← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Javelin
Thread ID: 5529 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-03-13
2003-03-13 20:42 | User Profile
[color=blue]A quite childish ad hominem smear[/color]
Here's a quote worth reading:
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in Americaââ¬â¢s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian peopleââ¬â¢s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity. Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.
Chomsky? Moran? International ANSWER? Nah. It's our old friend, Patrick Buchanan.
And it's an even older charge, dual loyalty. Buchanan goes off on a somewhat deranged tirade - with some truly ugly moments:
Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.
Does anyone else hear the rhetorical echo here of "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"?
It seems to me that it should be perfectly legitimate to talk about the influence of, say, AIPAC, in Washington; and indeed, the force of thinkers sympathetic to the state of Israel on American foreign policy. As Mike Kinsley tartly notes, if AIPAC can boast of its own influence, why can't others decry it? But the notion that this war needs justification beyond what is obviously America's and the West's self-interest seems to me to be paranoid and a little creepy.
I'm not going to rehearse all the arguments again - but as a red-blooded British-born Irish Catholic, I need no Jewish heritage to appreciate them. And the fact that Buchanan doesn't even fully address the broader reasons and instead goes off on a rant against some American Jews is proof enough of where he's coming from. These are ugly times. And they just got uglier.
[url=http://www.andrewsullivan.com/]http://www.andrewsullivan.com/[/url]
2003-03-13 21:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by Javelin@Mar 13 2003, 14:42 ** but as a red-blooded British-born Irish Catholic **
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't that be "red-blooded, British-born, raging homosexual Irish Catholic?
2003-03-13 21:26 | User Profile
Yes, he's a homo. His career has been built on saying, "hey look at me, I'm a gay conservative, you must buy my stuff unless you're a homophobe."
2003-03-13 21:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by Javelin@Mar 13 2003, 15:26 Yes, he's a homo. His career has been built on saying, "hey look at me, I'm a gay conservative, you must buy my stuff unless you're a homophobe."
Yes, that and sucking up (literally?) to Jewish interests. I'm afraid that Buchannan is playing footsie with us again, however. Somehow he never never names the Jew as Jew, but teases us all the time into thinking he just might. The ironic part is that he ends up being accused of anti-Semitism anyway, so it's no wonder he made such a poor showing in his last presidential run. He's managed to alienate both Whites and Judeophiles. Also I've noticed that as good as Buchannan is in many of his pronouncements on the coming war, he seems to be constitutionally unable to ever really criticize Bush personally. Still a loyal Republican in spite of all the sh*t they've given him.
2003-03-13 22:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by DesertFox@Mar 13 2003, 15:50 **Also I've noticed that as good as Buchannan is in many of his pronouncements on the coming war, he seems to be constitutionally unable to ever really criticize Bush personally. **
I agree with you here, DF (and welcome, by the way). For some reason or another, Buchanan consistently acts as though Bush is an innocent dupe or something to all the current goings-on. I can only assume that this is a calculated move on Buchanan's part to retain some measure of mainstream conservative viability. Certainly that opens him up to criticism from the more doctrinaire, but I guess it is a true question of tactics.
2003-03-13 22:11 | User Profile
Sullivan only sees clearly when he wants to. He doesn't want to here. Dissolving into blubbering about Hitler is a sure sign of a weak position.
2003-03-13 22:12 | User Profile
But the notion that this war needs justification beyond what is obviously America's and the West's self-interest seems to me to be paranoid and a little creepy.
I love it when complexities are glossed over with the word obviously, as if you don't see it, you're too stupid to have it spelled out for you. However, maybe the neocons would deign, just this once, to spell out how this war is in American interests to all us dunderheads.
2003-03-14 07:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by DesertFox@Mar 13 2003, 21:50 ** I'm afraid that Buchannan is playing footsie with us again, however... **
Pat is smart but he can't stay focused. Use him to help educate people who are on the fence but expect no more and he won't disappoint. Footsie, maybe, or maybe he's got real limitations. But he's useful.
