Three weeks ago I did a post about the writer "Spengler," showing how he used two bylines. Under the byline "Shushon" he was dispensing Christian Zionism at the snooty religious journal First Things, saying that Jews are divinely ordained to rule Jerusalem, and Christians need them to do so. Meantime on his own forum, as a popular columnist for Asia Times online, "Spengler" gave in to racist rants. Saying Islam is a dying religion, he called for "more war, more barbed wire, more killing, please!" for Arabs.
Now let's take this Three faces of Eve story another step. I believe that Spengler, and Shushon, are pseudonyms used by David P. Goldman, a Jewish harpsichordist who works in the financial industry in New York, and has a past as an economist for Lyndon LaRouche, the conspiratorial economist/cultist. I've looked into this at the impetus of Mark, a religious correspondent of mine who marshalled the evidence for both these posts (and who says the Goldman=Spengler connection is widely made on the internet).
Why do we think Goldman=Spengler? And what does it matter anyway? Hey, lots of writers use pseudonyms.
The second question is easy. This case is creepy. A theological writer who markets Zionism to Catholics ought to tell his readers he attends the Park Avenue Synagogue (where Goldman worshiped not long ago).
And any writer who calls for more killing and barbed wire for Arabs shouldn’t be able to hide from those views behind fancy pseudonyms–not when he writes for a religious journal, or when he goes on the Kudlow show on CNBC, or writes for Forbes, as David Goldman has done in his capacity as financial analyst.
As to the main question, all my evidence is textual/circumstantial. Goldman has not responded to numerous overtures. I left a few messages for him at his latest financial sock, Paris-based Asteri Capital. And I sent a letter to him at his address in NYC saying what I was about to say here. No answer. Last week I met Pepe Escobar of Asia Times online and asked him if Spengler is Goldman. He said, “I can’t tell you. I know him and he’s a nice guy.”
So let’s go to that circumstantial evidence.
Mark started me with four articles. Two were signed by Goldman several years ago in the online journal Jewish-Christian Relations. This one in 1999, “Has Franz Rosenzweig’s Time Come?” and this one in 2000 on liturgical music. Then fast forward to this 2007 article signed by Spengler in First Things on “Franz Rosenzweig and the Abrahamic Religions,” and this one lately by Shushon on “Zionism for Christians.” (Mark’s persuasive case that Spengler=Shushon is in my last post on this matter.)
The greatest similarity is in themes. The 1999 Goldman article “presents in embryonic form most of the themes that are now familiar to readers of Spengler, especially and obviously the reliance upon Rosenzweig and Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI),” says Mark. For all three authors–Goldman, Shushon and Spengler– Franz Rosenzweig is a hugely important figure in religious history, especially his thoughts on the relations of Christians and Jews.
And Mark says that Spengler’s style is unmistakably that of Goldman’s. That’s where I put my dime. Words like the “living” Jewish community pop up in both Goldman and Spengler eight years apart. The phrase “stands surety” is used by both Goldman and Spengler in the same context, the importance of the Jewish people to the Christian world. The idea that the Jews are “divinely” commanded to be a nation is embraced by both Goldman and Spengler. Both writers use a word most writers eschew: “eschew.”
But here is the calling card. Both Spengler and Goldman write endlessly about paganism. Look thru Goldman on Rosenzweig: Pagan empires. Pagan anti-Semitism. Crypto pagans. Falling
back into paganism. Slip back into paganism. Nietzsche’s paganism. Pagan
faultlines of
Now read Spengler on Rosenzweig, and it is the same feast of paganism. I’m not even going to count them all up. The giveaway are three phrases: “residual paganism” and “inner pagan” and “crypto-pagan,” all used by Spengler and Goldman too. How many other writers use such phrases?
Another morsel is an agricultural fable that repeats itself in Goldman and Spengler.
Mark turned up a column by David Goldman, in Forbes:
“There’s an old joke about the farmer who wanted to train his mule to work on less and less food. Eventually he got the animal trained to where it would work with no food at all—but then, by a rotten stroke of luck, the animal dropped dead.”
Now from Spengler’s post, Life and Death in the Bible:
“Modern materialism has weaned the industrial world off spiritual food, like the thrifty farmer who trained his donkey to eat less by reducing its rations each day. “Just when I got I had him trained to live on nothing,” the farmer complained, “the donkey had to die!” Like the donkey, the modern world has died when its spiritual rations were cut to nothing.”
Who is Goldman? Mark refers to the bio at the JCR website:
David P. Goldman has written on the subject of music and religion in the Rivista Internazionale di Musica Sacra, The Musical Quarterly, and other scholarly journals. He taught history of music theory at the Mannes College of Music in New York City, and music appreciation at Queens College of New York. As a choral accompanist and harpsichordist, he has performed numerous works of Christian music. He is professionally active as an investment banker in New York, and writeull [sic] column for the global edition of Forbes magazine. Mr. Goldman attends Park Avenue Synagogue in New York.
