The only difference, of course, is that the "Far Right" don't actually represent conservative values in any real sense. They are not conservative principles taken to the extreme - they are completely separate principles forged from delusional thinking. The left, on the other hand, is proudly led and represented by what you would categorize as the "Far Left". The "Far Left" is basically more ardent adherence to "mainstream left" thought and ideology - the difference is in the degree of fervor. That is not the case with the "Far Right". A typical Republican voter does not believe that the CIA armed, funded and is harboring Osama Bin Laden to further globalist agendas. A typical Democrat voter, however, does believe (or at the very least, could be easily convinced, and probably does not doubt) that the Bush administration had a role in carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Comment by Patrick Mulligan | August 21, 2007

Patrick: Excellent point. When the "Far Right" goes off the clift, they enter a completely new world. But there is no clift for the Far Left. Like the Energizer Bunny, they just keep going and going from the same base, until they meet up with the crazy Right extremists.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 21, 2007

Usually, the "Far Right" are libertarians who are actually shifting to the left. Buchanan and Ron Paul are both great examples of this. This is why the rhetoric begins to sound familiar. Because instead of circling around, those who were at the top of the political graph, start sliding rapidly left.

Comment by WolvenBear | August 21, 2007

The thing about the far left is that they want more control over you and I, while the far right simply wants to be left alone (for the most part).

Comment by Mountain Man | August 21, 2007

It is absolutely ridiculous to try and even compare Ron Paul with Hillary Clinton. Ron Paul has the most consistently conservative voting record in all of Congress. He votes the Constitution, plain and simple. Does Hillary?
The Intellectual Conservative website says it is a place of "Conservative and Libertarian politics and philosophy." Well, Dr. Ron Paul is the epitome of a true conservativism and libertarianism. How is it that he is so disrespected as to be compared to Hillary Clinton?
Regarding the "War in Iraq" section where you say "this last entry appears to be a tie. Either that, or someone is plagiarizing the other candidate’s website."
Let's note that Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War from the very beginning. Hillary Clinton did NOT.
I don't see a tie there. What I see is Clinton, who is a political opportunist, changing her position with the tide of public opinion.
Ron Paul had the wisdom and foresight to vote against this mess in the first place.
If Ron Paul is comparable to Hillary Clinton, then so is George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Comment by freedom360 | August 21, 2007

Patrick,

You said "The only difference, of course, is that the “Far Right” don’t actually represent conservative values in any real sense. They are not conservative principles taken to the extreme - they are completely separate principles forged from delusional thinking"

Can you cite an example or two of far right groups to support your statement? Who specifically are you referring to?

The problem as I see it is this. Most people don't vote. Consequently, our politics is in the hands of both the far right and the far left nuts. The vast majority of people a centerists. But, they surrender their power to the extremes by not voting.

Fortunately, our political parties don't pander to to the right or left wing. Politicians pander to themselves. The left is stuck with the democrats, the right is stuck with the republicans. These groups have no choice, but to stick with their respective parties. There's nowhere else for them to go. Both parties know that those groups are secure. It's in the center that elections are won or lost. They'll give both extremes lots of red meat to feed on in the primaries. But, once a republican or democrat is elected, they'll goven mainly from the center and certainly in their own self interest. The voters get what they deserve.

Greg IN NY

Comment by GreginNY | August 21, 2007

Phil,

Before I even read your article, I knew where you were going with this one. I have always viewed the continuum of political ideologies as a clock face, not a yard stick.

Anarchists and extreme libertarians sometimes think they can opt out and assert that they are completely orthogonal to the lines that run left and right. But this is a fallacy. Anarchy is a concept that exists only on paper. Nature abhors a vacuum and in practice, a power structure and a leader always emerges in any social structure - be it the playground, the prison, or the parliament.

Comment by Steve Sabin | August 21, 2007

"Can you cite an example or two of far right groups to support your statement? Who specifically are you referring to?"

I'm referring to the "Far Right" as exemplified by the quotations in this article. Read the quotes, follow the links. I'm confident you can manage it.

The problem is not that most people are centrist. "Centrist" really means "non-examining". It means one who is too lazy to examine issues and develop principles that govern his or her political decisions. The "centrists" are the ones who are not voting, because they do not care. They're too lazy to care. Most issues are polar - they have two basic "sides". The "centrist" grey area between the sides is a kind of situational decision making that is impractical for government, as it has no universality and ends up being hypocritical. A great example would be our current president's desire to cut taxes and simultaneously increase spending and triple the size of the government. You can't have it both ways. Low taxes are not compatible with a bureaucratic welfare state. People with convictions, either left or right, are obviously going to be the ones doing most of the voting. Those with situational convictions that change with the tide of public opinion because they've failed to take a real position on an issue, the "centrists", are obviously less likely to care about the outcome of elections. As far as your opinion on the parties: I would hardly say that Bill Clinton and Ronal Reagan governed from the same centrist position. Clinton was an unapologetic liberal, Reagan was an unapologetic conservative. Being a "centrist", I suppose it all seems the same to you, but if you examine the laws both men signed into action and the agendas put forth by their administrations, you'd notice a pretty dramatic difference. The same contrast could be seen in lower leadership as well, like, say, Sen. Teddy Kennedy and former Rep. Newt Gingrich. But what am I doing asking a "centrist" to think?

Comment by Patrick Mulligan | August 21, 2007

Ugh! So what we need to do is follow the wisdom of the serious minded centrists like Phil and Greg instead of listening to those crazy far-righters who actually want to follow the Constitution.

Of course following the wisdom of the centrists has got us three trillion dollar budgets and self-described "conservatives" trying to "save" socialist programs like social security and patting themselves on the back because they managed to "slow the rate of growth" of some unconstitutional socialist program. Bang up job you're doing there gentlemen. Way to conserve that Old Republic.

First of all the political spectrum is not clock faced, although like any complex phenomenon, it can not adequately be boiled down to a single dimension. (That is not to say that what the left/right spectrum measures is not important. It is and I am a bit of a defender of the traditional left right spectrum as I think it measures a dimension that is extremely important/fundamental.)

You can not go far enough right that you become left or vice versa as Phil likes to assert. The commonality is based on them being equidistant from the political center. By definition they are not happy with the status quo, and do not think the situation can be rectified by mild changes to the status quo. In that respect, the far right is less similar to the center right than the center right is to the center left. But that does not mean that right becomes left.

Also, the introduction of conspiracies conflates the issue. People who are profoundly unhappy with the status quo are more likely to buy explanations that paint the powers that be in a negative light. (Of course there is a bit of a chicken or the egg issue here. Do people who buy conspiracy theories generally drift to the far left or right, but that is immaterial to the discussion.) But the tendency to accept conspiratorial explanations is one of those other dimensions that I said are part of the complexities of the political spectrum. It is not an inherent part of either the far left or far right. The guys at Chronicles are by today's standards "far right," but they openly scoff at conspiracy theories.

Also, as I have made the case over and over to you, the nationalism that is advocated by the National Vanguard types is CLEARLY left-wing. It is based on a post-French Revolution concept of the nation state. They are a confusing mix of left and right. They reject egalitarianism which is rightist, but their nationalism is leftist.

So Phil, what dimension do you believe the left/right political spectrum measures? And I mean philosophically at base. Hopefully you can answer this without too much reference to modern issues and modern partisan politics as that confuses the base issue since, as I have said over and over, most of what is today's "right" is historically left. Is what the left right spectrum measures a valid dimension? Is it important/fundamental? If so, logically explained to me how far right on a single dimension becomes far left? This should be right up the alley of a polysci PhD.

Patrick, feel free to take a crack at it as well. Since I think your statement "The only difference, of course, is that the “Far Right” doesn’t actually represent conservative values in any real sense. They are not conservative principles taken to the extreme - they are completely separate principles forged from delusional thinking." is incorrect. I can not speak for all the "far right." I can only speak for my own perspective which is paleoconservatism or classical conservatism, but the problem is closer to being that modern "conservative values" are historically speaking, leftist. (Not entirely, of course.) So classical conservative values seem foreign to the modern mind so corrupted by liberalism.

Just to confuse things, and I do think this can get very confusing, libertarianism as a philosophy is leftist. Libertarians (small and larger l) are a form of classical liberals. They have generally been considered part of the right in America since around the time of Hayek, and functionally that has generally been accurate. Philosophically it is a confusing mixed bag. And further evidence that a single dimension can’t accurately categorize a complex phenomenon.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 22, 2007

Does anyone really see a difference between a man like Farakan and David Duke? Wait- I got one; Farakan is respected in his party.

Comment by Honker | August 22, 2007

Mr. Jackson:

Sir, you disappoint me with your article. The main reason is because the extreme Left actually has real power in America through Hollywood, other media, academia, the courts, Congress, and in sectors of Washington. But the extreme Right has no real influence in America period. Simply put, the hard Left and the hard Right cannot be equated and that makes the entire premise of your article disingenuous in my eyes. Mr. Mulligan was correct in his first post, I'm just advancing the argument.