2003-03-14 08:41 | User Profile
You know, I keep wondering in all these grovelings of the neocons to see who can outdo each other in obseqiousness, where is Buckley?
I can just see him having a voice-com:
"Bill, wouldn't you like to do another hit-piece on Pat"
Buckley:
"No, not this time. I've already got my ADL man of the Year Award". <_<
2003-03-14 12:21 | User Profile
Buckley, Hitchins and Sullivan know what side their butter is breaded on. If you tow the line that is dictated by the people who inhabit the 10 square block area in which all Woody Allen movies are set, then you, too, are set, for life.
2003-03-14 16:42 | User Profile
These are ugly times. And they just got uglier.
Why, yes SodomiteSullivan, they are ugly indeed and getting uglier by the minute with you and your Beth Manhattan ilk calling all the shots in this world.
Let's face it, Pat Buchanan is in the mainstream and we should be thankful for that as I think most of us are. So what, he doesn't always name the jew outright, but it's implied. I mean, we all have read Pat's "Whose War?" already. Any White person even slightly inclined to question The Plague of Locusts Amongst Us will clearly understand Pat's message.
Pat Buchanan is the marijuana which leads to Linder ecstasy.
Hail Pat!
2003-03-14 19:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Mar 13 2003, 16:12 ** I love it when complexities are glossed over with the word obviously, as if you don't see it, you're too stupid to have it spelled out for you. **
Thank Jesus! Someone needed to point out this slippery trick. You can just imagine Sullivan stiff-jawedly and slurredly mouthing "Oooobviously, deah boy." The Times employs this technique by use of the word "clearly." Clear to whom? Clear to the God's Pets in the newsroom.
2003-03-14 19:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@Mar 13 2003, 18:11 Sullivan only sees clearly when he wants to. He doesn't want to here. Dissolving into blubbering about Hitler is a sure sign of a weak position.
You're exactly right. That part of the article was one of the most significant for me, where he says:
Does anyone else hear the rhetorical echo here of "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"?
That's supposed to be an argument, Sullivan? It's just a shorthand appeal to a programmed convention. It's not even pre-digested thinking, it's pre-digested feeling. He just conjures up the ghost of Hitler and we're all supposed to say, "oh yeah, worst evil to ever strike the earth," and then totally swallow Sullivan's line to show that we're good followers of the state religion of Holocaustianity.
2003-03-29 17:03 | User Profile
When we Christians do not walk together with Jews, we are in danger of regressing to the paganism from which we emerged.
Well, don't let this get around, Doc, but y'all done regressed back to paganism already...and all with the Church's blessing! America - "the most religious nation on Earth", according to ZOG spokesmen who somehow keep a straight face saying it - IS Babylon the Great. How can anybody credibly reject this notion?And we plummet further & further from where we were the closer we walk with Jews.
You don't just get called The Great Satan, y'know. A title like that you have to earn, through years and years of works.
As for Sullivan, I tend to discount anyone whose rectum gets as much traffic as his website. If not more.
2003-03-29 17:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Mar 29 2003, 11:03 As for Sullivan, I tend to discount anyone whose rectum gets as much traffic than his website. If not more.
Awwwwwww, man.
:blink: :( :unsure: :ph34r:
2003-03-29 17:16 | User Profile
Hey, don't lookit me, Tex. The guy takes out ads in the paper for it.
2003-03-30 01:31 | User Profile
Tex --
Are you suggesting that a person's sexual orientation makes him less-than-legit? That men who love other men's hairy asses are somehow not just like us? That homosexual anal love isn't as neat-o an' nifty as GLAAD says that it is?
Well, Tex, that sounds like evil, bigoted, hate-filled intolerance to me....course, that's jus' me...
[hummm.....hummmmm -- humming the love theme from "The Matthew Shepard Story"...]
2003-03-31 00:39 | User Profile
....to make the world safe for wintermute.
I absolutely follow his analysis of many metaphysical points, where discerned (perhaps incorrectly). but...
