View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by David Yerushalmi |
February 5th, 2007
The Jewish problem for conservatives professes to uncover the many and varied ways Jews destroy their host nations like a fatal parasite, especially when the host is a Western nation-state.
If you spend a fair amount of time reading on and offline the essays and scholarly works of conservative thinkers as I do, one thing stands out. The Jews.
The Jews it seems are the bane of Western society. I will ignore the Leftist version of the Jewish problem because liberals and their radical cousins necessarily must disguise their underlying contempt for Jews as hatred of Israel and of the nasty Zionists or of late as the hatred of the neo-conservatives, who, in just about everyone's view, are not much more than Zionist agents manipulating the American government to do Israel’s bidding. But the liberals will never come out and speak of the Jews forthrightly because they have given up any pretense of defending any notion of discrimination. So, they necessarily direct their hatred at political euphemisms closely identified with apartheid, war mongering and the oppression of the poor defenseless Palestinians.
But the Jewish problem for conservatives is a different and quite interesting affair. It is most interesting because so much of what drives it is true and accurate. Now the high-brow among these men and women insist that they don’t hate Jews or wish them ill so in that sense the contempt is disguised much like that from the Left. The conservative variety simply professes to uncover the many and varied ways Jews destroy their host nations like a fatal parasite, especially when the host is a Western nation-state. But, the focus on this menacing and accursed people is only thinly disguised and one can well understand why. If the oldest of ancient people, and the one properly understood as the source of the theology of all of Western civilization, has become the single most destructive force in that civilization, a whole slew of raging dark forces might predictably be creating tectonic shifts below the visible surface otherwise projecting a serene, conservative, and even scholarly demeanor.
What are the main themes of the conservative "critique" of this ancient people? The primary one of course is that the Jews of the modern age are the most radical, aggressive and effective of the liberal Elite. Their goal is the goal of all “progressives:” a determined use of liberal principles to deconstruct the Western nation state in a “historical” march to the World State. The conservatives include in this rubric quite rightfully the neo-cons who, while far more bellicose than their fraternal Left, are no less dismissive of a Western political order based upon a dominant white Christian people with a strong Biblical moral order.
A second cause of the conservative problem with the Jew is the Jewish identity with Zionists and the fact that these conservatives believe strongly that but for the Muslim-Jewish conflagration known as the Middle East problem or the Israeli-Palestinian problem the Muslim world might very well be willing to let bygones be bygones relative to their relations with the Christian West.
In response, one must admit readily that the radical liberal Jew is a fact of the West and a destructive one. Indeed, Jews in the main have turned their backs on the belief in G-d and His commandments as a book of laws for a particular and chosen people. These Jews, the overwhelming majority, have embraced modernity in its entirety. This means that they are wholly committed to the science-democracy reciprocal and this, per Descartes-Klein, Hobbes, Hegel-Kojève, leads to only one state of affairs: World Peace in the form of a World State. (Robert J. Loewenberg’s work on this subject, soon to be published by the Institute of Advanced Strategic & Political Studies, will be the definitive account and critique of the reciprocal and the Redirection conseqent to it.)
But the conservative analysis of the Jewish problem fails in two essential ways. One, it has become a form of dark blindness. And two, if conservatives understood the Jewish problem well enough per the Loewenbergian critique they would understand that it is their problem as well. I intend this to be the briefest of essays and but a mere suggestion for future discussion so I won’t go much further here than to provide one example of each of these conservative analytical shortcomings.
Blind rage. The critique of the Jews rises in many good quarters as a kind of blind rage in the form of anti-Zionist hatred. It is so out of control that otherwise good and sound minded men take the view that Jimmy Carter’s (yes, Jimmy Carter's!) analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is a heroic effort to detach reality from the blanket of lies and deceptions known as the Israeli response to the Palestinians. In what one might describe as a curious oddity, a non-People with the most murderous of intentions created almost single-handedly by the 20th century’s greatest terrorist has become the cause célèbre of white Christian and non-Christian conservatives. For these conservatives, much like the Jew hating Leftists, the Palestinians and their righteous claim for national political existence has been despicably denied them because Jews ran from Europe during and after the Second World War to take land which they had not occupied in any real way since the destruction of the Second Temple. And the kicker for this brand of conservative is that but for the presence and despicable behavior of the Zionists, the West would be living quite peaceably with the 1.3 billion Muslims the world over.
