know real-live Arabs and there is no clash. Stop importing them, leave their oil to them, and cool the support for Israel and Arabs care less what we do. The "clash" has to do with something else entirely.
I have great respect for the Arabs I've known and it's the "Frumites" who are the problem. Does anyone remember how much the old Triple-A Block loved America before Israel? (It's not hard to look up. Old Lifemagazines make a great start.) The "Triple-A Block" is an old expression newsmen used, it meant "Arabs, Africans and Asians." America was their hero when we had the wit to leave them where they were, leave them alone, and not support Israel. It's not too late to change policy, folks.
2002-12-27 18:17 | User Profile
Might as well get a look at The Offending Item, below. Now at last we see the wing nut holding the entire Axis of Evil together is, and has always been, "anti-Semitism", the world's single largest [and yet most flexible] umbrella, that can encompass 98% of the world's population if need be. Frum wants it both ways - all ways - like most of his kinsmen: A-S is as old as the hills yet as new as a falling snowflake, and we must be ever vigilant against it, and -uh- it goes under a thousand code names and, ummm....you can always tell an anti-Semite by, uhh, by his propensity to disagree with and/or mass-murder Jews. One always leads to the other, so it's the same thing in the end.
See? See how simple that is? See how easy it is to be a Good Conservative American? Mark my words: it won't be very long before 'anti-Semitism' is defined as any gentile not on the Approved List who publicly utters the word "Jew" or "Jews" in any context.
And by the way - speaking of Americans - why in God's name is anyone in media or government paying any attention to a fu**ing Canadian? After all, nobody ever cites, or is allowed to cite, Doug Collins except us born-yesterday paleos, so why should there be a public forum for lice like Frum & Glazov?
[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp[/url]
Jonahââ¬â¢s Right
Bartender, make mine the same as Jonah Goldbergââ¬â¢s. His column yesterday on which conservatives took the Lott affair seriously ââ¬â and which did not ââ¬â seemed to me exactly right. I have only one thought to add: I was sorry to see somebody as wise and influential as Charles Krauthammer succumb to the often-repeated but nonetheless inaccurate assertion that there exists something called ââ¬Åpaleoconservatismââ¬Â that is more directly connected to the conservative tradition than ââ¬Åneoconservatism.ââ¬Â This claim just wonââ¬â¢t bear scrutiny.
ââ¬ÅPaleoconservatismââ¬Â is actually the newest of all conservatisms. It reminds me of one of those red-brick neo-Gothic churches you find in the older suburbs of English industrial towns: discordant elements hastily thrown together to create a false appearance of tradition in a time of rapid change.
As its leading ideologist acknowledges, paleoism came together in the early 1990s as a reaction to the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War. It began as a hope that America could somehow remain aloof from the troubles of the post-Cold War world ââ¬â and rapidly evolved into a mix of blame-America-firstism and outright anti-patriotism.
Here for example is something that Pat Buchanan said when I debated him on Chris Matthewsââ¬â¢ show ââ¬ÅHardballââ¬Â on September 30: ââ¬Å9/11 was a direct consequence of the United States meddling in an area of the world where we do not belong and where we are not wanted. We were attacked because we were on Saudi sacred soil and we are so called repressing the Iraqis and weââ¬â¢re supporting Israel and all the rest of it.ââ¬Â Thatââ¬â¢s a sentiment you can well imagine coming from the lips of a George McGovern. Itââ¬â¢s novel to hear it from someone who claims to be on the right.
Read the magazines and websites of the paleos, and you will wonder whether you are on the far left or the far right. Here is a gushing interview with Norman Mailer; there is a link to the latest nutso piece by Robert Fisk or John Pilger; here is a long encomium to Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky.
This is all new. New too is the weird anti-capitalism of the paleos. New finally is the inescapable racialism and the obsessive anti-semitism that one finds among the paleos.
No doubt, the conservative movement circa 1960 gave a home to many old Dixiecrats and neo-Confederates. But as William Buckley said in a brilliant interview he gave to Playboy in 1970, the historical function of the conservative movement was to take Wallace Democrats, baptize them, and transform them into post-racialist conservative Republicans. (Iââ¬â¢m quoting from memory here, but youââ¬â¢ll find the interview in Buckleyââ¬â¢s collection Inveighing We Will Go.) That of course is exactly what happened. For mainstream conservatism, racialism was a residuum, an ancient trace element that we assumed would fade rapidly ââ¬â and that in fact did fade rapidly.
I think one reason so many of us in the conservative mainstream have reacted so strongly to the Trent Lott affair was our shock and surprise ââ¬â we all assumed that the attitudes Lott expressed had vanished from our midst twenty and thirty years ago. Then, suddenly, they ripped the door off the crypt and emerged nightmarishly into the daylight again, rotten but undead.
But over in the paleo corner, the prejudices of the past have not only survived ââ¬â they have taken on an importance they have not previously published; they have become organizing principles, the glue that holds an otherwise not very coherent set of attitudes and beliefs together. This too is novel.
