The answer is: they’re both equally nuts. 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.
People like to visualize the difference between Left-Right political views by drawing a straight line. “Moderates” are in the middle, and the farther one moves left or right from the center, the more “liberal” or “conservative” these views become.
To an extent it’s a helpful tool to identify political ideas. However, when the opinions they represent approach the ends of the line, something curious happens. Rather than just continue out ad infinitum, they begin to curve back and form a circle. 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.
9/11
“[N]o one wants to talk about who's really behind the 9/11 attacks … Clearly it points to elements within the government …. If it's an inside job, it has to be inside the military-industrial government complex."
** 9/11Truth.org http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070528190609938
“The CIA trained, funded and protected Bin Laden [because] the government needed a crisis to convince the people to willingly give up their liberty in exchange for safety. … Bloodthirsty globalists are using the terrorist attacks to scare the population into accepting high-tech slavery and a new world order police state.”
** Alex Jones http://www.infowars.com/tyranny.htm
Immigration
“Can you think of any positive reasons why we need one more immigrant whether legal or illegal? Name a single valued point of adding more foreigners to our country in the 21st century. … These new immigrants arrive from totally incompatible cultures. They are the seeds of cancer sewn into our social fabric that will eventually destroy our nation. … Let's shut down America's borders. Let's stop all immigration.”
**Frosty Wooldridge http://www.rense.com/general69/stopallimmigration.htm
“The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service's military-style "Operation Gatekeeper" has killed over 600 Mexican migrants. … The U.S. Border separates families, communities, and nations. It also keeps Third World workers and farmers under regimes where wage rates are drastically depressed through violent repression — this allows the United States to make huge profits off of its investments abroad. We the undersigned call for an end to … policies restricting people's free movement across the border.”
** Petition sponsored by the Maoist Internationalist Movement – California http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/cal/GKeepAdvance.txt
Crime
“Though the United States steadfastly denies it, presently there are many political prisoners in the United States, the majority of them Black/New Afrikans who were targets of the COINTELPRO "Black Nationalist Hate Groups" program. Many of these brothers and sisters have been incarcerated for decades.”
** Prison Activist Resource Center http://www.prisonactivist.org/
“Guns don't kill people, ni**ers kill people.”
** Tightrope (Neo-Nazi website) http://www.tightrope.cc/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=90
Homosexuality
“Only reactionaries and conservatives believe in the idea of 'natural man'. Just what is so different in human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom is their 'unnaturalness'. Civilisation is in fact our evolution away from the limitations of the natural environment and towards its ever more complex control. It is not 'natural' to travel in planes. It is not 'natural' to take medicines and perform operations. Clothing and shoes do not grow on trees. Animals do not cook their food. This evolution is made possible by the development of technology-i.e. all those tools and skills which help us to control the natural environment. … The sexist culture gives straight men privileges which, like those of any privileged class, will not be surrendered without a struggle, so that all of us who are oppressed by this culture (women and gay people), must band together to fight it. The end of the sexist culture and of the family will benefit all women, and gay people.”
Gay Liberation Front Manifesto http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/pwh/glf-london.html
[In] recent years the practice of homosexuality has become lethal in a much more direct and immediate manner. AIDS is a "gift" from the gay community.
Section q http://www.sectionq.com/index.php?page=homosexuality
Bonus citation: “Canadian scientists published a study which found some connection between left-handedness and homosexuality. … The authors point out that left-handedness has been associated with a wide range of indicators of reduced fitness, from the standpoint of natural (Darwinian) selection. Left-handed people, the authors say, have a smaller number of offspring, higher number of spontaneous abortions, lower birth weight, higher number of serious accidents, higher rates of serious disorders, and a shorter life span. Left-handedness has similarly been linked to neural tube defects, autism, stuttering, and schizophrenia. The authors conclude by discussing possible biological reasons for the link between left-handedness and homosexuality. Their preferred explanation is that both left-handedness and homosexuality result from ‘biological developmental errors.’”
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality http://www.narth.com/docs/lefthand.html
Race
“Prehistoric migrations of the Whites since the dawn of time carried with them the germs of intellect and culture which would later develop. When races are in permanent contact, there is racial intermarriage creating a mongrel race. However, the language, carvings, statues, and monuments remain to prove that members of the White race once built the civilization.”