Secondly, the one politician who you implied was a member of the extreme Right was Ron Paul. I am no libertarian, even as a “paleo” I don’t like some of Paul’s comments about Iraq and I will probably not be voting for him, but I must say that I can’t think of a man with more integrity in Congress than he. Although it is perfectly fair to say that he is the strictest constitutionalist in Congress, it is unfair to suggest he is an extreme ideologue of the Right. His everyday values and viewpoints are fairly normal and he should not be branded as extreme merely because he thinks the language of the Constitution ought to be taken literally and respected.

Can you please try again and name for me a single, real, right-wing extremist who has real influence in America?

Comment by Liberius | August 22, 2007

Dan,

"Left-wing" and "right-wing" have no definitions, so to speak. They merely have generally understood applications, and "right-wing" can, in common usage, apply to philosophies as diverse as libertarianism, monarchism, fascism, or constitutionalism.

I guess you would argue that this makes the terms incoherent. To a certain extent, I suppose it does. As you know, "left" and "right" became political jargon during in revolutionary France, where those supporting the monarchy sat on the right of the assembly hall, and those opposing it on the left. Even then, however, these two opposing factions were coalitions of people with different views. On the far right of the room, for instance, sat the de Maistres of the world–the strong supporters of absolute monarchy. More towards the center, but nonetheless on the right, sat the followers of Necker, who favored British-like reform.

This was all in France, which was a very different place than the United States. The specific French applications of "left" and "right" do not apply here. Classical liberalism holds a philosophical role in the United States similar to that held by monarchism in France. It permeates our history. Hence, it makes perfect sense for classical liberalism to be thought of as "right-wing" in the United States.

This is not the same, however, as saying that classical liberals are conservatives. But they can be. Within the classical liberal tradition as I see it, there are the radicals and there are the conservatives. Today, radicals who remain classical liberals tend to be libertarians. They are classical liberals through and through, bascially accepting the philosphical foundations. The conservative classical liberals believe that classically liberal instutions are the most fundamentally American instutions, and are therefore worth preserving (though I don't mean to suggest that if American institutions were fascistic such conservatives would pledge themselves to fascism). But conservative classical liberals, such as myself, have big problems with the philosophical foundations of classical liberalism. Nevertheless:

1. I have big problems with the philosophical foundations of anything.
2. Though I can't satisfactorily explain why liberty, in and of itself, is a good thing, I nonetheless think it is.
3. Part of loving one's country is loving one's country's character, and no one can deny the influence classical liberalism has had on this country's character.

My conservatism allows me to reject some of the more grandiose and outlandish claims of classical liberalism, while still respecting that philosophy as a national tradition.

I may have gotten off track here, but let me take a shot at answering the questions you asked Phil:

1. "What dimension do you believe the left/right political spectrum measures?"

Generally speaking, "right" refers to those people who, if change is necessary, prefer making things more like they used to be–or, if that is impossible, keeping innovation modest. "Left" refers to those people who envision something different and new for the future, and seek to establish it. I would add that these terms have no justifiable application to foreign policy. And I would add that a clever person could probably find numerous exceptions to what I've said simply by framing policy questions differently that I would. But I base the dimension measured by "left" and "right," as do you, on what people have historically called "left" and "right," and I think it is as sound as any dimension one can name.

2. Is what the left/right spectrum measures a valid dimension?

I think so, though it won't tell some people as much as they want it to.

3. Is it important/fundamental?

Important/fundamental to what?

In the end, though, I don't think endeavoring to perfectly define "right-wing" or "left-sing" will be any more fruitful than Sissy Jupe's effort, in Dickins' "Hard Times," to define "horse." Like pornography, one knows it when one sees it. And if we disagree, then we disagree over something no more important than the application of a mere word, and we should agree to use some other word.

Comment by Katzen | August 22, 2007

For those of you who are not aware of where Mr. Jackson is coming from let me post a couple of actual quotes from his writings:

“If people “like you” — who can’t figure out what victory/success in a war means — advocate one policy, we should immediately adopt the opposite. If you think we ought to surrender or withdraw from a conflict, then the correct policy is stay and fight.”

AND

“It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”

If this is the best he can come up with why is anybody even bothering to have a rational conversation with this guy?

Comment by troyvw | August 22, 2007

Patrick,

It depends on how one defines a centerist. If you adhere to the Limbaugh, simple world for simple minds approach, there are three groups, left, center and right. In Rush's world, it's a simple as being white, black or brown skinned. Only people that fall into the left and right think. Centerists can't make up their minds. You summed up Limbaughesque logic when you said:

“Centrist” really means “non-examining”. It means one who is too lazy to examine issues and develop principles that govern his or her political decisions. The “centrists” are the ones who are not voting, because they do not care. They’re too lazy to care. Most issues are polar - they have two basic “sides”

So, most issues are polar. They have two basic "sides'. Good or bad. Right or wrong. Nice or naughty. You either fall on the right side of most issues or the wrong side. If your "right", your a conservative. You believe the same things other conservatives believe. If you don't believe the same things other conservatives beleive, you're a liberal. If you stray from some of the core beleifs, your probably a liberal. It's all very simple. This your example of a thinking person. You further state:

"The “centrist” grey area between the sides is a kind of situational decision making that is impractical for government, as it has no universality and ends up being hypocritical"

So, we have an impractical representative rebublic. Granted, compromise may be impractical in your world, but I think it has served us well. Historically, I've seen many examples of "practical", efficent, ideological government. I don't want to live under one. Like it or not, politicians careers depend on "impractical decision making". Your example of Bush's stand on tax cuts and out of control spending is a good example of that.

More often than not, voting centerists have strong positions. Some are consrvative, some liberal. A centerist can't be packaged into a simple philosphy, nor does a centerist feel a longing to belong to a group. A centerist understands that life is not simpe. Being a centerist requires both thinking and an independent spirit. Centerists are attacked by left and right loons. We're not darlings of the media or talk radio because our positions can't be packaged into sound bits or slogans. Centerists don't have the mainstream media or talk radio to validate their thought.

For the record Patrick, I am a Republican…but I'm increasingly concerned by my party. That said, I never was a party line voter. Party line voting is for fools. That's asking to be owned by a political party. Neither party represents me. Political parties represent the propogation of their own power.

I'd guess the Republicans can count on your support. You have no viable option other than to vote Republican. They can't automatically count on my vote. Elections are won on two factors. Turning out the motivated base of both parties and swing voters. Swing votes are cast by indecicive, situational challenged, morally confused, intellectually muddled, uncaring citizens like me.

Greg in NY

Comment by GreginNY | August 22, 2007

Troy,

Those quotes are actually pretty erudite by Phil standards. Normally he is just squealing "racist" or reminding us he has a PhD.

Katzen, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will respond when I have more time. Very briefly, I disagree with the idea that America was founded on classical liberalism. There were clearly classical liberal elements and a lot of liberal rhetoric, but the Old Republic was not primarily classically liberal. Admittedly, it was certainly more Roundhead than Cavalier.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 22, 2007

Only 2 minutes ago I signed up for your conservative politics and philosophy blog. I then see a picture of the ONLY true conservative candidate in this whole damned presidential race and NO it isn't Hillary. As a matter of fact Ron Paul will be the ONLY conservative republican that will be able to BEAT Hillary. I am going to locate a conservative site…this one most certainly isn't it.

Comment by Karla | August 23, 2007

Karla: Hi. Bye.

Liberius: Sorry to disappoint you. I should have included a couple of quotes about how the Jews are responsible for the world’s problems, per your earlier writings.

Troy: It is indeed true that a good, shorthand way to assess the wisdom of a course of action is to look at those who favor/oppose it. The fact that you would object to a statement that “If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course,” speaks volumes about why I’m happy to be on the opposite side of your political beliefs.

Dan: Ron Paul a nut. Nationally, he’s a joke. The Republican Party rejects him (and this is his party of choice, since he’s running for the Republican nomination). His ideas about foreign affairs mesh perfectly with Hillary and the other Left Wing extremists. (Note: see my response to Troy). Try and get over it. He won’t be the Republican Party nominee, no mater how many times you vote for him as the winner of any given “debate”.

Oh, and even though you really, really, really believe that your political beliefs are the only true definition of “constitutional” and “conservative”, that’s not the case. I’d explain it to you again for the 100th time, but maybe you and Troy can just re-read some of my past essays and commentary instead.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

Phil,

"I’d explain it to you again for the 100th time…"

Thanks but no need. I recall your belief that the Constitution provides a "framework" perfectly well. It differs hardly at all from the "living and breathing Constitution" nonsense peddled by the libs. How bout we get together some time for a game of poker where the rule book just provides a "framework?" I get to be the one who interprets it though. (Credit for the poker analogy goes to Walter Williams.)

BTW, I have never said that Ron Paul will win. I think if he gets anywhere close to the nomination, the Elite smear bund will hammer him in a way we have never witnessed before. Like they did Buchanan after New Hampshire, but worse. Honestly what will hurt him is not the War, but the fact that he really does want to cut spending. Once the media goes into overdrive with stories about all the unconstitutional programs he would cut/veto the masses, who like their Government funded booty, will decide they don't want that much spending restraint. This is the fault of the sheep who have grown to like their wealth transfers and is testimony to the sorry state of modern "conservatism."