The problem that has suddenly erupted on Page 1 (taking that metaphorically) is not just the Jews, but "Jewishness": the dreaded factor in individual and collective thought about what members of the race, or "tribe" have in common, to bring on the reaction of "anti-Semitism" they testify to, themselves, as a historical destiny since Egypt. (maybe the Pharoa really kicked them out?) Dreaded, because it is like a genii-spirit. Won't go back in the bottle. But their massive pervasiveness in all dimensions of America's life (see Avalanche "Culture" post), their general, understandable, reluctance to break with Likudnik Israel, plus their inclusion of anti-war Jews among those whom they oppose, makes them a problem. Perhaps **THE** problem ... the one never resolved in Europe.
Here's the problem as I see it. What defines the situation is not so much the way "America" reacts to its sudden awareness of Jewishness; it is, specifically, the way **Catholics** react to it.
Here's why. The prominent figures whose statements can be sampled off this forum board with 2 or 3 clicks divide into these segments: 1. Pope Paul VI: **<i>Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Catholic Religions. proclaimed Oct. 28, l965
> **Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries haatred, persecution, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.**
Guess that includes us, guys and gals.
But the Pope's would be the understanding shared by common-denominator americans. Not persecuting Jews would surely be where Christian love, PC, and American WWII patriotic pride overlap with singular emotional force. Add to that the Pope's interpretation of other people's "God"
> ** 2.ÃÂ From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoles a certain perception of that power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father.ÃÂ This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense."**
...which he, and later followers of America's Great White Disney Way, are eagrer to share with the Jews, by announcing a startling new docrine of the "incarnation": they were it all along. Jesus just topped the cake, so so speak. Their history has to be at least as big a deal as he was. Right?
Wrong -- and this, I believe, is what wintermute wants the Church to say. The acuity of his remarks on how misreading of "the Word became flesh" leads directly to the auto-erotically-saturated, narcissistic society, simultaneously unrepressed (relatively) and enrelieved -- thus, defensive, "passive-aggressive" (pursuing aggressive goals by passive means), unbalanced and warlike (in addition to loving themselves in the theological mirror above all other races of men.) ... is outstanding.
And the split reappears again, politically, between Andrew Sullivan and Buchanan. Squinty Pat is from "Old" Republican Nixon stock, harldy given to messianic pretentions or standing discdrnibly in need of self-forgiveness, so he can stand up against the Pope, as American. Which he does. Its why I respect him, if only that far, for doing what he should (where many don't even come close to that).
Sullivan needs the post-60's Catholic embrace as political fig-leaf; maybe vice versa. If he weren't homosexual, then he would be obliged to go with Gary Wills' reformed version. He can hardly go "anti-Semitic" (lets call it "pro-New Testament"), because it indicates a hardenening of attitudes along dogmatic lines that would not stop there (the genii factor). These are both minorities having a social hate-potential factor, however he stands on discrimination laws.
This shows the generational factor splitting Republicanism, and why "neo" goes with pro-Jewishness, "paleo" against. Shifting from that, now, to what I offer as a solution -- not final -- the metaphysical crisis seems to turn on Christology. I do not try to speak dogmatically, but Archetypically (following Carl Jung), in what follows.
The "Word" and the "Flesh" are distinct, but essentially united elements of the incarnation ("the Son", Second person of the Trinity).
The Word (Gr. Logos) was the spiritual part of "The Creator" as Person ("God"). In The Created man-as-image, it is both: that which is spoken in the Spirit; and that which enlightens the speaker (through proper discipline, state, occassion) on what to say.
Jesus, bearer of The Word, turned on Jews, and they turned on him, in ultimate, that is to say, religiously absolute, eternal terms, as much as it was within any family or community of associates on earth to do. That was The Word turning against The Flesh. Not: in sexuality. That is absurd. (IMHO -- I never identified with Kazanzaki's "Christ"), never thought the good news had very much to do directly with sexuality at all, but that was a grace, I learn). In judgment of being -- between what He was, and what they were. Along with the Pope's forgiving them for the crucifixion has gone the forgetting of what it was all about, on the Word side. All that remains is a bleeding body on a wooden cross.