Iââ¬â¢m told the paleos prefer the term ââ¬ÅJudaeo-criticalââ¬Â to ââ¬Åanti-semiticââ¬Â when talking among themselves. In public, they use either transparent euphemisms like ââ¬Åthe Israel lobbyââ¬Â or rather more opaque ones like ââ¬Åneoconservative.ââ¬Â Whatever the terminology, their dislike and fear of what they perceive as Jewish influence and Jewish conspiracies is the foundation of their politics and in some cases the whole of it.
Even biographically, the paleos show their newness. Robert Novak, for example, began his career as a very liberal Republican, a young enthusiast for Wendell Wilkie. In the mid-1960s, he endorsed the civil rights movement as enthusiastically as any Linda Chavez or Norman Podhoretz. I cannot date precisely his emergence as a conservative spokesman, but it cannot have been earlier than 1972 ââ¬â rather later, for example, than Irving Kristol.
Change is inevitable in politics. Nobody is the same person he was 20 years before; and certainly no collection of people can be. Attempts to explain reactions to the Lott affair by who was where in 1962 are not very helpful. The challenge for today is to try to learn what the Lott affair tells us about the politics of 2002.
2002-12-27 18:38 | User Profile
I was referring to the likelihood that the neo cons are going to embark on a new anti-semitism jihad, akin to 1986 and 1992 if their long term goals start to be seriously challenged and they feel the paleo's are responsible for it. It does leave some questions over what we will do though if they embark on this...
You forget that, unlike 86 and 92, they now have in place enough domestic anti-terrorist smokescreens to arrest, detain and hold indefinitely in some sub-sub-basement, any American citizen they choose to - without the detainee having any recourse to a lawyer, a jury trial or even a stated charge.
They now have the power to wage real Jewish holy war on their hated hosts. And that little war they got cooking for us over in Sandland ought to take care of a whole lotta gentile firstborns, too.
PS: By the way, if Fleming waxed any more rhapsodically on the virility and big arms and chests of Negroes, his essay might've spontaneously combusted into a Kyle Onstott MANDINGO novel. Where de white women at?
2002-12-27 18:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 26 2002, 14:59 I know it can be frustrating to some, but Fleming and mainstream paleoism do at least discuss and address these charges openly and articulately, although they do aloways try to put the obligatory apologies in. ÃÂ Its a little bit like the way critics of government polocies, in authoritariancountries, always try to close with dutiful avowals of patriotism and loyalty.
I disagree entirely. An open discussion would go something like this:
Hilaire Belloc was right. Zionism has created a sustained military crisis for 50 + years. There is no end in sight. There is no solution based on the original concept of Zionism. Israel cannot defend itself within its original borders. Likud admits that and it's obvious to anyone who can read a map.
Accordingly, the two-state solution would be Israeli suicide.
Nor can the Palestinians accept the degredation and oppression that Israeli occupation will always impose on them. A large population of Muslims and Christians will never be treated humanely within the framework of a state that is explicitly religious and non-Muslim and non-Christian. It's absurd and always was (read The Jews by Belloc). Any self-respecting people would resist in their situation by any means at their disposal. They can and they will. They would rather die that live as they do, and that will not change.
Expulsion of the Palestinians is nothing but Ariel Sharon's psychotic fantasy.
We are pouring money down a sink-hole for a hopeless cause. We are also fomenting terrorism.
Suggested ideas:
or
or
or
Something like this would be open discussion. Chronicles will never sponsor anything but standard obsequious American journalistic Philo-Zionism. They are little better than National Review.
2002-12-27 19:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Buster@Dec 27 2002, 18:39 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 26 2002, 14:59 I know it can be frustrating to some, but Fleming and mainstream paleoism do at least discuss and address these charges openly and articulately, although they do aloways try to put the obligatory apologies in. ÃÂ Its a little bit like the way critics of government polocies, in authoritariancountries, always try to close with dutiful avowals of patriotism and loyalty.**
I disagree entirely. An open discussion would go something like this:......
Something like this would be open discussion. Chronicles will never sponsor anything but standard obsequious American journalistic Philo-Zionism. They are little better than National Review.**
Now com'mon, are you ever going to read anything close to this article, re:
It used to be said that an anti-Semite was anyone who won an argument with Norman Podhoretz. Frum goes farther. Now an anti-Semite is anyone who uses the term neoconservative. See, it's a codeword. (Forgive me: I can't help writing like an adolescent when I so much as think about NR's new kids on the block.) The logic is staggering. Trotskyists reinvent themselves and make up a word for their assumed identity, but we are anti-Semites if we dare use it in print.
or
To be an NR conservative these days, you have to applaud Norman Podhoretz's Christophobic new book as a great Christmas book. Podhoretz, in his latest incarnation as biblical scholar, "proves" that Isaiah's prophecies do not apply to Jesus Christ. Season's Greetings from National Review.
or
I would say "For shame," but Frum and his epicene little friends are incapable of shame or honor or courage. When the Jihad comes to North America, he'll be banging on our doors, begging us to protect him from the big bad Arabs. The sad part of it is, I'll probably let him in. I guess that makes me a Christian, whichââ¬âin David Frum's eyesââ¬âmakes me an anti-Semite.
in National Review?