But I am strongly supporting him anyway because his campaign is igniting a movement that is separate from the regular "conservative" establishment. You are correct that many in the GOP don't like him. That is because they are not serious about the "conservatism" they profess to believe in.

"Ron Paul (is?) a nut. Nationally, he’s a joke."

BTW, real scholarly argument there, Mr. PhD.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 23, 2007

Dan: You ask me to explain something, then you tell me you know what I’ve said about it anyway. You allegedly embrace education, but continue disparage my Ph.D. Once again I must defer to the wisdom of Dennis Prager. “I have no power against stupidity.”

I’ll keep a watchful eye out for the Ron Paul juggernaut that is transforming American politics.

All the best, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

Phil,

"You ask me to explain something, then you tell me you know what I’ve said about it anyway."

I believe I asked you to explain your view on the left/right political spectrum, not the Constitution.

BTW, to say that Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are similar to Hillary's views is just ignorant. Paul is a non-interventionist. Hillary is not a non-interventionists. She is an internationalist. She is a member of the CFR for crying out loud. Paul wouldn't walk within a mile of the CFR building. The neocons are even praising her for her tough stance. Most all the Democrats are internationalists. Obama wants to invade Pakistan and few are willing to take first strike nukes "off the table" with Iran. Look at how they are falling all over each other to see who would be the quickest to send troops to Darfur.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 23, 2007

Phil,

“It is indeed true that a good, shorthand way to assess the wisdom of a course of action is to look at those who favor/oppose it.”

Yes as a quick shorthand guide I can see some wisdom in that. However, you make it sound like a life principle which is just silly. Why should anybody read your work if this is the way you approach things? I can just look up Ms. Pelosi’s opinion on an issue – reverse it – to determine what to believe?

I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list? On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps? I am trying to get a handle on how your formula works.

Troy

Comment by troyvw | August 23, 2007

As this is my first visit to IC, I must admit that I am seriously disappointed. The author of this article took serious liberties in attempting to prove their point. To be compared to Nazis under the moniker of conservative is like comparing mercury to a miracle drug.
The writer is mistakenly attempting to put every political/social theology under two descriptors, and the attempt is flawed to say the least.
I hope this article does not accurately depict the overall sediment of this site, as it will be a serious misnomer and little to no credit to the conservative ideal.

Comment by Tweeker | August 23, 2007

“to say that Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are similar to Hillary’s views is just ignorant. Paul is a non-interventionist. Hillary is not a non-interventionists. She is an internationalist.”

You may want to re-read my opening paragraph: “In certain cases, although the foundations of these philosophies are based on polar opposite assumptions, the actual policies they propose are virtually indistinguishable from one another. Have a look at the following Extreme Right-Left world views, and see where the circle begins to form — and eventually converge.”

Thanks again for re-affirming my thesis.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

“I can just look up Ms. Pelosi’s opinion on an issue – reverse it – to determine what to believe?”

Yep, that’s pretty much a good shorthand way to track an issue. Whatever Nancy wants to do on Iraq, minimum wage, stem cell research, tax policy, global warming, across-the-board federal spending, unions and other Left Wing special interest positions, I’ll take the opposite position sight unseen.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

Phil,

Wow that is real neat formula you have. Does that always work for you? No actual thought – thinking things through just react to Ms. Pelosi that sure make life easier.

Could you answer the second part of my question I posted:

“I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list? On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps?”

Thank you,

Troy

Comment by troyvw | August 23, 2007

Phil,

Paul's and Hillary's philosophical starting points differ, but they also reach very different conclusions. What about this is hard for you to understand? Hillary voted for the War initially. Paul did not. Hillary has soured on the War because it is not going well and the internal dynamics of her party demand it. But she is talking up the surge, saying we ought to replace Maliki, saber-rattling against Iran, etc. She is a committed internationalist who now happens to be against the Iraq War. Do you think if the War was going great she would be against it? Paul is a committed non-interventionist. He was against the War from the start. He was against it when it was perceived to be going well and was politically difficult for a Republican to oppose.

Take off your partisan blinders Phil.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 23, 2007

Phil,

In Dan's defense, you did write this about Ron Paul: "His ideas about foreign affairs mesh perfectly with Hillary and the other Left Wing extremists."

Perfectly? I think not. They may be similar on Iraq, if you give a very loose definition to "similar." They both, to one degree or another, oppose continuing the war. But compare Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton on any one of a number of other issues–Darfur, the United Nations, Israel/Palestine, and others–and you will see enormous differences in policy as well as philosophy.

I don't agree with Paul on many things, but I don't think it's fair to call him a nutjob. I think he gave the best answer in any of the debates to a question about how he'd cut the size of government. While others, notably McCain, promised to get tough on pork (which wouldn't actually cut the federal budget), Paul began his answer, "Let's start with the departments…" I think it was refreshing, in this era of compassionate conservatism, to hear at least one Republican presidential candidate call for abolishing the Department of Education. I don't want him to win, and he surely won't, but I hope he succeeds in reinvigorating the small government wing of the conservative movement.

Comment by Katzen | August 23, 2007

Troy:

I’ve spent the last year writing extensively on politics, religion, morality. Anything you want to know about what I believe, and why I believe it, can be found there. I don’t have the time, or desire, to give a one-on-one tutorial to someone with a limited ability to grasp even simple issues. So, once again I must invoke the Prager Doctrine, and wish you the best of luck as you struggle to understand why anyone should be wary of embracing the policies espoused by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton.

Dan:

My partisan blinders do not mask the glare from pseudo-intellectual Ubercon bilge, which is why I stopped treating anything you say with any degree of seriousness a long time ago. I’m sure others will delight in hearing again why Aristotle and genetically-related blood lines form the foundation for True Conservative thought, but it’s too close to dinner time for me to wade through this again. So polish up your Ron Paul For President button, and proudly lead the charge for whatever it is you demand that everyone else accept as the one-and-only Truth. I’m sure, like RP, the juggernaut of ideas you embrace will capture the imagination of thinking people everywhere … as long as they don’t think too seriously about the actual policies that flow from this fountain of universal knowledge

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

Phil, always so testy. Here is what I wrote at another blog.

"Our old friend Phillip Ellis Jackson (Did I mention he has a PhD?) once again demonstrates his poor grasp of basic political philosophy by regurgitating the old canard that once you go so far right you intersect with the left or vice versa.

Feel free to educate Dr. Jackson, but be gentle. He is a bit thinned skinned when his erudition is questioned. I think Dr. Jackson fancies himself the intellectual Alpha Male over at Intellectual Conservative so he gets pretty vicious when he his protecting his home turf."

And here is one of the comments that followed.

"This Jackson clown has a PhD? What in? Home Ec?"

I take it your emphasis was not in Political Philosophy.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 23, 2007

“In Dan’s defense, you did write this about Ron Paul: “’His ideas about foreign affairs mesh perfectly with Hillary and the other Left Wing extremists.’”

Katzen: other than citing RP’s exact words, and Hillary’s exact words, the only thing I said in my original essay about this was “This last entry appears to be a tie. Either that, or someone is plagiarizing the other candidate’s website.” Dan said that “Paul’s and Hillary’s philosophical starting points differ, but they also reach very different conclusions.” (Comment 26). Well, here are the quotes again:

Paul: “The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.”

Clinton: “[Congress] had been misled by false intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration. … The war in Iraq has imposed a tremendous cost on our troops, their families, and our budget. Four years after the start of the war, the violence continues to grow, and there is no end in sight. … As long as we stay [in Iraq] our occupation will continue to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists. … America is ready for a leader who will end the war in Iraq and a president who will respect our Armed Forces by properly planning for the missions we ask our troops to undertake. If the Bush administration won't, as president and commander in chief, [I] will end this war.”

I don’t see the “different conclusions” that RP “reaches”, compared to Hillary’s “conclusions”. In fact, they again reinforce what I said in my original essay: “In certain cases, although the foundations of these philosophies are based on polar opposite assumptions, the actual policies they propose are virtually indistinguishable from one another. Have a look at the following Extreme Right-Left world views, and see where the circle begins to form — and eventually converge.”

The Iraq policy that RP advocates is indistinguishable from Hillary’s direct quotes on the same subject. You are correct that saying “foreign affairs” is not a direct synonym for “Iraq”, but I used this term in the comment section to address the foreign affairs issue I wrote about in my essay — Iraq. I thought it was clear in context, but I accept your point and I’ll just simply say “Iraq” again. And I will accept that RP’s inane policy prescription for Iraq is based on a more “principled” stand than Hillary’s opportunism. But like it or not, their policy prescriptions on Iraq converge — and will remain virtually identical until Hillary comes up with another politically-motivated position. So, if this presents a problem, just substitute the position of, say, Moveon.org for Hillary, and the same point remains. Though starting from a different point, their policy prescriptions are virtually indistinguishable. Read Hillary’s quote to RP, and there’s nothing in it that the RP supporter would dispute, and vice versa.