If you are reading this essay and don’t understand this position is so contrary to fact that it can only be plausibly described as blindness, then either you know nothing of the history of this region or of the people and faiths which populate it, which in and of itself says much given its centrality in our lives, or you too are blinded to what should be obvious to any serious and reasonable mind. Either way, I will take no offense if you stop now and click a nearby link to exit this essay. It is certainly easy enough to do so. If you fall into the illiterate category, but wish to remedy your illiteracy somewhat, you might profit by reading here, here and here.
Having dismissed the ignorant and the angry, it is important I disclose here what should be obvious to most of you still reading. There is much to despise about Zionist Israel. Zionists in the main were and are the Leftist intelligentsia of Europe and Russia. In fact, those who did not abandon Europe and the Slavic countries for Israel have either stayed behind to agitate for the European Union and the destruction of national existence on the Continent or journeyed westward to achieve their ends in America in the name of Civil and Human Rights. Other than the “ultra Orthodox,” most Israelis (whether they are card-carrying Zionists or now the popular peace process post-Zionists) are raging Leftists, and this includes the so-called nationalists who found a home in the “right-wing” Likud political bloc or one of the other smaller and more marginal right-wing parties. Statism is the rule in Israel. A call for a political order representing the Jewish People as such is the rarest of exceptions.
In previous essays I have borrowed from Loewenberg’s essay on the peace process where he describes Israel as the “advanced case of Western afflictions.” All of this is to say that conservatives have good cause for their ill feelings toward Zionism but they expose themselves for what they really are when they wrap their rage up not in this quite reasonable critique but in a Leftist or Elitist critique which reduces its claims to one of two positions on the Jewish State: either the Jews have no business in Palestine and that this vicious, murderous non-people of clans and tribes known as Palestinians do; or, the Jews might have some right to a small, indefensible Jewish State but the Palestinian claim is “equally” valid and the UN vote on the Partition Plan was the world’s resolution of these equally competing claims and therefore Israel ought to retreat to the original borders determined by the world body in a democratic vote or minimally to the pre-1967 armistice lines.
I would argue, although I will not do more than merely assert it to be so here, that for a Christian to take the position that the Jewish homeland is not Israel or that it is not even what is derisively described as “Greater Israel” is something akin to a positive result on a Litmus test for the dark forces which have themselves contributed over the years of the Jewish Diaspora to the problem we all face today with Jewish liberalism.
The second failure of the conservative analysis of the Jewish problem is that the loudest voices in the conservative choir focused so strikingly on the Jews simply fail to recognize that they themselves suffer from the same essential disease of the Left and the Liberal Jews. There is no doubt but that the conservative’s symptoms are far less manifest and when they are exposed they tend to be far milder in appearance. But the underlying disease rages on nonetheless. The reason this is so is intimately tied to speech. By way of explanation, I will point you here to a previous essay on a political cartoon which begins to address this condition. More need not be said here and now because if you read the commentary at the link provided and it makes no sense to you at all then what I might say in a few more words here won’t either. But if the commentary begins to suggest to you something important has happened to Western men with the advent of the symbolic mathematization of all of existence, then we have said enough here for present purposes.
dyerushalmi@saneworks.us
Visit their website at: http://www.saneworks.us
Responses to "Jew Hatred?"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Given the fact that NEOCON's are mostly Jewish, the dichotomy the author poses is irrelevant and what should be addressed is how Jewish neocon's got themselves into the pickle barrel they find themselves in over IRAQ.
Everyone who is Jewish knows the enormous divisions among Jews over Israel and the secularization of the diaspora.
Anyone who's gone to a family gathering only to be pressured by a ZIONIST relative to give for clandistine weapons for Isreal, knows that there are militant factions that will do anything to destroy Arabs.
Anyone who's gone to a peace rally, knows it was probably organized by the children of the aforementioned zionist who were sent to Brandeis College to be 'good' Jews.
Anyone who's studied the sects in Brooklyn realizes there are Jews who deeply regret the migration to the U.S. and live their lives in a culture that is rooted in the 15th century.
It's a real mess that non-Jewish conservatives need to sort out…–personal beliefs from cultural beliefs from Israeli foreign and military policy.
Conservatives must realize that all Jews are not alike in their political views, but are united in their views of bigotry, discrimination, and civil rights..sort of.