The point of theology I would presume to correct regarding Christological psychology that humans can understand would be this:
> **The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of their race, color, condition of life, or religionÃÂ (same source)**
"The Word" is correctly associated here with "mind" -- "Christ" -- the man who was the second Adam standing, as a man, over against the Jews ...as opposed to association with the slain body and its blood. And that much is correct, for it is the core of universal reconcilliation, if there is one. This right here takes the metaphysical step Paul took in Anglo-Grecian-izing the event. This appropriation takes the "God" as personified "Father" to have died-and-been-reborn in the Son: "if ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father." No more Father-God, with the blood-sacrifice ritual, and all that. Gone from history. (ha) The Word that was incarnated through Abraham's seed wasn't the Word as Spirit through which the universe was created -- it takes seeing the whole race, up to, but not including Jesus</b></i> to see that "Word". They wouldn't get to be the ancestors of the Bible's followers through The Word, if it wasn't through Him, who rejected them. Therefore, theirs cannot be "The Flesh" whose DNA contains The Spirit. I mean...they are certainly good looking, and all that...but...
So, without turning The Spirit as the Third Person over to snake charmers from Tennesee, or levitating Pentacostals from Texas -- not that there is anything wrong with these, mind you -- the point would be: To Republicans who would remain true Americans ...,
Do it now.
-9
2003-03-31 09:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Mar 29 2003, 17:03 ** > When we Christians do not walk together with Jews, we are in danger of regressing to the paganism from which we emerged.
Well, don't let this get around, Doc, but y'all done regressed back to paganism already...and all with the Church's blessing! America - "the most religious nation on Earth", according to ZOG spokesmen who somehow keep a straight face saying it - IS Babylon the Great. How can anybody credibly reject this notion?And we plummet further & further from where we were the closer we walk with Jews.
You don't just get called The Great Satan, y'know. A title like that you have to earn, through years and years of works.
As for Sullivan, I tend to discount anyone whose rectum gets as much traffic as his website. If not more. **
Most (all?) Orthodox Jews accept the Kabbalah as an integral part of their faith.
The Kabbalah is a gnostic/pagan text. Orthodox Jews believe in gods named the Holy Blessed One and his sister-consort Shekhinah. They see their prayers and religous rituals as enabling the Holy Blessed One to acheive sexual congress with his sister/consort Shekhinah. We have very little in common with Orthodox Judaism.
This fact is very much downplayed in our media. I was brought up in a very devout Catholic family, and never was I told this. Not at home, not in Sunday school. My introduction to Judaism's strange gods was Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion." I took it from there and confirmed to my satisfaction that it is indeed the case that Jews worship many gods. Orthodox Jews don't worship the Unmoved Mover as we Catholics purport to do; rather, they worship derivative deities that are three levels removed from the Unmoved Mover, including prayers of propitiation to demons.
The simple truth is that Orthodox Jews are Pagans. They are most emphatically not monotheists, as are orthodox Christians and Muslims.
I respect anybody's right to believe what they will, including Kabbalistic Jews, as distasteful as I may find those beliefs. But we can't afford all these half truths and outright lies about the fundamentals of Orthodox Judaism. Father Neuhaus and his cohorts at First Things, despite my true admiration for their many accomplishments, do the Church a great disservice by playing into the media whitewash of the true beliefs of men like Senator Lieberman.
No common "Judeo-Christian" tradition could possibly embrace the Kabbalah. I think that one could talk of such a tradition that embraces Karaite Jews, who reject both the Kabbalah and the Talmud. I think that there are some Orthodox sects that reject the Kabbalah, and maybe they could be included in a very broad "Judeo-Christian" tradition if one could get over the stench of the Talmud's calumnies against Jesus and His Mother. But a religious tradition that worships a god and his sister-consort and offers prayers to demons to encourage their copulation is not within any tradition I or any other orthodox Christian could possibly recognize.
One would think that good Catholics like Father Neuhaus would know better.
Walter