The only issue I’ve raised about RP in my essay was Iraq. And “nutjob” is the kindest way I have to describe his and Hillary’s policy prescription.

Regards, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

Dan: It wasn’t necessary to resurrect your obsession with my academic credentials to show the classlessness of your own political viewpoints, but I appreciate the object lesson for others to see. None of your direct quotes showed me silencing debate by invoking these dreaded credentials. This constant obsession with my Ph.D. has always been somewhat amusing to me, in a Freudian sort of way, particularly when the crime is objecting to the insistence that there is only one true Conservative belief, which you coincidentally happen to hold.

I’ve debated atheists about morality without insisting that they believe in God, just like I’ve debated Ubercons without insisting that everyone must agree with me. You confuse vigorously defending my position with a desire to silence my critics. On the contrary, as a quick search of past comments will show, I’ve repeatedly urged you to keep writing. The more you express your beliefs, as well as other like-minded True Conservatives, the more we come to know what you actually represent. You can dress the pig up any way you want, but when I ask you about the policies that arise from a race-based world view where kith and kin is more important than shared values, your reluctance to reply more than illustrates my point. Your world view is great — as long as someone doesn’t look at it too closely. Which is why a real discussion with you is impossible, and the only point in responding is to point out the obvious again that you can’t actually debate the implications of any of your policies, which is why I won’t take what you say seriously.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

Phil,

Hillary Clinton, according to her website, is open to the idea of temporarily keeping a small residual force in Iraq to help train Iraqi troops. Ron Paul is not. Thus, even their specific policy prescriptions are not the same.

If simply opposing the continuation war, by the way, is indicative of either an extreme right or extreme left outlook, the majority of Americans are extremists.

Comment by Katzen | August 23, 2007

That is mighty rich coming from the person who insinuated that my political opinions were not to be taken seriously because I am an MD. What has amazed me from the beginning is how a well educated person could be so … how to put this … uhm … err … concrete, dichotomous, inflexible, and lacking in nuance in their thinking.

I have never insisted you agree with me. What fun would that be to debate? What I have always hoped for but seldom gotten is cogent analysis worthy of a PhD of the political philosophy issues involved instead of the mindless regurgitation of GOP talking points. If I want GOP talking points I'll listen to Limbaugh or Hannity.

For example, has it ever occurred to you that the reason Paul and Hillary agree on this, "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information" is because it happens to be true? Similar to how they might both agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green.

But I guess if Nancy Pelosi insisted the sky is blue, you would be forced to disagree with her.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 23, 2007

Folks,

Phillip is entertaining if nothing else. He goes around, debating people about God,politics, and probably everything else under the sun. He writes essays and has time to reply to most of the commentary. I'm sure Phillip is the life of any get together. One Phil at a party makes for a night of fun. I like Phillip…agree or disagree, he's passionate. I just wish I had as much time on my hands as he does.

Greg in NY

Comment by GreginNY | August 23, 2007

“That is mighty rich coming from the person who insinuated that my political opinions were not to be taken seriously because I am an MD.”

Nice try Dan. What I said was you’re not to be taken seriously because you’re not a serious person. I have promised not to practice medicine if you don’t claim to understand politics, but this was at the end of a months-long exchange where I’ve repeatedly stated to you, and others who join these conversations, that the measure of a coherent idea is not a person’s education, but the expression of the idea itself. I even wrote an essay about this (Random Thoughts), where I said “As I’ve more than demonstrated (positively to some, negatively to others), you don’t need a Ph.D. to express a well-reasoned thought. Some of the wisest things I’ve been taught came from people who just reflected on how they’ve gone about living their own lives. All I ask, from a personal basis, is that you tell me why you believe what you believe (other than you believe it because you do).”

You’ve never quite grasped this fact. You claim to want an intellectual exchange, but when you’re not busy labeling someone as a “Marxist, et. al.”, you won’t answer questions about the implications of Uber Conservative thought but instead simply repeat the mantra that kith and kin, etc. are the only basis for True Conservatism.

And when you do enter the realm of political debate, we get silliness bordering on pabulum. Just look at what passes for political analysis in your last comment. “But I guess if Nancy Pelosi insisted the sky is blue, you would be forced to disagree with her.” The “sky is blue” is not a policy issue, but this seems to escape you.

Which, again, is another perfect illustration of why I take very little of what you say seriously — but I do hope you’ll keep on talking.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

"I just wish I had as much time on my hands as he does."

Greg: I appreciate your gracious reference to my business success that allowed me to retire in my early fifties, and only re-enter the business world when I choose to take on another enterprise with my partners (usually long enough to take it public, or sell it for a profit, and then get back to being the life of the party).

Once again, your insight and analysis speaks volumes about your character, and your conclusions.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2007

“I don’t have the time, or desire, to give a one-on-one tutorial to someone with a limited ability to grasp even simple issues.”

I don’t need a “one-on-one tutorial” just answer yes or no to the following questions:

“I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list? On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps?”

Can you do that for me Phil ? I just want to know how far you take this formula of yours.

Comment by troyvw | August 23, 2007

"What I said was you’re not to be taken seriously because you’re not a serious person."

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Oh well, pardon me while I have a serious philosophical conversation with Katzen.

Katzen, I don't think right-wing and left-wing are infinitely malleable terms. In fact, I often prefer them to conservative and liberal precisely because they are anchored at a fixed point in time, the French Revolution. They have a set reference point.

Now in common usage, I think you are right that they often/usually mean a generalized resistance to change vs. embracing "progress." In that way they are used today without really referencing the French Revolution. In fact, you could fairly accurately use the terms to describe forces that existed before the French Revolution. Such as the English Civil War. I think most everyone could agree on which forces were left and which right.

(Actually, left and right is probably a peculiarly Western concept. I am not sure you could look at some conflict in Feudal Japan, and deem one side right and one side left. I think this is because the competing force of liberalism is peculiarly Western. Not an altogether bad thing, but it is sure biting us on the rear now.)

But when I say "historically speaking" (It is unfortunate that I have to clarify that.) some belief is either left or right wing, I am referencing the French Revolution.

Now regarding America being founded on classical liberalism, that is what the mainstream liberals claim. That is what the neocons claim. That is what most libertarians believe. That is probably what most modern mainstream conservatives believe, to the degree they have thought about it. Some paleos think it is true also. They think the whole American experiment was hopelessly corrupted by liberalism from the start.

But I don't believe that, and neither do a lot of paleos. There were certainly classical liberal elements. Clearly we were rejecting the Monarchy. And there was a lot of classical liberal rhetoric, but the rhetoric does not match the actual society that was on the ground. The Old Republic had property restrictions on who could vote, women couldn't vote, of course there was slavery, there was otherwise significant recognition of class (less rigid than England for sure), only the House was directly elected (The Pres and Senate was not), the people were very self-consciously Anglo-centric, they recognized the essentially Christian character of the Republic, the man on the street was very orthodox in his Christianity, there was very little of the outright hostility to the Church that you saw in France, etc. etc. etc. America was really very much a European society transplanted to these shores just without the Monarchy. This connection to our European roots was more obvious and more appreciated in the South. The South was not trying to create a "New Jerusalem" or a "shining city on a hill" a la the Puritans. They were reproducing the social order they had brought from Europe, primarily Britain.

Get my point?

Now just so Phil doesn't blow a gasket, when I speak of restoring the Old Republic, I don't think we should re-institute slavery, but in broad terms conservatives should recognize that rigorous egalitarianism is an enemy of the natural hierarchal social order. We should recognize that we should limit not expand the franchise. The direct election of Senators and the breakdown of the true intent of the Electoral College is a bad thing. Etc.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 23, 2007

Dan,

I agree that left/right are not infinitely malleable. The trouble in applying these terms is when we come to issues that do not have any clear connection to the French Revolution.

What, for instance, is "right-wing," if anything, about low taxes and spending? The way I see it, the rightishness of such policy lies in our American tradition of small, frugal government, and not in anything inherent to the policy itself.

I agree with you that the United States is not "founded" on classical liberalism. I merely said that the influence of classical liberalism on the founding is undeniable. As a paleoconservative, you probably believe that a country cannot be built on philosophy alone–and I agree completely.

But.

The history of United States is fundamentally different than that of most European countries in that the U.S. was created by a conscious and deliberate act. And it cannot be denied that those who acted were influenced by philosphy of several kinds–predominantly classical liberalism, ancient, and Christian. When I emphasize classical liberalism, I have several things in mind, including:

1. The principle that the power of the government can be limited by law.
2. The separation of powers.
3. The Declaration of Independence.
4. The Bill of Rights.

There are, as I said, basically two sorts of classical liberals (and of course I'm simplifying). On the one hand, there are the radical doctrinaire Lockeans, Rosseaueans, etc., who believe that all political questions can be answered by an appeal to abstract principles. On the other hand, there are the conservatives, who believe that classical liberalism is more than just an idea that popped into the head of Hobbes or Locke or whoever. It has deep societal and historical roots, stretching back to the Magna Carta. The difference I mean to describe is that between Paine and Burke. Paine was a radical, who believed that politics requires only pure reason. Burke, though an admirer of Adam Smith, a defender of the Glorious Revolution, and a Whig, understood that good politics requires not only reason and principles but respect for deeply-rooted traditions and institutions. Which is not to say that principles have no place in politics.