Comment by fjh | February 5, 2007
"Anyone who's gone to a family gathering only to be pressured by a ZIONIST [sic] relative to give for clandisitine [sic] weapons for Israeal [sic], knows that there are militant factions that will do anything to destroy Arabs."
Please leave your family problems out of the discussion.
Comment by Katzen | February 5, 2007
The political factions in the family are very relevant to the discusssion; in fact, you'd learn more from the argument between Harvey, the liberal art prof. and Bernie, the Cleveland industrialist, than you will reading the post.
Heated f2f debate distills out the truth and facts in any discussion; which is why we will never go to 'managed' town meetings with 'facilitators' who guide the discussion.
If you want to read books, great; if you want a real education come to a family gathering and listen up.
Comment by fjh | February 5, 2007
"Given the fact that NEOCON’s are mostly Jewish …"
I guess I have to convert to Judiasm now. Will it never end?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2007
Phil: I notice you are indefatigable in your efforts to respond to even the low brow comments. I tend to view that kind of "debate" as very much a part of the reduction of speech to "local motion" or the "language of bees". People merely arguing over "opinions" and "beliefs" where there can be no discernible truth of existence is a fine way to wile away the day for some but not for serious men.
As to the neo-conservatives and the Jewish aspect: there can be no doubt that Jewish "intellectuals" are massively overrepresented among the spokesmen for what is described by these same men as neo-conservatism. That there are prominent and less prominent non-Jewish spokesmen or adherents does not change the fact that as a movement and as an articulated ideology located in the literature of the day, this movement is closely associated with the Jews who had aligned themselves with Senator Jackson.
You need not convert to agree with neo-conservatism, which is an ideology predicated upon the fundamental principle that most men and all peoples (properly educated) are indistinguishable in their fundamental commitment to democracy and egalitarianism. The minority of men who are not, like the ruling jihadist Muslims and the Soviet leadership before them, are the enemy and should be confronted militarily. This latter position is what separates the neo-cons from the Left.
But the main principle of neo-conservatism is the same as classical and modern liberalism. And that is that other than the certainty grounded in mathematical physics (i.e., the symbolic mathematization of all of existence), there is no certainty or truth of existence. This of course denies transcendence as given as well as telos. On this basis, all matter is equal and indistinguishable. Man and his speech included.
All the best,
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | February 5, 2007
David:
You made several of the same point in 3 paragraphs that I made in 1 sentence.
You don't need to be labeled this or that to hold an opinion that conforms to, or deviates from, another individual. Unfortunately, rather than debate real issues, there's a certain element that simply resorts to short-hand characterization of people as a substitute for genuine conversation. When presented with the silliness that Neocon = Jewish (as if that’s all there is to the matter to understand its fundamental elements), I could take the time to go through the same analysis you did. Or, I just respond with an equally irrelevant thought that “rises” to an appropriate level, and illustrate one absurd notion via another. Different styles, same outcome.
Take care,
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2007
Is anyone surprised that industrialists and liberal arts professors don't agree on everything?
I have some very pro-Israel family members–Likudniks, even–and I don't ever recall being asked for money for weapons.
I'm also trying to figure out what the divisions in the Jewish community over Israel have to do with the war in Iraq. You seem to make some loose, vague connection.
Comment by Katzen | February 5, 2007
Dan: what I have read of what you have published at IC gets at a fundamental issue but I would argue only "phemenologically" to borrow from Hegel.
Follow the links; understand what I mean by the Science-Democracy reciprocal and you will have your answer.
But even without that effort of course you will notice right away that once you destroy the ability of men in political societies to differentiate, or put another way, once you create the conditions for Indiscriminancy, you have removed political order from man's existence. Telos as properly understood is ontologically not available. But because men live with the truth of existence as given, something necessarily must stand in the place of the Terms of Existence which heretofore had provided for man’s political order. Professor Loewenberg refers to this as the completion of the Whole in the Part. What was once experienced as the Truth of Existence by reference to the Terms of Existence (Self [soul], Society, G-d and World) are completed in World through the symbolic mathematization of all of existence.
In other words, Dan, it is true because men since the advent of modern science are wholly captured by the Redirection which is sufficiently demonstrable in the Reciprocal. (To be a bit obvious, it cannot be true as given by G-d, but that is only the basis that some men resist the Redirection, although until now rather poorly.)