** The Importance of Race in History: http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/race02.html
“The black race, which is the superior primordial grandfather of all the other pale weaklings must jealously guard and preserve its regal status, must not be diluted, must remain pure, so that the majestic pride, strength, fortitude, and medicinal blood, will continue to preserve it against natural forces and against the recalcitrant and belligerent weak races.”
** Nigerianvillagesquare http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/palava-hut/39552-my-friend-wants-marry-outcast-9.html
Jews
Slogan of the Vanguard News Network: “No Jews. Just Right.”
** Vanguard News Network http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
“[T]he Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler.' Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.”
** Speech by Louis Farrakhan http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/farrfact.htm
The War in Iraq
“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.”
** Ron Paul http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
“[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.”
** Hillary Clinton http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/ and http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/195654.shtml and
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366
This last entry appears to be a tie. Either that, or someone is plagiarizing the other candidate’s website.
The circle is complete.
Why does Phil keep talking about the Jews?
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
holy cats Liberius is crazy….
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
>>I may have to re-evaluate some of my other conclusions about you
What might those be? That I am not retarded? :)
Well, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves :)
Glad you’ve got a good sense of humor.
Take care, Phil
“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.
*** 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.
>>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
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.
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
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 us for that instead of constantly claiming that we are on track to become Nazis and even suggesting that the Boy Scouts of America are like Hitler Youth. I say something is very wrong with that. So shoot me.
Well, this has become a familiar headache…
Good to see you again, Liberius. I was beginning to think I’d never hear Mr. Roth’s name or read his magical words ever again. I agree with you that his “candid,” temperate, and fair-minded writings are a good, solid source for analysis of “the forbidden topic of Jewish history.”
I hope to see many more quotes from our hero Mr. Roth in future IC posts, as they cast bright rays of light into the dark, Jew-poisoned wells.
I know exactly what you mean, Liberius. You can hardly run into a Jew nowadays without hearing about how the Boy Scouts are our Hitler Youth.
The neocons, as every informed person knows, are particularly hostile to the Boy Scouts. This is probably because we’re talking about the Boy Scouts of America, and not of Israel–the country to which neocons are truly loyal.
And, for those of you, like Phil (who went to the University of Chicago–just like Paul Wolfowitz!!!), who think neocons are nothing more than regular loyal Americans with certain kinds of opinions about how American power should be exercised on the world stage, consider this: Irving Kristol was an anti-Stalin Communist when he was 19. Ha! Take that!
Case closed.
Katzen:
Hello again. Thanks, I missed you too. I once inquired if you were Jewish and I don’t remember hearing the answer. Go ahead, ignore Roth, Lazare, and Einstein but what about the writings of Winston Churchill, Shakespeare, St. Thomas Aquinas, Napoleon, Voltaire, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Mark Twain, H.G. Wells, Francis Bacon, Martin Luther, Roman and Greek philosophers and historians, many popes and the princes of Christendom and many other prominent, respected and well-educated Jews and Gentiles alike in regard to their observations of the age-old ethnic conflicts which, in their view, were caused mainly by malice and greed that were so often found in the Jewish culture. What about the Jewish Talmud which has promoted hate against non-Jews who are referred to as “Goyim” (AKA cattle)? Here are a few more quotes but there are so many others:
MARIA THERESA, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1771 – 1789) “Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commits all deeds which an honorable man despises.
Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible.”
GOLDWIN SMITH, Professor of Modern History at Oxford, wrote in Nineteenth Century, October 1881 “The Jew alone regard his race as superior to humanity, and looks forward not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them all and to its final ascendancy under the leadership of a tribal Messiah.”
SHAW, GEORGE BERNARD. 20th century British dramatist. “This is the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word: the Jew. (London Morning Post, December 3, 1925) This craving for bouquets by Jews is a symptom of racial degeneration. The Jews are worse than my own people. Those Jews who still want to be the chosen race (chosen by the late Lord Balfour) can go to Palestine and stew in their own juice. The rest had better stop being Jews and start being human beings.