Those many restrictions you referred to reflected the basic conservatism of early American classical liberalism. Reading what Jefferson and Hamilton and Adams and others wrote, I believe that these men thought many of these restrictions would, and eventually should, fall. You and I probably agree that some of them (I'm thinking of the election of senators) changed for the worse. But you and I probably also agree that some of them (I'm thinking of the fact of slavery's end, leaving the Civil War aside) changed for the better.

I can address the South in a future post, but suffice it to say that I think the divide between the American North and South makes the left/right distinction, not to mention the definition of "conservative," particularly difficult for Americans.

Comment by Katzen | August 23, 2007

"I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list?"

Troy: Try reading Comment 28 slowly this time. Like I said, I don't have time for one-on-one tutorials for people with a limited ability to grasp even simple concepts.

All the best, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2007

Phil,

What I am demonstrating is the simplicity of you thinking. I know this is embarrassing you – that is what it is meant to do because I AM MOCKING YOU!

You reduce everything to the reactive:

“If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”

I did not ask for a tutorial only that you answer 2 very simple questions that I have posted twice. So here we go again:

“I noticed you didn’t mention Ms. Clinton on the oppose side of things. Would you add her to the list? On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps?”

Just a simple yes or no would suffice.

Thank you,

Troy

Comment by troyvw | August 24, 2007

Troy: Irony is often lost on the ironic. Typing in caps doesn’t make your grasp of issues less insipid.

I must again invoke the Dennis Prager rule about the inability to communicate with the terminally stupid. I answered your question about Mrs. Clinton in Comment 28, which you keep repeating. This leads me to believe that you are unable to comprehend even simple sentences, which always makes two-way conversation difficult. Moreover, if you can’t even understand why embracing the policies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton is a de facto bad thing, then it’s another perfect illustration why further tutorials are pointless.

I’ll be out the next couple of days taking my kid back to College, so I’ll miss seeing your response with even bigger caps asking me to answer questions I’ve already replied to in this comment section or my other writings. Hint: if you look at the IC archives, you can see what I actually wrote about politics — that is, if you’re really looking for an answer. But perhaps I presume too much about your cognitive skills. Hang in there, and don’t let difficult ideas like “Extremist Liberals policy objectives bad” confuse you any more than they already seem to.

Best of luck on what, I’m sure, has already been a difficult life.

Regards, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2007

Troy —

My wife is a special ed teacher, and chided me for not giving you several articles to choose from, since it’s clear that your level of interest in the questions you asked is somewhat superficial, and the thought of reading too many words might be frightening to you.

So, I suggest that you start with “Should We Nominate a Pro-Choice Republican?” as a general introduction to the subject you raised, then look at chapters 1, 5, 9 and 11 of my Looney Liberal Chronicles. Then have a look at “Why Don’t We Just Bring Back Slavery?”, and for good measure you might want to have a glance at the “Answers to Life’s Questions” series I wrote.

It’s the best I can do to help you. I must admit I’m a bit stumped when someone professing to be a conservative doesn’t understand why the policies Harry, Nancy or Hillary propose are bad for us, so you’ve got to work with me a bit to study up on some fundamentals about politics.

It's not hard to figure out what I believe, and why I believe it, from what I write. All this presupposes, of course, that you are actually looking for an answer to the questions you posed.

All the best,

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2007

That's funny you addressed two posts in a row to me after saying you wouldn't. :) Not that I am complaining it is hilarious to watch you get all bent out of shape.

>I’ll be out the next couple of days taking my kid back to College

That’s cool. I seem to recall though you trying to bow out of an earlier discussion this way”

““I’ve got family in town for the next few days (genetically related to me, so they pass the tribal-purity test”.”

Before posting three more times. I am pretty sure your going to find the time to fire off another post to me after I get though with this one. The family will just have to wait just like the last time won’t they Phil?

I do enjoy you Phil. You are so cute. I’m glad your reactive formula is working for you – it sure makes complicated issues seem simple doesn’t it?

But lets move on should we? You wrote:

"Moreover, if you can’t even understand why embracing the policies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton is a de facto bad thing”

I do not embrace the policies of any of these three creatures – they are all categorically evil in my view. But unlike you I do arrive at my convictions by taking the flip side of political figures I don’t approve of. You got to think things through a little bit Phil that’s all I ask.

Getting back to my questions ~ I will take it as a yes for Hillary Clinton. Judging by the two in a row posts I can see in your embarrassment is turning to anger. So answer this simple question yes or no and I will be satisfied. OK? I am really trying to help you out here.

“On the other side could you name a politician on the favor side? George W. Bush perhaps?”

You keep asking me to read you Phil ~ I will try to take the time. Most I have seen of your writing through these posts however is not of a particular high quality. For example the one I keep embarrassing with:

“It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”

Kind of expose you as non-thinking total partisan sort of guy. If I wanted this sort of nonsense I could turn on Rush at least he’s funny if not a serious thinker.

Thanks Phil,

Troy

Comment by troyvw | August 24, 2007

Phil

Great article.

Rather than "closing the circle", I always thought a better description for extremists on both sides would be that they were acting asymptotically. So I can see why some of your commenters are confused, but then I read your opening & the quotes you use & find it hard to argue with you on a result basis.

BTW, to those who say that it's simplistic to say "Whatever political policy Nancy, Harry, et al support, I'm agin it", think of it as an example of Occam's Razor. If it's not an absolute certainty, it's as close to one as you'll get!

And obviously we're not talking about a bill to name a Post Office after someone.

Also, I find it interesting that sometimes extremists contradict themselves. For instance on Monday, they say the right to free speech is absolute, no exceptions, never. Then on Tuesday, they say that "Hate Speech" should be banned, tho they remain extremist in defining "hate speech". Oh well, as Whitman said, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."

Comment by From Inwood | August 24, 2007

I have an observation about extremism & charges of such, which in no way affects your main point, but which may aid in explaining the reaction of some: I am not an extremist; not me; nope, never.

I know people who are strongly social-one-way-&-economics-the-other-way who think of themselves as centrists/moderates, or independents/beyondists even tho they can be quite extreme on their respective positions. The practical application of this is the pro-life/tax the rich guy on the one hand or the pro-choice/stop the welfare state on the other, both with rather firm, unbending positions. I keep telling such people that strong+strong or extreme+extreme does not equal mid point. In fact, some of them can easily be put in the single issue category.

Nevertheless they all seem to think that they are somehow more reasonable than, & not as extreme as, a person who is consistently liberal or conservative, as the case may be, regarding social & economical issues. Again, a practical application: These reasonable folk will ask if I have voted for one party’s candidate in every election since the ‘60s. When I answer “yes”, they reply “aha”, & say that they haven’t. But this “moderation” doesn’t usually wash. For instance, I probed one guy, strong on defense, strong on ending govt. waste & confiscatory taxes in his case, & strong on social issues, except that he said that he was for a woman’s right to choose (forgetting that “choose” is a transitive verb) & that the “Rich” (not him, of course) should pay more taxes. Seems that from the ‘60s thru ’92, he’d voted for the GOP, but in ’92, ’96 & ’00, he’d voted for the Dem. Now, we were on our “holiday from history” during that period & his only daughter was, um, nubile. Ya think? But he feels that I’m the extremist ‘cause I always vote for one party. And that I’m Pavlovian!

And since he is hidebound in the case of the MSM, he never comes across the non-Republican extremist statements you quoted. He still watches only the old news on TV (he switched from CBS to NBC after Kutie Katie took over!) & he reads only the NYT. He pays no attention to the ‘Net. He never even reads the “Corrections” Notes in the NYT! He seems to wake up re elections after the parties have picked their respective candidates, at which time the candidates are basically doing Power Point Presentations, trying to stay away from the extremist positions which got them the nomination.

Of course, he does mouth the ever faithful, how-come-we-get-such-bozos-as-candidates meme.

Comment by From Inwood | August 25, 2007

I think I know why some enjoy mocking your PhD. As you noted in this thread (#35), you’re not using it specifically as much as you are going with a common-sense approach to what has been said. Easy for you to call these extremists on their extremist statements. I’ve noticed that no would-be serious political thinkers think it smart to dismiss Hillary’s standing as anything other than a certified “brilliant” person. They fear they would be taking a great chance that they themselves would be uncertified as brilliant persons by Those Who Count.

Now I’ve found a site where some people on the Right think like those on the Left, which tends to prove your point here, but then I don’t want to be uncertified as an Intellectual Conservative, do I now?

Comment by From Inwood | August 25, 2007

Phil said, "I should have included a couple of quotes about how the Jews are responsible for the world’s problems…"

Now, now, Phil. I hope your not becoming one of those Jewish conspiracy nuts. Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame.