All the best,
David
Comment by David Yerushalmi | February 5, 2007
When a commentary starts out with "The JEWS are the ban of Western Society", I regard the commentator as a cultural racist who assumes every person who has Jewish lineage thinks(politically) the same way. Especially, when the commentator teslls us that "the ruling jihadist Muslims and the Soviet leadership before them, are the enemy and should be confronted militarily".
Really!
Based on what evidence and what legislative mandate from the American People? And why can't I seperate out the Isreali ZIONISTS and classify them with these alleged islamo-fascists?
Apparently this blog seems to have attracted a lot of grad. students majoring in political philosophy. Statements like:
"I would argue only “phemenologically” to borrow from Hegel.
Follow the links; understand what I mean by the Science-Democracy reciprocal and you will have your answer" are incomprehensible to public policy makers and are sophmoric responses to real world power politics…
If you are vehement in your belief that Isreal has the right to exist where it was put by the arbitrary Balfour agreement; then have the decency to extend that right to Arabs or expand why one group has superior rights and the other doesn't?
Comment by fjh | February 5, 2007
By the way, great article. I don't agree with much of it though.
The jews are no more a problem than the rest of us. Take any group and you can see fault with them. Because the jews have so much history they can be picked on easier than most.
From a Biblical viewpoint the jews are suffering by their failure to honor the convenant with God they made back in the days of Moses. They also suffer blindness because they failed to recognize the Messiah when He came to Jerusalem. I think that any group that has this spiritual weight on them would appear the same. Even if you do not believe in the Bible the weight is there because of the people who do believe.
From a world view we see the mideast always fighting the jews. We also see them fight each other. Come to think of it they are in conflict with just about everyone. In your article you say the jews want a world government. Fat chance that will happen unless someone like Stalin with some new weapon imposses it on the world. If that happens then the jews will have little to say just like the rest of us.
I like articles that make you think and yours certainly did that.
Frank Baginski
Comment by fbaginski | February 5, 2007
Frank:
I imagine I owe you a thank you. Your disagreement is noted but not understood. You might go back again and read with a tad more care. I think you will understand then that you were speaking mostly past the article. One might even suggest that your comment contradicts itself as to the importance of the Jews. Since I’ve gone this far, I might add that the essay was speaking of the role conservatives tend to place the Jews in, not the one Jews may or may not actually occupy. You might also take note that the essay doesn't contradict a proper critique of the Jews in the West, who empirically are overwhelmingly liberal. Notwithstanding some rather nonsensical comments about family members above in this comment thread, this is empirically demonstrable.
As to world government, you might gain some insight if you were to understand what national existence meant at the founding up to the 20th Century. Then look at what national existence meant in the West in the second half of the 20th Century and finally today. If you don't then understand the "progress" toward a World State, we ought to just leave well enough alone.
All the best,
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | February 5, 2007
I have issues:
1. Mr. Yerushalmi is supposedly a conservative, yet the point of his article is to criticize what he considers is the "conservative" view in regards to the Jews and he identifies it as "Jew Hatred".
2. He begins the article addressing legitimate concerns about matters that are internal to the "Western nation-state" but then quickly changes the topic to Israel.
3. What he considers to be the "conservative" view of Israel is wrong. While Pat Buchanan may share Jimmy Carter's favoritism for the Palestinians, the vast majority of conservatives do not. The standard, modern conservative view is quite partial to Israel. But this ought not be considered the true, traditional conservative view as discussed below.
4. It never ceases to amaze me how people can ignore the most interesting and profound parts of an article and then give so much time and attention to the most trivial aspects. The title here is "Jew Hatred?" The really intriguing part was the acknowledgement that "so much of what drives [conservative critics of Jewish patterns of behavior] is true and accurate", to wit: Jews tend to be "the most radical, aggressive and effective of the liberal Elite…Their goal is the goal of all 'progressives', a determined use of liberal principles to deconstruct the Western nation state in a 'historical' march to the World State…Jews in the main have turned their backs on the belief in G-d…the neo-cons who, while far more bellicose than their fraternal Left, are no less dismissive of a Western political order based upon a dominant white Christian people with a strong Biblical moral order…the radical liberal Jew is a fact of the West and a destructive one."