Mark says that Goldman worked for Cantor, Fitzgerald, and before that was the chief economist for Lyndon Larouche. This is from economist Jude Wanniski’s site (watch out on the link here):
My “partnership” with Lyndon LaRouche was only a loose contact with his chief economist at the time, David Goldman. All contact with LaRouche ended when Goldman became chief economist at my firm, since leaving Polyconomics to run an investment bank.
And critics of LaRouche have posted an article written by Goldman and another man accusing Wall Street Zionists of giving nuclear secrets to Israel. From that site:
The LaRouche organization’s ultimate propaganda attack on Israel (1978). Uwe Henke von Parpart and David Goldman claim that a “nest” of Wall Street “traitors” using their “Zionist credentials” stole the secret of the H-bomb and gave it to Mossad, thus giving Israel the means to “destroy the United States.”
Mark says: “If you rummage around the internet with Google, you’ll find that the Larouche/Goldman parting was acrimonious, with Larouche accusing Goldman of financial misconduct and of going over to the neocons…. Basically, Spengler IS a neocon… The difference is this: Spengler says that the neocon idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East is unrealistic and misguided (and he may well be right about that); for Spengler the proper response to the Muslim world is to kill lots of people.”
I asked Mark why he thinks Goldman doesn’t use his real name. “I think 9/11 led him to put some thought into the identity he wanted to present on the internet when he went for the big time,” Mark says. “He’s undergone a conversion from his earlier days, to say the least.” Then he speculated about Goldman’s motivations: “Spengler has said a lot of controversial things, and that might not go down too well with the high profile employers he’s had… He may have wanted to sidestep his Larouchie past, and his rants against Wall Street Zionists. He may also have wished to portray himself as an Olympian intellect, above it all and all knowing, and downplay his Jewish background….His new-found Jewish identity–contrasting sharply with Larouche’s virulent anti-Zionism, bordering on anti-Semitism–would have been inconvenient for purposes of the Spengler persona he wished to present. Notice, in his pre-Spengler days at JCR, writing occasional articles for a little known site, Goldman had no problem with his Jewish identity.”
Mark and I are both irritated here by Spengler’s putting himself forward as a Zionist salesman to Christians.
Says Mark: “If you look at his Rosenzweig article at JCR, you’ll notice that already in 1999 he was quoting then Cardinal Ratzinger extensively. However, the early Spengler was definitely focused on evangelicals, many of whom are well known for their support of Israel. When Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI Spengler appeared to shift his focus to Catholics. He has for years mistakenly believed that Ratzinger supports his (Spengler/Goldman’s) own views on Christian-Jewish relations… I don’t say that Spengler exactly has pretended he wasn’t Jewish, but that he was perhaps deliberately ambiguous about his background, affecting a familiarity with things Christian that might convince those with only a nodding acquaintance.”
Mark also points out the narrowness of Spengler’s field of reference.
“He’s a good writer and has some interesting ideas. What’s noticeable after a while is that he has a very limited background, sometimes quite idiosyncratic when you scratch the surface. His knowledge of Christianity is largely derived from Kierkegaard and of Judaism from Rosenzweig and Wyschogrod–none necessarily mainstream thinkers. In other words, he does the best he can with limited resources, but like most fanatics he tries to use those limited resources to construct global theories….
“Another example: his ideas about biblical historicity are largely derived from a small number of older thinkers influenced by Albright which now tends toward a type of neo-fundamentalism–and not by mainstream scholarship, whether Christian or Israeli. When confronted [on his forum], he just digs in his heels and sticks with the people that say the things he wants to hear: there seem to be some echoes of the bronze age in the bible, ergo, God entered into a foreskin-for-real-estate swap with Abraham for ever and ever, led the children of Israel through the Red Sea, handed stone tablets to Moses on top of a mountain, etc., etc. Don’t bother asking how all that follows with such specificity from the vaguest of connections to disputed Bronze Age allusions. To me, this is typical of the Larouchie approach to the world. And more than that, it shows that his conclusions are predetermined, rather than being the result of an actual weighing of evidence.”
The key word in that analysis is fanaticism. First Things, a legit journal of theology, is running the work of a fanatic, without saying who he really is. But then FT is in bed with the neocons. It is edited by Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and neocon. On its boards are Midge Decter, neocon matriarch, and the ever more neoconnish Jean Bethke Elshtain. Its features editor, R.R. Reno, is a writer I have come to admire for a great piece about manual labor in Commentary. I bet he is appalled by this imposture. What say you R.R.?
Says Mark, “FT regularly runs articles by Avery Cardinal Dulles, certainly one of the most eminent American Catholic theologians. The aim is to be highbrow, an ecumenical kind of Commentary, perhaps. So FT has given Spengler/Shushon a forum to try to recruit Catholics to the Zionist cause. “Shushon” presents Zionism in a theological way for the intellectuals… He conceals what may be entailed for those who are deluded into believing that support of the state of Israel is a matter of fundamental theology for Catholics: once on board with that concept, they may (if Spengler has his way) be called upon to support “more war, more barbed wire, more killing, please!” (which is actually a rip-off of Michael Ledeen.) After all, if support of the Zionist cause is written into the Creed, so to speak, there’s no backing away from the implications: the end will justify the means at that point. For that reason, I think Neuhaus owes it to his readers to reveal who the author Shushon really is, so they will be aware that his true agenda is not academic theology but power politics.”