That was an unartful dodge. Does this mean you cannot name a single person on the extreme Right with real power in America? I thought that was a fair question.

Comment by Liberius | August 25, 2007

Katzen,

Thanks for the intelligent debate. There is not too much of what you wrote I disagree with. I would argue some with this.

"The history of United States is fundamentally different than that of most European countries in that the U.S. was created by a conscious and deliberate act. And it cannot be denied that those who acted were influenced by philosophy of several kinds–predominantly classical liberalism, ancient, and Christian."

America is a colonial country and that complicates matters. So it is not a more natural country like those in Europe. But traditionalist conservatives have long viewed the idea of a "Founding" as problematic. I use the word "Founding Fathers" because people know what it means, but even that is problematic. America was not so much "founded" as it simply broke away. But there was a great deal of continuity with England and Europe. The government was created by a conscious act of the States when they ratified the Constitution, but the country is not the government. The country pre-existed the Constitution and would have existed without it.

Neocons (I'm not accusing you of being one) love the idea of a founding, because they want to emphasize that America is a "radical break" from the past. This serves their American exceptionalism and Proposition Nation agenda better. Kirk, among others tried to focus conservative back on our English/European/classical heritage.

I agree that there are a lot of issues that don't fit the left/right paradigm very well. But what you said about the need to rely on history and tradition vs. simply on abstract reason is an essential distinction.

This distinction is why Phil's "values are all that matter" is rank liberalism.

Liberius,

You make a good point. Every time I here a leftist or center rightist complain about the "extreme right-wing," I think to myself, "If only."

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 27, 2007

Ah yes, those pesky shared values always get in the way of a good “natural hierarchal social order.”

Liberius: I wasn’t sure what to make of you when I first read your comments a few essays ago. After seeing your fixation on the “Jewish problem” and watching your bogus anti-Semitic quotes be exposed by Katzen and Treebeard, I’ll leave you and Dan to your mutual admiration society.

It’s good to know that having extremist views only matter if the person is a current office holder or otherwise invested in ”power”. Kind of lets you guys off the hook for anything you say. And I thought in my “How to fix a problem” essay that you guys weren’t “practical”. Go figure.

This thread has run its course for me. My central thesis seems pretty well intact.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 27, 2007

Why does Phil keep talking about the Jews?

Comment by troyvw | August 27, 2007

Troy — just for you, because I know that inquiring minds want to know. Here's the inspired words from Liberius. Read some of my essays on moral relativism if you want to know why I find such things distasteful — though I'm surprised one would even need to ask.

(1) On a serious note, if you would rather not wallow in ignorance you should actually study the matter a little. Perhaps you would see the special role that the group composed of folks like Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, and Irving Kristol (all Jews) played in the lead-up to the Iraqi war. Anyone who knows anything knows that neocons are primarily Jewish. According to Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, it was Irving Kristol (former communist) who invented the word “neocon” and according to Wikipedia, Kristol is the “founder and god-father” of neoconservativism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

As for what happened in the Middle Ages, I don’t know if Jews poisoned wells but many Jewish writers have conceded that Jewish crimes against Christian people always preceded anti-semitism. Consider a recent book by Israeli Jewish professor Ariel Toaff (he’s the son of an extremely prominent rabbi in Israel). His book, entitled Bloody Passovers: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders recently caused a stir. I had assumed that there was no substance to the “blood libel” charge but now I will have a more open- minded about that. Are you open-minded Katzen?

To my shock the Jerusalem Post actually wrote an article about Toaff’s book here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1170359806416&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull. Of course they concluded that Toaff was being unfair. Ultimately, Toaff was threatened to be fired from his teaching post as a result of his book and he was forced to withdraw the book from print. So much for freedom of the press in Israel.

Comment by Liberius | July 6, 2007

(2) Ah, the joy of being told that I “wallow in ignorance” by someone who defends the blood libel and apparently thinks Scooter Libby was a communist. Irving Kristol played no role in the lead-up to the Iraq War, despite his Jewishness. You might be thinking of his son William, who edits a magazine as does Norman Podhoretz. Scary guys. By the way, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, George Tenet–all these guys were tricked by the Jews?

“Anyone who knows anything knows that neocons are primarily Jewish.” They are even more primarily white. Why don’t you suspect Bush was conned by the “white neocons?”

It may be difficult for you to understand, but there is a difference between being open-minded and being frivolous. Showing that a Jew once did something bad to a Christian before many more Jews were massacred does give “substance” to the blood libel. You insinuate that JPost was wrong to conclude Toaff’s book was unfair. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t judge it. But I doubt he can argue plausibly that Jewish crimes against Christians were worse than Christian crimes against Jews. And I’m sure he can’t seriously say that “Jewish crimes against Christian people always preceded anti-semitism.” Always? I’m sorry, but that’s just frivolous.

I think I’ll rest my case with this simple observation: You’ve certainly put a lot of thought into finding a way to vindicate the blood libel.

Comment by Katzen | July 6, 2007

(3) A follow up point about Professor Toaff. Here’s an excerpt from another JPost article:

“Speaking to the Post, Toaff replies with a defiant “No” to the question of whether he believes Jewish communities could have committed ritual murder.

His previous statement had been an ironic academic provocation, he said - a premise for breaking the taboo of academic research into the anti-Christian atmosphere in Ashkenazi European Jewish communities of the Middle Ages.

According to Toaff, this atmosphere was an understandable aftermath of the Crusades, the massacres of Jews and the mass suicides of Jewish families who preferred death to conversions forced on them by fanatic Christians. However, he feels it played a role in the recurrent traumatic events which saw Jews as victims.

What he contests are the foregone conclusions by historians, who claim that all statements made by Jews under torture were dictated by their tormentors and therefore untrue. In the medieval trial documents he found statements in Yiddish formerly ignored by investigators, which, he holds, provide additional keys for interpretation and understanding of the times.”

Read the whole thing here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359833493&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Looks like you’ll have to find a new favorite historian, Liberius.

Comment by Katzen | July 6, 2007

(4) Liberius is using a bogus quote from Einstein. Many anti-Semites use it. Just check google.

His quote:

“Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group… The Jewish group has thrived on opposition and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world”

Here’s the proof it’s bogus:

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/03/refusing-to-admit-obvious-sungeniss.html

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/04/jacob-michael-prophet.html

At least he left off the last sentence most anti-Semites use…one that was totally made up. But the first two sentences in his quote are separated by EIGHT PARAGRAPHS. Read them in context and they DO NOT say what he implies.

Comment by Treebeard | July 19, 2007

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 27, 2007

holy cats Liberius is crazy….

Comment by troyvw | August 27, 2007

Troy, despite our differences, I also have great respect for people who can come to the conclusion you did. I may have to re-evaluate some of my other conclusions about you.

Take care, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 27, 2007

>>I may have to re-evaluate some of my other conclusions about you

What might those be? That I am not retarded? :)

Comment by troyvw | August 27, 2007

Well, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves :)

Glad you've got a good sense of humor.

Take care, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 27, 2007

"Ah yes, those pesky shared values always get in the way of a good “natural hierarchal social order.”"

Phil, I know you hate to read because you already know it all, but pick up a copy of The Politics of Human Nature by Thomas Fleming. After you have read it, please name me one, just one, society in the entire recorded history of mankind that was not arranged hierarchally. Show me one purely egalitarian society? Shouldn't be hard.

Also, I never said values weren't important. In fact, in the "How to Defeat Islam" thread I specifically say that the values of Islam are not compatible with the West. I am suggesting what Katzen suggested, that believing you can base the social order on "pure reason" is foolish and radically leftist. It is more Locke and Rousseau than Burke. Do you need me to explain to you what those folks believed.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 27, 2007

*** Do you need me to explain to you what those folks believed.

I'd rather you took up challenge I posed in "How to Fix a Problem", and give me some practical solutions to present day problems instead of debating which dead guy's rhetoric is better than another dead guy's rhetoric.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 27, 2007

>>practical solutions to present day problems instead of debating which dead guy’s rhetoric is better than another dead guy’s rhetoric.

Phil,

This is rather indicative of your approach to things. What exactly is wrong with learning from the wisdom of the past? History didn't began yesterday you know.

Troy

Comment by troyvw | August 27, 2007

Troy, you beat me to it. I was going to inquire what is wrong with a conservative learning from dead guys. I actually thought that is what conservatives do.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 27, 2007

Troy:

Nothing's wrong with learning from the past. I'd just like to see this wisdom applied in a practical way to present day circumstances, instead of endlessly debating whether Aristotle is better than Locke is better than Rousseau, etc. For the people who know what the “natural hierarchal social order” should be, take the base principles of your guy and tell me exactly what policy we should have about immigration (illegal or otherwise), what specifically we should do in Iraq in 2007 (rather than keep saying that we should never have been in there in the first place), etc. And saying that we need to “get out of Iraq” or conform to a “natural hierarchal social order” isn't a policy prescription. It’s simply more rhetoric.