(Literary Digest, October 12, 1932)
PRIMO DE RIVERA, JOSE. 20th century Spanish political reformer (assassinated by the Communists). He stressed that the instruments of Jewish domination in the modern world are money and the press, and that communism is an instrument of international Jewish capitalism used to smash and afterwards rule the nations. (El Estado Nacional)
CAPOTE, TRUMAN. 20th century American writer. In an interview, he assailed “the Zionist mafia” monopolizing publishing today, and protested a tendency to suppress things that do not meet with Jewish approval. (Playboy magazine, March 1968)
CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, of Hungary quoted in B’nai B’rith Messenger, January 28, 1949 “The troublemakers in Hungary are the Jews… they demoralize our country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is torturing Hungary.”
HILAIRE BELLOC, renown historian in G. K.’s WEEKLY, February 4, 1937 “The propaganda of Communism throughout the world, in organization and direction is in the hands of Jewish agents. As for anyone who does not know that the Bolshevist movement in Russia is Jewish, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppression of our deplorable press.”
HENRY ADAMS (Descendant of President John Adams), in a letter to John Hay, October 1895 “The Jewish question is really the most serious of our problems.”
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/repute.htm
“The war against the Boy Scouts”:
Nat Hentoff, who is Jewish, wrote an article with this title in the Jewish World Review. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff061901.asp He pointed out how especially the ACLU was wrongfully harassing the Boy Scouts. I appreciate Hentoff’s view here but what he did not mention, and what too few people realize, is that the ACLU is very disproportionately Jewish and the type of culture warfare waged by the ACLU parallels that of other many Jewish radicals throughout history. He also didn’t mention that the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League (as Jewish as it gets) are behind the same efforts.
As for the religious Jews, “Reform Jewish leaders are recommending that parents withdraw their children from membership in the Boy Scouts of America and that synagogues end their sponsorship of Scout troops. In a memorandum to congregations dated Jan. 5, 2001, the Joint Commission on Social Action of the Reform movement asked congregations to sever ties to the Boy Scouts, or at least publicly protest the Scouts’ policy by withdrawing financial support or asking local Scout groups to rewrite their charters. The Reform movement represents 40 percent of the America’s 6 million Jews.” (New York Times, 1/10/01)
There are other non-Jewish groups who are trying to subvert support for the Boy Scouts but as Winston Churchill said, “the part played by the (Jews) in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.” Here, joining the scouts is considered a “hate crime”. http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/boyscouts.html
Katzen: I just read Liberius’ last comments from Maria Theresa to Henry Adams. Boy, those Jews sure do get around!
I do have a bone to pick with you, though. You let the cat out of the bag by exposing my U of Chicago-neocon connection. When I went through my indoctrination … er, I mean studies, I was secretly inducted into the HJS (Honorary Jew Society), where I was given my neo-con marching orders to support the Iraq war thirty years later. Fortunately, I was already circumcised, so I was able to skip part of the induction ceremony. But I try to closely adhere to all of the other provisions of the HJS secret society, including not eating cheeseburgers on Friday.
Anyway, just after Temple … I mean Church every Saturday, I receive my new set of talking points direct from Tel Aviv. This is why I’ve been so hard on Liberius. But he does raise a good point. You’ve never publicly revealed whether you are a JEW! You’ve been ducking that question, and THE WORLD NEEDS AN ANSWER! It’s one thing for a cattle-guy like me to sell out and betray my faith and country by speaking out against rampant anti-Jewish stupidity. But at least I’m not a Jew, so I can always return to Liberius’ good graces by renouncing my evil ways. You, on the other hand, have not answered Liberius’ “inquiry” and told us whether you are one of these ungrateful Jews who never properly thanked us for defeating Hitler so you could return to stealing our money and cheating us on real estate deals. But at least the Jews are not like the Negros, because as far as I can tell the Jews stay away from our women.
Anyway, the voices in my head are telling me that it’s time to end this message. Tel Aviv is telepathically communicating their next set of neocon talking points directly into my cerebral cortex. Until then, inquiring minds want to know … are you a JEW, or aren’t you? And if you are, can this condition be “cured’?
[Anyone want to take bets on which part of this whole exercise Liberus’ thinks is parody, and which parts are real?]
Genius! What else could the existence of anti-Semites show but that Jews brought the anti-Semitism on themselves?