Those statements are what really matters, so let's get to the real point, shall we? A true conservative is driven by opposition to radical, leftist ideology which is so threatening to his nation and culture. Of course, Jews are not the root of ALL evil but the roots of the problem of the Left trace back to the Jewish people in an extremely disproportionate way and if conservatives can't see that then indeed they are blind and will never be able to mount a defense. And if they do recognize the heart of the problem, but are too afraid to address it, then again we "conservatives" will never get anywhere.
5. The opening paragraph is wrong. Another thing that amazes me is how LITTLE attention the Jewish issue receives in conservative circles, or any "intellectual" circles for that matter. Dr. Kevin MacDonald has very little company. The truth is that it remains the forbidden topic, and possibly more so now than at any time in world history. We desperately need more intellectual courage. Mr. Yershalmi shows some here but I wonder if can more easily say these things because he is Jew who wants to have credibility and influence in a paleoconservative publication. I think he should be more forthcoming about his ethnic background.
6. There is nothing to "disguise". I firmly believe I speak for many when I say that we don't have "contempt" (or hate) for Jews as individuals. We DO have contempt (or hate) for the acts of subversion for which Jews are so disproportionately to blame. We are quite capable of distinguishing between generalities that are true on the macro level and the realities of the individual on the micro level. Indeed, we do not wish ill to Jews and there is nothing disingenuous in saying that. We wish Jews (and Israelis for that matter) all the peace, harmony, and success in the world. But we also wish that they end the assault on our values system. We wish the halt to the culture war they have waged against us for centuries. It has now reached critical levels with the awesome power of modern media which the Jews dominate and so cleverly use to promote their leftist propaganda. We are not guilty of anything by expressing our concerns about the subversion or for the desire to mount a peaceful DEFENSE. The best inoculation is education but we cannot have that if there is to be intellectual cowardice.
7. Contrary to Mr. Yerushalmi's assertion, conservatives do not believe that everything would be fine with the Muslim world if we eliminated the Zionist problem. Conservatives who have any sense of history know that there are inherent and historical conflicts with Islam that would continue to be a significant source of contention. But the reality is that the Zionists are a major source of aggravation of the problems we have with the Muslims. This is an undeniable fact.
8. As for Israel and Palestine, I am always amazed why so may Americans think we must favor one side or the other. The true conservative position should be one of neutrality, consistent with George Washington's Farewell Address. The idea that we have vital interests to protect in Israel is a total fallacy. Our investment of money and political capital in Israel has given us nothing but misery. I acknowledge the barbarity of the Palestinian terrorists. But we should steer clear of both groups. The Jews who founded Israel brought this hell on their own people when they so cleverly (and stupidly) maneuvered themselves into Palestine. Often, Jews are too smart for their own good. It was a terrible mistake to create modern Israel. Madagascar (or some other place) would have been a wiser move. But Israel is now an established reality and it does have a right to exist. They should have built a wall decades ago, put a deep moat around it, and fight when necessary. But they don't have a right to have their sovereignty maintained by the sacrifice of Gentile American blood or Gentile American treasure. Let's face it, our suffering in Iraq has been in large part for the benefit of Israel and the result of Jewish manipulation. We need to stop being gullible Goyim.
Mr. Yerushalmi does not need to lecture us conservatives about "Jew hated" or the right of Israel to survive. He needs to lecture Jews about their bad habits.
Comment by free | February 5, 2007
Dear Mr. Yerushalmi,
I confess I am puzzled by your article.
First you don't define conservatism, but then assert that Jews are necessarily somehow a
problem for it. You then imply that this conservatism is a sort of insidious echo of 19th century racism and proceed from there. ("western theology comes from Judaism") However, you also don't define what
it means to be Jewish–beyond asserting that it's improper for "Christians" to deny those who are
"Jewish" greater Israel.
Second, I can't claim to understand what neoconservatism means, beyond a vague association with Podhoretz. However you imply that "conservatives" somehow dismiss neocons (you seem to assume
that these are all Jewish) because "neocons" don't believe in a "dominant white Christian state". This
implies that conservatives are crude racists. IS this what you're saying?
Third, the only "conservative" I know of who blames Jews for the ARab world's hostility towards
the United States is Buchanan. I think most non-Jewish Americans are willing to support an
unpopular Israel because of a common culture they share with Jews (and Israelis). This has
nothing necessarily to do with non-Jewish Americans supporting or not supporting a "greater Israel."
I suspect that (in this instance) many Jews would agree with Buchanan!