I laid all this out in my latest essay. Rather than get into an endless discussion of whether I'm a liberal, Marxist, etc. because I have a value system that differs from someone else, I want to see if there's any "there" there in all this “natural hierarchal social order” rhetoric. What do we do about the people currently in this country who don't fit into this "natural" social order? Just how do we bring about this ideal socio-political situation, or is it not capable of ever being implemented in the real world? If so, let’s stop impressing people with our reading list, and start to talk about what can actually be done in the real world, in what timeframe, and to what degree.

I've laid out my position clearly in the new article, including what I believe the proper role for political philosophy is when making public policy. It was posted 10 hours ago. Since then Dan and others have had plenty of time to keep writing in other posts about their favorite political philosophers, but the silence is deafening to my challenge. Maybe lengthy erudite answers are being constructed as we speak, and I’ll be pleasantly surprised when I see them. Or maybe when it comes to living in the real world, a lot of people who are quick to tell us about their valued principles can’t get beyond their own reading list and apply those principles to life as it presently exists.

Either way, I said I’d sit back and listen, so this is all I will say for now. Otherwise (and I am not including you specifically in this characterization, because I think your observation and question was sincere), all that happens is the “natural hierarchal social order” proponents just fall back on explaining, again, what their favorite philosophers believe, without ever applying it to the world today. This is the classic definition of an "empty suit".

Regards, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 27, 2007

"And saying that we need to “get out of Iraq” … isn’t a policy prescription. It’s simply more rhetoric."

Why is saying we need to get out of Iraq not a policy prescription? Because you don't agree with it? That is exactly what we need to do. Get out.

Comment by Dan Phillips | August 27, 2007

How, when, in what sequence, what happens to the people left behind who sided with us, how is the exit executed to prevent or enourage other polices/action by US enemies … just small insignificant details like that which distinguish slogans from empty-suited rhetoric.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 27, 2007

Troy,

Excuse me but I couldn’t help notice that you called me “crazy”. Exactly what do you think I said that justifies that comment? Don’t get my words confused with Phil’s. Phil was disingenuous (again) in his selective quotes by me and his description of the quote as “bogus”. I am always open-minded to an explanation of the context but the “…” was properly used in the quote and secondly I can point to other quotes by prominent Jews that communicate, in even more clear terms, that which is implied by the quote from Einstein.

As to the blood libel, I clearly said that I was merely open-minded as to what the historical truth actually was (in contrast to Phil’s totally close-minded approach regarding an issue of Middle Age history which he admits he knows nothing about). There is a lot of ignorance out their about the nature of the historical conflicts of interest regarding Jewish-Gentile relations. It’s sad to me that so many take such an anti-intellectual (but politically correct) attitude on this important subject.

My post only included factual information. It seems that Phil is disturbed by facts and be must defame those who point out politically incorrect facts. For example, I never said that Scooter Libby was a communist as Phil smeared. I said that Irving Kristol was a former communist which is a factual statement. I can go on but is there any point? Heads are firmly placed in the sand and when I attempted to address those issues a while ago by coming back with even more true quotes from very respected figures like Winston Churchill, IC actually censored me twice. So sad.

Comment by Liberius | August 28, 2007

Troy: you can see the original conversation in the Dan Phillips July 5, 2007 "War Hawks Need to Define Victory” comment section. There were additional comments by Liberius as well, including “You say Irving Kristol ‘played no role in the lead-up to the Iraq war’?! This is incredible. Yes, I know his son is Bill Kristol who has ALSO promoted the war but no educated person can deny the father’s influence.”

So if your Dad believes X, then you automatically believe X too! No need to actually prove your point, just find a relative who made a statement and assign the same belief to his offspring.

You can find the other pearls of wisdom if you want to read through all of Liberius’ musings about Jews, communists, and white neocons. I thought the sample I provided was odious enough to answer your question in Comment 51 — Why does Phil keep talking about the Jews? I talk about Jews to defend against the bilge offered by some people who wallow in this kind of tripe.

I’d cite more of Liberius’ wisdom, but I just had dinner and would like to keep it inside me until fully digested. Feel free to peruse the comments to Dan’s articles again and see if I was “distorting” Liberius’ views.

Like I said before, it’s one thing to get into a slugging match over ideas, like you and I have. At the end of the day, while we may still disagree, I wouldn’t be ashamed to be in the same room with you. Now Liberius on the other hand, I’m glad to be on his do-not-invite-to-dinner list.

Regards, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 28, 2007

Phil:

You insist on engaging in more intellectual dishonesty. I was addressing the issue you brought up of extremists on the Left and Right in a way that was completely relevant to your article and I mentioned NOTHING about Jews in the process. YOU brought up Jews now as a disingenuous way to dodge the question I asked you.

Weeks ago I did discuss Jews because it was relevant to the article regarding the Iraqi war. Anyone who is knowledgeable knows that “neocons” were highly influential in the decision to go to war. I mentioned Irving Kristol because anyone who is knowledgeable knows that he is the “god-father” of the neocons. It was relevant to point out that he and most neocons are Jewish who have special feelings toward Israel (i.e. Zionist leanings) because that suggests a potential conflict of interest. I cited the very scholarly Harvard paper on the Israeli Lobby as support for my position.

It was relevant to point out that Irving Kristol is a former communist in America during the worst days of the cold war because that reflects poorly on his judgment and loyalty and it reflects poorly on the judgment of President George W. Bush to have appointed so many of Krisol Irving’s protégés to key positions in the White House, in the Pentagon, and alongside the Vice President. I did not bring up the son, Bill Kristol, you did.

If you want to debate about the history Jewish-Gentile relations I’m quite capable of doing that but when I twice submitted a thorough argument full of true quotes by very prominent and respected persons but the IC system did not allow it.

I had believed that I could engage you in an intellectual discussion on Left vs. Right politics in America but apparently I was wrong. You would rather play games to try to discredit me in general rather than addressing the particular issues I do raise. You are trying to prejudice others against me simply because I previously brought up politically incorrect facts, supported by good authority.

You are the one acting like a close-minded bigot.

Comment by Liberius | August 29, 2007

Liberius: You keep talking about how I "misrepresent" your views. All I've done is cite your own words. I haven't even said anything about your views about Irving Kristol, other than to point out the silliness of assigning a father's statements to his son. Other than that, if you go back to Comment 52, you’ll see that all I did was quote Katzen and Treebeard's comments about your comments.

You're obsessed with "the Jewish problem", to borrow a phrase from a certain historical figure. That may be one reason why IC won't print all of your comments. Take the matter up with them, not me. For my part, I have no problem engaging in conversation with a wide variety of people, but I have no stomach for treating a raging a-hole who uses bogus quotes to support his anti-Semitic diatribes with anything other than the contempt he deserves. Once you’ve established yourself for who and what you are, by your own words and actions, I’m not going to pretend that you never said any of those things and go on to discuss your other political musings. Others may wish to affiliate themselves with you. That’s their decision. I don’t have the stomach.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 29, 2007

Liberius,

I really don't feel like having this conversation with but I DID call you crazy so I guess I owe you some kind of an explanation. I will make a quick point now – I am not sure I want this conversation to drag on for days however.

The force of your quotes or "quotes" are intended to create the impression that there is some sort of Jewish conspiracy. This amongst other things is where the crazy side comes in.

For example you say:

Perhaps you would see the special role that the group composed of folks like Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, and Irving Kristol (all Jews)

OK they are all Jews what's the point? Can you name me a certain non-Jewish Vice-President who had something to do with the Iraq disaster as well?

What exactly are you trying to prove with this? That there is something in the Jewish gene pool that makes them more prone to evil? If so I fear to ask, what is your “real world policy prescriptions” for this “problem?”

You say:

>> There is a lot of ignorance out their about the nature of the historical conflicts of interest regarding Jewish-Gentile relations.

OK? Maybe so. But where are you going with that exactly? What impression are you trying to create?

I could say much more but do not have the time for now. I am not going to take the time to fact check the quotes from Einstein. What would that prove anyway – even if he DID say what you claim?

Troy

Comment by troyvw | August 29, 2007

Phil:

1. Falsity: I’m going to try for the 3rd time to correct you on an error that you keep committing: You keep saying that I attributed the father’s statements to the son. False. This is what I previously said to Katzen:

“the special role that the group composed of folks like Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, and Irving Kristol (all Jews) played in the lead-up to the Iraqi war. Anyone who knows anything knows that neocons are primarily Jewish. According to Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, it was Irving Kristol (former communist) who invented the word “neocon” and according to Wikipedia, Kristol is the “founder and god-father” of neoconservatism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Katzen responded with this: “Irving Kristol played no role in the lead-up to the Iraq War, despite his Jewishness. You might be thinking of his son William, who edits a magazine as does Norman Podhoretz.”

I then told Katzen that I was not confusing William with Irving although it is likely that William (neocon pundit and Iraqi war advocate at Fox News) was influenced to some degree by his father.

In essence, I did not “assign the father’s statements to the son” as you keep insisting. And even if you were right (which you are not) isn’t this a weird justification for calling me an “a-hole”. Really Phil, that’s quite juvenile, is it not?