But then, I wonder, how do we know that the anti-Gentile sentiments expressed in the Talmud weren’t the product of Gentile “malice and greed?” I mean, since the fact that certain people hate other people shows that those who are hated brought it on themselves…
I appreciate the mountain of evidence you’ve compiled, and be assured that Napoleon’s thoughts on the matter carry great weight with me. As does a mangled Einstein quote, where an ellipses (…) represents several paragraphs and changes Einstein’s actual meaning.
Remember all — the title of this essay was, “Who’s Crazier — the Far Left, or the Far Right?” Liberius may be the tie-breaker!
Phil,
I have blessed this post using an ancient Jewish ritual so that Liberius won’t be able to read it.
Like you, I receive my orders from elsewhere. I won’t say where, but let’s just say that my contact lives in Brooklyn and I know him as “Chaim.”
I am indeed Jewish, though not active or religous. It is hard to attend high holiday ceremonies when you have to spend so much time dealing disingenuously with Gentiles.
But I still attend the Passover seder. Sure, I could consume Christian blood anytime I want to, but the stuff they use in the matzah is top quality. Let me tell you–the best reason to convert to Judaism is the food.
Liberius,
So what is you solution to the “jewish question”?
Troy
Troy:
My recommendation is education, primarily in history and morality (as opposed to the heads-in-the-sand approach of Phil). Also, we should strive to support cinema, TV, newspapers, and magazines that are more reflective of our traditional values, Christian heritage, and more respresentative of people who are proud of this country and it’s roots.
Katzen: My Sicilian wife knows how to keep a kosher home, the by-product of associating with too many members of your Tribe over the years. (We did check our wallets every time we visited their home to see if any money was missing, and counted the silverware in our house every time they left our home).
The food is indeed good, but I’m still having a bit of trouble with this whole shellfish and pork thing, which makes attending my secret HJS meetings a bit difficult. I have to get a special Rabbinical blessing before every meeting, but it’s a small price to pay to keep my neocon credentials in good standing.
By the way, my contact’s name is Moishe (Rosen). If you know anything about him, you’ll understand that our meetings can get kind of confusing.
Keep the faith!
Phil
But there will never be a “solution”. Enthic strife is a fact of human nature and will continue as we humans are inherently sinful to one degree or another. However, in America things have become far too much out of balance. By opposing the ignorance and apathy advocated by Phil and the like, we may be able to restore some balance.
Liberius — I hear they’re doing a remake of “Birth of a Nation”. Look for it at a Christian cinema coming soon! And maybe you could start a petition drive to remove the “Judeo” from “Judeo-Christian values” that we normally speak about, so the nation can stay religiously-focused while we wipe out all the ignorance and apathy people like me propose.
Open a vent in the bunker and let in a little more fresh air. There are some other things “taking root” inside the compound that need to see the light of day.
By the way Liberius, since Katzen is the Jew and I’m the Gentile-sell out, shouldn’t the phrase be “Katzen and the like”, not “Phil and the like”? While I’m grateful for the top billing, doesn’t it weaken your argument it bit about Jews being the problem?
Just a thought.
Phil:
No, I phrased it correctly (if Katzen is actually Jewish and if he fits certain Jewish stereotypes). You see, there are many Jewish propensities that I am unhappy with but I will be the first to admit that ignorance and apathy are definitely not among them. Quite the opposite is true. Jews in fact have the highest average IQ of any other ethnic group in the world and they are also among the best educated. Also, they are a people who are extremely concerned about the issues. Some would say they are the ones who are “obsessive” and “neurotic” about these issues. And as you have pointed out, Katzen is loyal to his people and his heritage, you are not.
The tragedy is that many Jews act the way they do because they believe it is to their benefit. They gain power, wealth, and ethnic/national unity at the expense of the Gentile who is subverted in these areas. They need people like you whom they refer to as “useful idiots”. This is a conflict in ethnic philosophy. The Christian principles reflect a “win-win” strategy in dealing with the peoples of the world. But all too often Jewish culture promotes the “I win, you lose” philosophy. So yes, you have correctly pointed out the contradiction in terms as to “Judeo-Christian”.