I'm not sure I understand your paragraph which begins with "Blind Rage." You seem to be equating
the conservative support of the Palestinian cause with that of the political left. Whatever one may
say of Bush, he has far exceeded *any* other American president in his willingness to risk American
prestige to support Israel's military endeavors. Reagan ordered Begin to withdraw his troops from Lebanon
and Al Haig used Lebanon as a litmus test on loyalty for his advisers (see Cannon's biography).
Do you mean that Bush Jr. somehow hurt Israel by standing with Sharon (when no one else would?)
You then assert that for a Conservative (or do you mean Christian–you seem to conflate the two, though it's not clear why) to deny that Greater Israel is in fact what the current Israeli state is entitled to is somehow representative of some sort of "dark power."
How do you derive this position, when most Jews today don't believe in it? Most Jews have given up the
Biblical ideal of "Greater Israel," if they ever had it. HOw can conservatives be, presumably, anti-semitic
for going against the will of most Jews?
Finally you cite someone who claims that Israel is somehow "the most advanced case" of western
afflictions–after asserting that somehow Judaism lies at the west's origins. Hence anything bad
about Israel must causally be found in the "Christian west"–and presumably much that is good
emanates out of "Jewish theology." These are all interesting speculations, but hardly shed much light
on contemporary Jewish-Christian, let alone Jewish-Conservative relations, which are essential
for maintaining the integrity of the Israeli state today. I agree that most Jews and most non Jewish
Americans share a common culture–but this is hardly the 19th century attitude of competition
over who founded what for whom. It has rather to do with shared ideas of decency and integrity–as well
as belief in the common principles of liberalism. Medieval ideas on "who killed Christ" and "whose
religion came first" (the Muslims of course insist theirs did. ..) have little to do with current
Americans beliefs towards Jews and Israel.
That there were 19th century Conservatives who
held Neanderthal attitudes towards Jews is reprehensible. I don't believe it's possible to
paint contemporary American conservatives with the same brush–much of modern conservativism
has been articulated by Jews!
Mr. Yerushalmi; WHat do you mean by conservative? What do you mean by Jewish? In your
essay I recognize neither!
Best,
WNA
Second, you
Comment by WNA | February 5, 2007
Free,
You seem to write quickly, but maybe just a bit too quickly.
I believe that a careful reading of the essay and a perusal of the literature will answer most of your points so there is no need for a point-counterpoint. Much of what you say is not objectionable; some of what you say is mere polemics; and the rest of what you say is inconsequential.
But to clear the air. Our most important disagreements are empirical and so there is no need to debate them. I would suggest that the MacDonald/Buchanan/V-Dare camp is sizable and well represented in the conservative literature. I exclude what is commonly referred to as neoconservative literature. I believe I have placed them in proper context. I also exclude “main stream media” but then again so do most of us who spend time at sites such as IC.
I would also suggest that I was quite clear, as you also note by quoting from the essay itself, that a critique of Jews as a destructive source for western national existence is important and wrong to avoid. And, I would suggest that there is much to be said for why that is the case although having read MacDonald's work, his is mostly superficial.
If the critique were to remain there, that would be fine. But the correlation between that conservative critique and the waxing on about the Palestinian plight is duplicitous at best for a conservative. At worst, it is falling prey precisely to the Elitist arguments made to destroy the West.
Now, you will not find that I have ever suggested that the US should support Israel. Indeed, I have been involved for over 15 years with a think tank which provided testimony before Congress during the Bush I loan guarantee issue. We maintained quite forcefully and did so without any other supporting voices and at great cost in the policy world that the US should not provide Israel with one penny of foreign aid: not for social projects and not military. Israel is more than capable of supporting and defending herself if she were to be able to overcome the very same disease destructive of national existence present in Zionism that is present in the West among the Elite.
Your fending off the Buchananite argument which suggests that Zionism is the main friction between Islam and the West is soft to the point of pot-bellied and does not do justice to the vigor and centrality of that argument made in those quarters and others. I won't argue its merits here but I believe I have made that argument forcefully here and at SANE on numerous occasions (see my book review Knowing the Enemy posted here at IC).
As to neutrality, that just evinces a head-in-the-sand view of things. President Washington did not mean we should fail to fight to defend our national existence. Anyone who does not believe that Sharia faithful Islam is not a threat to our national existence in this day and age of WMD and technological warfare is fatally fooling themselves. But again, "debate" on that subject is futile.