Part of the reason really that so many conservative people assume that National Review is the only credible conservative journal around, and thus adopt its viewpoints, is the attitude people like you have. Some people seem to have some subconscious wish that the only widely known, articulate, and read alternative to National Review on the right be VNN (albeit it is neither of these 3 anyway) or Mein Kampf. I know that's Abe Foxman's and Jim Robinson's viewpoint - sorry to see people like you, if only inadvertently, helping them out.
2002-12-28 05:40 | User Profile
Chronicles resists the degradation in one important way: by maintaining high standards as Time, National Geographic, etc. have dumbed down.
I look forward to reading it every month because it is in a true sense an 'adult' magazine.
Fleming is a Christian, so no 'Itz coming' is going to appear on its pages.
2002-12-28 15:14 | User Profile
Thanks Okiereddust, but I'm not promoting VNN. I prefer the perspective of holywar.org which comes from a more historical and religious angle.
As for general information, I get mine mostly by gleening from the far right and far left, and ignoring the corporate-state propaganda in the middle.
Lastly, your quotes miss the point. I was saying that when it comes specifically to Zionism, you will find Fleming every bit the lapdog as Buckley, Limbaugh, Will, and all the other craven talking heads one sees on Sunday. Chronicles likes to pose as a "courageous" publication, standing alone in American journalism. But when it comes to Israel, it is just another collection of eunuchs.
2002-12-28 15:44 | User Profile
Goldberg is full of it and Frum as well.
As its leading ideologist acknowledges, paleoism came together in the early 1990s as a reaction to the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War. It began as a hope that America could somehow remain aloof from the troubles of the post-Cold War world ââ¬â and rapidly evolved into a mix of blame-America-firstism and outright anti-patriotism.
Frum seems confused about what patriotism is. When a person joins the Armed Forces as an act of keeping the faith with past generations who have served America he swears an oath that he will (1) uphold the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and, (2) obey the lawful orders of his superiors in that order. [u]There is nothing there about supporting Israel at the expense of America.[/u]
I believe that what Frum really means here is that "patriotism" is of the type the Zionists want to serve their own selfish interests. As for the nonsense about "blame America firstism," Frum and his ilk should know all about that, most of the radicals of the 60s were made up of his tribe. Instead, this is a useful one size fits all smear for anyone who doesnt have any use for government of, by and for plutocrats, no matter what stripe. This is equally true for those who hold another nations interest above this one. No one here is "blaming America," no, most of us are blaming corrupt policies and those who originate them for the mess we are in. Being critical of bugwits or worse is not the same as being disloyal to ones country. For someone who claims to be a big admirer of Theodore Roosevelt one would think he had read his words on this subject.
If what Frum is upset about is "anti-patriotism" and "blame America firstism," then we have alot of good company, starting with George Washington.
** This is all new. New too is the weird anti-capitalism of the paleos. New finally is the inescapable racialism and the obsessive anti-semitism that one finds among the paleos. **
The "anti-capitalism" has been called what it is above. The "anti-semitism" charge isn`t true with most paleos. Where it exists came about because of Frum and his ilks efforts. The smear of Buchanan back during the Gulf War is when I realized just how despicable Zionism and its proponents are. Frum only uses it here because he knows that an informed person can make mincemeat out of their arguments.
**I'm told the paleos prefer the term "Judaeo-critical" to "anti-semitic" when talking among themselves. In public, they use either transparent euphemisms like "the Israel lobby" or rather more opaque ones like "neoconservative." Whatever the terminology, their dislike and fear of what they perceive as Jewish influence and Jewish conspiracies is the foundation of their politics and in some cases the whole of it. **
You were told wrong. Some of us will be more than happy to tell you the terms we use, and it sure as hell isnt "Judaeo-critical!" Only someone suffering from paranoia would write something as silly as that. To paraphrase Frums words "Whatever the terminology, Neo-cons will always use aesopian language (to borrow from their hero, Lenin,) to disguise their real intent-- a world government with Zionists playing a major role in running it for the benefit of their cat litter box of a country."
This piece is a prime example.
Il Ragno, thanks for going into the intellectual cesspool known as National Review to fish out this putrid piece of ...
2002-12-28 16:17 | User Profile
I don't understand. Here Frum is admitting that neoconism is essentially an Israel-first Jewish war party, and Flemio reflexively launches into a southron-lite-hiding-behind-black-confederate insistance that it's not. All the rest is window dressing. Flemio, then, is Trent Lott, is Billy Buckle, is George Bush,....... no?
2002-12-31 03:37 | User Profile
Ruffin,
I am getting rather sick of Fleming nonsense too.
More on Fleming
A Review of White Like Me
Dennis Wheeler comments on the original article by Dr. Thomas Fleming
url: [url=http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/white.htm]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/white.htm[/url]