2. Hypocrisy: You are the one who seems obsessed with Jews since you bring it up in response to my post which had nothing with Jews. I only brought up Jews in a previous article because it was relevant to suggesting that there was a conflict of interest by higher-up’s in the government who had strong ethnic attachments to Israel. My comments were relevant to the discussion - yours were not. And I did not first bring up the issue of alleged Jewish crimes during the Middle Ages either. That was Katzen’s smart-aleck response to me pointing out the truth that war hawk neocons were primarily Jewish. By ingoring those truths and twisting things around you are misrepresenting me.

3. Both hypocrisy and disinginuity: You keep insisting that the quote by Einstein was “bogus”. It is not bogus. The words were his actual words and the quote I provided made it clear that there were other words between the two interesting sentences. Forgive me, but I did not and still don’t have access to the entire article in question (my computer won’t access the site that claim’s it’s “bogus”). Assuming that there are 8 paragraphs in between the words, that would be relevant to an argument that the words are taken out of context. Perhaps we could have a meaningful discussion about that if we wanted. But I never doubted there was a larger context to Einstein’s article. The words in question were quite striking and at least potentially revealing. I also cited other quotes by other prominent Jews (which you totally ignored) that paralleled the Einstein quote. By completely ignoring all the other quotes and authorities and by suggesting that I was promoting a lie about Einstein, you actually did to me what you are wrongfully claiming I did.

I am talking about well established facts and opinions and I cite a lot of authority in support. You repeatedly respond with childish insults, you change the subject and refuse to answer my question about your article. What is intellectual or conservative about that?

Comment by Liberius | August 29, 2007

Liberius,

You say:

> Both hypocrisy and disinginuity: You keep insisting that the quote by Einstein was “bogus”. It is not bogus.

Who cares if they are or are not bogus. What is your purpose for posting the "quote" - what does it prove?

Comment by troyvw | August 29, 2007

Troy (and Phil):

I appreciate your straight-forward response without the emotive terminology. As I have stated above, I first mentioned Jews in response to a previous article about the Iraqi war. I made the perfectly legitimate statement that Bush’s “neocon” advisers had a special role in promoting the idea of the war. I also pointed out a true fact that many people do not know (but which truly informed people do know) that most neocons are Jews. The reasons why this information is both important and relevant is that these neocon key advisors are also known for having strong ethnic interests in the security of Israel and there are very legitimate reasons to believe that Israel wanted us to attack Iraq in order to diminish the threat that Iraq posed against Israel (remember that Israel launched air strikes against the Iraqi nuclear plant, Saddam bombed Tel Aviv with scud missiles, Saddam went on TV showing off his $25,000 checks to reward families of suicide bombers during the worst stages if the second Intifada, etc). While I don’t want Israel to suffer, we must act in accordance with America’s best interests which are not necessarily the interests of foreign countries like Israel.

Remember that “neocon” means “new conservative”. In other words, these are people who used to be on the political Left. The "god father" of the neocons is Irving Kristol who is an admitted former Trotskyite (AKA communist). Many neocons were communists or at least communist sympathizers. This is readily admitted by many people including Jonah Goldberg of National Review who wrote this: “This has a lot to do with the fact that the so-called neoconservatives, who arrived a generation after National Review, were former Communists and Trotskyites.” http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200510270832.asp

I also invite you to read Ron Paul’s congressional speech entitled “Neo-conned” that discusses the problem in relation to the Iraqi war: “More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites.” http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

A very scholarly paper was co-written by the former dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html The amazing facts stated in the paper cannot be ignored but many tried to dismiss it as “anti-Semitic”. This is how the Left operates. They try to crush truth and dissent and change the subject by pulling out the “race card” which is why it is outrageous that Phil and Katzen try to play it on me and then IC censors me when I try to defend myself with tons of perfectly credible authority.

I totally concede that Bush and Cheney bear the primary responsibility for the Iraqi war. But my points about the neocons are that: (1) they have a conflict of interest because of their strong ethnic ties to Israel and (2) their judgment is suspect because of the historical relationship of key neocons to communism during the coldest days of the cold war. Neocons should not have the President's ear but their presence and influence in the Bush administration is phenominal. Neocons also have an extremely disproportionate influence in the few media outlets that are branded as conservative (e.g. Fox News, National Review, Weekly Standard, certain radio commentators, etc.)

We true, traditional conservatives need to understand what is going on. More to follow.

Comment by Liberius | August 29, 2007

Troy:

Obviously, Phil cares whether the Einstein quote is bogus or not, he’s the one who brought it up in this discussion. Actually, I too care about whether it is bogus but the statement that the quoted words were separated by 8 paragraphs does not prove it was bogus, it merely shows that there is a lot of context and misinterpretation is possible (and I concede that).

What does the Einstein quote prove? I don’t claim it necessarily PROVES anything but it did lend support to what I was arguing at the time. At the time (several weeks ago) I committed the “moral crime” of pointing out the truth that neocons were mostly hyper-ethnocentric Jews who had a historical relationship with communism in America and who showed a strong loyalty to the foreign nation of Israel. Therefore, we should be cautious about our President taking their advice on so many crucial matters like going to war with an enemy of Israel. (Of course, I know we had problems with Saddam that transcended the Israeli issue.)

In response to my perfectly legitimate concerns, the old “anti-Semitic” race card stunt was pulled in order to dodge the issue and take a cheap shot at me. Someone made the statement that Jews were victimized by Christians in order to distract me and put me on the defensive. I responded to that by saying what was often labeled in history as “anti-Semitism” was often a defensive response to Jewish misbehavior. The Einstein quote alluded to that. I also included corroborative quotes by Samuel Roth and Bernard Lazare who, like Einstein, were prominent Jews.

It was, and is, my position that many people have an unfair, prejudiced attitude against Christendom. Even many “conservatives” share this prejudice when it comes to the history of Jewish-Gentile relations. Too many people are close-minded to the mere possibility that maybe, just maybe, the Jews might be chiefly responsible for the ethnic strife that has occurred. Somebody is at fault, but must it always be the Gentiles? I believe it is wrong to ignore the historical events that preceded what has been called anti-Jewish “pogroms”. For example, people have called the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg anti-Semitic acts. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Modern/Overview_The_Story_19141948/WWI_and_the_Jews/American_Jewry_Between_The_Wars/RadicalPolitics/Rosenbergs.htm The Rosenbergs wrote letters from prison describing themselves as martyrs for the Jewish cause. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n14_v45/ai_13213159/pg_7 But I have no doubt that they were justly killed because of their treason in giving Stalin the secrets to the atomic bomb.

Previously, I only provided a smaller part of one Roth comment. Let me give you the larger context here. This was written in Roth's book “Jews Must Live” which was published in 1934. Footnote #31 at the end of Chapter XIII reads as follows:

"The next time you read about a particularly bloody pogrom and pause to wonder how Christians, dedicated to a religion of mercy, can exercise so much brutality against the Jews, remember that the Jew wheedles all the mercy out of his neighbors in the ordinary course of business. He lies and cheats until he is caught. When caught, instead of accepting punishment, he moans and tears his hair, invokes the sores of ancestors in their graves and living relations at the point of death in hospitals, until the wronged gentile, nauseated, lets him go. Then, thumbing his nose at the gentile behind his back, the Jew goes about his business the same way, lying and cheating now doubly to make up for lost time. A pogrom is usually the climax of years of such relentless goading. Do you wonder that when the final reckoning comes the gentile is absolutely merciless?"

The entire book, which is the fascinating look into the mind of a Jew who speaks very candidly about Jewish culture, can be read free on-line here: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/roth.htm

I am a Christian. I have never harmed and never ever advocated the harming of Jews nor will I ever do so but I am interested in the truth. We need to know the truth. I am not afraid or ashamed to address the forbidden topic of Jewish history and none of us should be. For this and many other reasons, I don’t think it is fair or appropriate to say I am crazy.

Comment by Liberius | August 29, 2007

And don't forget, we can get an equally accurate look at what all Gentiles believe by reading Mein Kampf! It's a fascinating book into the mind of a Gentile who speaks candidly about white culture, and what we must do to preserve it.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 29, 2007

Yes Phil. That kind of anti-intellectualism is what I've come to expect from you. By your logic we should doubt that 2+2=4 if we discovered that at some point Hitler believed the same thing and actually wrote about it. He wrote about Jews largely because Jews were so actively involved in the efforts to establish communism in Germany at the time, just as they were at the forefront of communist revolution in Russia and other countries. Hitler knew Jews were becoming increasingly unpopular and he took political advantage of the situation while covering up evidence that his own paternal grandfather was probably Jewish.

Just two years after hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of British died fighting Germany in World War I, Winston Churchill wrote this truly amazing article for a newspaper in 1920 (near the time Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. Here’s an excerpt:

“The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.”

I strongly recommend that everyone read this short but mind-boggling article. After all, I don’t want to be accused of taking Winston Churchill out of context: http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/zvb/zvb1.html By the way, I disagree with Churchill's article in a few respects, one of which is that I don't believe it is a "conspiracy".

I’m glad we defeated the Nazis. I just wish more Jews would credit