Permit me my only "personal" response. Ethnicity should have little to do with a discussion on principle and on fact. But, it should be clear enough from my name and from my quite public presence (with bio) at the SANE Works for US web journal and elsewhere that I am Jewish. But it is similarly clear where I stand on American national existence and the American people and who and what they are as a people. Just visit the Mission Statement at SANE if you have doubts or read from our quite extensive archives. But rest assured, I am not trying to join a club by being ambivalent about my Jewishness. I have no desire to be part of a “movement” of paleocons or anyone else. My interest is solely to create an environment of discussion where serious men will take up America’s national existence in resistance to the Redirection facing the West in the certainty/uncertainty reciprocal I have described at IC on more than one occasion and at SANE.
The real failure of your "style" of comment, and it is one that comes through in many comment threads at IC when the argument erupts over "paleocons" in any number of contexts, is a notion that a rubric drives discussion. The discussion begins to read like two or three groups of young boys arguing over the righteousness of their group. You are an American and part of a People. As such you experience your life in that context quite properly. But that is an experience of Truth that is not subject to debate and argument. There are things that are subject to discussion about protecting that national existence — that People. My ethnicity or "lectur[ing] us conservatives" or even "lectur[ing] Jews about their bad habits" is not part of that discussion. You are wrong in your implication and in your tack. I believe a fair reading of my essay is that while I labeled the Left’s contempt for Jews as hatred (and that is because as Jews proper, as a unique particular people chosen by G-d, Jews represent the antithesis of the Left and the homogenous world state), my approach to the conservative critique of Jews was and is far more circumscribed. Although, I would continue to maintain that there is no getting around the “disguise” that plays itself out in a pleading of the Palestinian cause against the Zionists. But again that remains a matter outside of “debate”. You can review the literature as well as everyone else who ventures onto this discussion. Good and reasonable men will make that assessment on their own.
The essay intended to reveal two related aspects about the discourse on national existence. One, there is a quite legitimate issue related uniquely to Jews within the context of the Elite's effort to effect a destruction of the West in the march toward the World State. Two, there is a dark tendency by conservatives to blur that issue with a banal argument that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a result of the Jews/Zionists denying the Palestinian "people" a homeland. (And, again, while Zionism is clearly a flawed Leftist ideology which bears no real theological or ontological connection to the Jewish People and their national aspirations, there simply is no conservative argument that could be legitimately proffered to support a Palestinian state.)
Finally, then, we rest at what is so often missing in these kinds of digital discussions. If anything, conservatives are conservative. Their discourse, their demeanor, their very approach to their affairs is staid, prudent and above the fray. That is a valuable lesson for all of us.
All the best,
David Yerushalmi
Further, I
Comment by David Yerushalmi | February 5, 2007
I think a fundamental flaw in the essay, and in most thought and writing in regards to the subject, is bringing religion and ethnicity into the discussion. In all reality, what we're talking about is a conflict in IDEOLOGY that exists among many more groups of people than "Jews", "Christians" and "Everybody Else". We're talking about liberal progressivism and conservatism. What difference does it make if Jews are disproportionately leftist? Going by the parties they vote for, so are hispanics and blacks. Leftist Jews believe in all the same things that leftist blacks, whites, hispanics, and Asians do. Jews on the left are almost universally secular, non-observant Jews who hate their inherited religion as much as they hate Christianity, and are generally opposed to an Israeli state just like every body else on the Left is. They are leftists. They aren't Jewish leftists. Ideologies like liberal progressivism and conservatism can be held by so many people, and are so dichotomous that it isn't necessary to designate them by their religion or ethnic heritage. Some conservatives do indeed despise Jews - because most vocal and visible Jews are leftist. It isn't about hating a people, it's about hating an ideology. I think there are very few on the right who hate Jews by default as a people out of racism or anti-Zionism, as seems to be suggested. Which is why the distinction needs to come down, and why race, ethnicity and religion (all of which are encompassed in the word "Jew") need not be a part of the discussion. I don't know if I just don't hang out in the right conservative crowds, but I personally don't know anyone who identifies themselves as "conservative" who is anti-semitic or who favors the dissolution of the Israeli state. Everybody I argue with on the Left is, and does. The only people on the right who seem to believe the same way are some self-described "Paleoconservatives", and it seems to stem mostly from the fact that modern Israel was created by an international