Clearly, I am in the minority of Christians who recognize that we have little in common with Jews. The vast majority of the Jews we have been concerned with in this debate are Ashkenazi Jews who may not even have much of a blood-connection to the ancient Hebrew people but more with the Old Kazar Empire (now part of Southern Russia) who converted to Judaism for political reasons more than a thousand years ago. Regardless, the Old Testament which depicts a vengeful and jealous god who directs the Jews to commit genocide against the Philistines and other non-Jews is (in my humble opinion) not the loving God of the New Testament. But regardless of the truth behind these ancient religious and historic issues, I know what is happening today. I know what has happened in the last several hundreds of years.
I must now go catch a plane. When I return on Tuesday I suspect this particular course of the debate will be concluded but the larger debate will rage on as long as at least some Gentile men (gentlemen) do not become fools, cowards, or traitors to their heritage.
Katzen: You should be insulted. You have a genetically higher IQ than I do because of your religion. Yet, you are part of my gang.
Liberius: Have a safe trip. Just make sure the pilot isn’t a Jew in case he decides to “commit genocide” against you and deliberately crash the plane. Maybe you can give the pilot the Larry Craig-once over to check if he’s ritually circumcised, or just medically circumcised, to help you decide. Or, like you did with Katzen, you can just “inquire” about his religion before you board the plane, and make your choice that way. But then again, if he’s a sneaky Jew, he may not tell you the truth. What a dilemma!
Troy: I hope your question has finally been answered. I’m a firm believer that if you let someone talk long enough, their true feelings/motives/personality will come out.
It’s kind of scary that someone who professes to be a Conservative actually uses phrases like this, and thinks this way:
“Katzen is loyal to his people and his heritage, you are not.”
“They gain power, wealth, and ethnic/national unity at the expense of the Gentile who is subverted in these areas. They need people like you whom they refer to as ‘useful idiots’.”
“… as long as at least some Gentile men (gentlemen) do not become fools, cowards, or traitors to their heritage.”
Disagreement over issues is one thing. Race and ethnic-based bigotry is another. I think you pegged it correctly with your first response. This guy is “crazy”. And a little bit dangerous.
Dear Phillip Ellis Jackson-Corleone,
Did I ever let you know just how much I appreciate your being my useful idiot?
Of course I know Moishe! As everyone who has bothered to study the matter can attest to, every Jew is in cahoots with every other Jew (excepting, of course, for Samuel Roth, “Einstein,” and other “candid” maverick Jews). Therefore, if a Jew at the ACLU goes on a vendetta against the Boy Scouts, Moishe and Chaim and I all accept full responsibility. We have to. It’s in the Talmud.
This can put me in an awkward position. You have no idea how hard it is to control investment banking while simultaneously promoting Communism. (Or maybe you do, as an honorary Jew). And to support the ACLU lawsuit over the NSA wiretaps while offering equal support to the same Jewish neocons responsible for that program.
I am only able to bear the heavy burden of this contradiction because of my abnormally high IQ. Though you were not aware of it, at U of Chicago, Professor Leo Strauss (and probably Professor Milton Friedman, who once worked in the Roosevelt Adminstration and was therefore nothing more than a socialistic New Deal liberal) instilled in you the necessary mental conditions to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to destroy Christian civilization.
Though you didn’t realize until now that you were doing so, I thank you for being a traitor to your heritage. Since your wife is obviously in the Mafia, her family’s Jewish consiglieri (Meyer Lansky?) must have done something right.
Speaking of the Mafia, Liberius forgot to mention Marlon Brando as having been on to us (before, that is, we killed him). I think I understand why. Anyone can see that Vito Corleone was just bitter (from beyond the grave) that Hyman Roth tried to kill his son, Michael. That event might furnish distrust between us, but you and your wife have nothing to worry about. Your idiocy is too useful.
Shalom.
By the way, here’s a little object lesson for Liberius about why quoting someone in context matters, instead of just picking out selected sentences. Here’s what his comment #89 looks like with the Liberius-treatment
“Jews in fact have the highest average IQ of any other ethnic group in the world and they are also among the best educated. … Clearly, I am in the minority of Christians who recognize that we have little in common with Jews. …. But regardless of the truth behind these ancient religious and historic issues, I know what is happening today. … I must now go catch a plane.”
Katzen: It’s always nice to be appreciated!