organization. If they were against one people moving into a largely unoccupied land and claiming it as their own (let's remember that there is not, and never has been, a country by the name of "Palestine", nor a government in the region to rule a body of established inhabitants), as they say, they would have to be equally in favor of the dissolution of the "American state". Ironically, Paleoconservatives don't seem to have much of a problem at all with the rest of the re-partitioning that took place under international supervision after WWII, and weren't in favor of our involvement in WWII when Nazi Germany was toppling over sovereign states in Europe - an act they consider egregious when they're accusing Israel of doing so. Quite contrary to what is proposed in the essay, "Neoconservatives" (who, by declaration of the "Paleoconservatives", seem to be the majority voice in the conservative camp) are routinely accused by "Paleoconservatives" of being pro-Zionist internationalists and interventionists because they largely support Israel and the Israeli state. So I have severe doubts about the assertion that conservatives are hostile to Jews or to Israel for that matter. What conservatives are hostile to is liberalism. For myself, I can say that I don't hate Jews. Not as a Christian, and not as a conservative. I support the Israeli state, regardless of whether or not its existence is convenient for the United States. As long as Israel is considered an ally of the United States, I think it's entitled to the same treatment the rest of our allies receive in terms of military and economic support. I don't necessarily agree with their government or politics, but neither do I agree with most of the other countries we consider allies, nor our own government much of the time for that matter. I don't like liberalism or the people who subscribe to it - whether they're Jews, hispanics, Europeans or Africans. I don't like or dislike Israeli liberals any better or worse than American or European liberals. Maybe it is I who is the minority, but I don't think so.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 6, 2007
Dan,
You wrote: "We disagree on strategy. Paleos believe non-intervention and non-entanglement is the best strategy for creating a safer America, and I take it you disagree. Non-intervention is also the historically conservative strategy, and is an arguably more humane strategy. Just because we advocate self-interested neutrality in the Middle East and no foreign aid for anyone, does not mean we necessarily accept some form of moral equivalence. Some do, some don’t."
You will recognize right away that the statement "Paleos believe non-intervention …." suggests a kind of group think approach without substance. You attempt to add substance to it by what then follows, such as it is "safer" and more "humane". The "safer" argument is a hard one for you to make in light of WMD, science-technology, and the fact that non-intervention allows regimes freedom of action/movement and seriously inhibits intel. Also, SANE's Colonel T. Snodgrass does a fine job on what he defines as appeasement and you call non-intervention. But again, that is an analysis and conclusion this kind of comment discussion won't benefit by. Finally, as to more "humane", I would argue that exposing the world to the threat of Sharia Islam and most importantly exposing America to it is the opposite of humane.
The real point is that if you have arrived at these empirical-strategic conclusions after much deep and considered thought, I have no objections to raise but only to arrive at mine. But if these are conclusions reached because you are a "paleo", I would only suggest that discussion belongs in the play ground. I will conclude for present purposes that it is the former.
All the best,
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | February 6, 2007
Dan,
Well and properly said. But, a school of thought cannot answer in and of itself whether Shari'a based Islam presents a clear and present danger and whether isolationism is the proper response. Your understanding of conservatism will no doubt provide you with good and valuable benchmarks, but there are no doubt times when conservatives must act to defend what is theirs. The open question is whether that is the situation today.
But even beyond that, there was yet a third overlooked aspect of the essay which for me was more important to our national existence and the aspect of Peoplehood which inheres in conservatism and that was the concluding paragraph.
All the best,
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | February 6, 2007
As a note, I will now leave the remainder of whatever comments might be out there for the readers. I have said here what I believe ought to have been said. Thank you all for the interest in the essay and the valuable comments.
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | February 6, 2007
David:
it would take a full seminar to analyze, discuss and reference the many issues that have surfaced here.
I've got a full plate taking on the Environmental establishment over their crusade to end CO2 emissions….having confronted over 200 of them at a major forum today, I feel like a heretic…Martin Luther at the Vatican….Moses in Egypt….
But a few points:
> you need to distinguish the destiny of Israel as a nation/state from the Jewish identity;
> you need to recognize the many factions in the LIKKUD and perhaps educate 'conservatives' on their political differences lest you wind up lumping "JEWS" with "INDIANS"
gotta run…..new HDTV….gasp, gasp.
Comment by fjh | February 7, 2007