I may be wrong. If I am, I urge Goldman to get in touch with me. My readers know I am happy to correct my mistakes.
But I don’t think I am wrong. And Goldman’s deceptions get at one of my main problems with Zionism. Fearful of abandonment, it has marketed itself to non-Jewish westerners again and again in unstraightforward ways. Zionism–always in America’s best interest! Zionism–an essential part of Catholic teaching! When actually if you go to AIPAC, you find that the passion for Zionism is pretty straightforward: a lot of (generally older) Jews care very deeply about Zionism for very Jewish reasons, having to do with anti-Semitism, assimilation, and religious election. These issues have bedeviled our foreign policy. The least the fanatics could do for us is to be straightforward about where they’re coming from.
Related posts:
- Wowie zowie–David Goldman sheds nom-de-plume and LaRouche credential but not the genocidal orders from God
- ‘Spengler’ unwittingly outs himself as David P. Goldman
- Pseudonymous Columnist Markets Zionism to Christians–and for Arabs, ‘More Barbed Wire, More War, Please’
- David Brooks seeks to reframe Zionism
- Rabbi David Dudkevitch… David Duke Thru the Looking Glass
{ 51 comments }
The following was written awhile back somewhat tongue-in-cheek:
Duel-identity makes Judeofascists dangerously schizo; Deport them–it’s why Israel was created
http://www.judeofascism.com/2008/04/duel-identity-makes-judeofascists.html
But it is increasingly gaining merit as a real-world remedy to the Jewish Zionist network-within-a-nation-within-a-nation menace.
There is a sort of Jewish tradition of telling Catholics how to practice their religion: http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/02/jewish-zionist-war-against-salvation.html .
Here is Spengler/Goldman on Rosenzweig on Islam: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL02Aa01.html .
It packs an amazing amount of misconceptions in a short piece. Both Orthodox Christianity and Islam represent fairly direct evolution of pre-hurban Second Temple Judaism, while Rabbinic Judaism is a much later and more more divergent development of post-Hurban intellectual currents.
.
"I don't say that Spengler exactly has pretended he wasn't Jewish, but that he was perhaps deliberately ambiguous about his background, affecting a familiarity with things Christian that might convince those with only a nodding acquaintance."
Same impression here. Spengler can reel off a lot more theological references than your average layman. But he seems to have missed the whole point of religion, about loving your neighbor as yourself. He definitely evinces a cold-blooded, prejudiced hostility toward Muslims.
Good work on investigating and (apparently) outing him. It's no surprise that he is something other than what he represented himself to be. His link to the megalomaniac LaRouche is revealing. While they may have split up, 'Spengler' shares the enormous egotism of LaRouche, one of whose minions wrote this week that "the only alternative to [a banking system bailout] is a return to the American System policies of Hamilton, Lincoln, FDR, and LaRouche."
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3524banking_crisis_back.html
The convict LaRouche as American statesman — charming! Despite LaRouche being the obvious odd man out, all four could be called robust interventionists, a category to which Spengler clearly sees himself as belonging. But it's his taint of sociopathy — his internalized worldview that others are mere pawns to be manipulated for his benefit — which makes Spengler so very unpleasant to read. Thus the Asia Times has been dropped from my bookmarks, despite some other talented writers who contribute to it.
Phil, i think that jr nyquist is the neocon representative to the financial gold is real money community.
this individual spews neocon propaganda once a week to that community.
http://financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/main.html
" And Goldman's deceptions get at one of my main problems with Zionism. Fearful of abandonment, it has marketed itself to non-Jewish westerners again and again in unstraightforward ways."
THIS SEEMS SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT THE IRAQ WAR WAS MARKETED IN LESS THAN STRAIGHTFORWARD WAYS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The Republicans, especially the Bush/Cheney administration, seem to indulge quite heavily in such less than straightforward marketing.
P.S. Nice seeing Mr. Weiss on 'The Colbert Nation".
What a pity. This kid has deleted the whole Spengler article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DerHexer
The claim that it could be self-advertisement was understandable, but far from all. I voted that people that already looked into the matter be given a chance to change it. There was an interesting guy that linked his discovery in the talk section. Spengler quite obviously claimed A EU paper supported something, while, if you read the paper you'll discover it does not support him. I would have loved to alert that blogger to your article. But maybe he will find the way himself.
Thanks! http://addictomatic.com/
Calling out Spengler: http://tinyurl.com/5z7uea
And thank you to Mark for one wonderful passage! :)
.
Why did Goldman (or whoever he is) choose the nom de plume 'Spengler'? The real Spengler — Oswald — is best known for his book 'The Decline of the West' (1918). Presumably his acolyte sees the West threatened by some religious menace: 'Islamofascism,' or paganism. But the moniker may be more apt than Goldman thought.
The decline of the U.S. can be dated very precisely: to 15 August 1971, when Nixon delinked the dollar from gold, destroying the post-WW II Bretton Woods global monetary regime. As an immediate consequence, the first oil shock followed in October 1973. Real wages in the U.S. have been stagnant ever since. The apparent boom from 1982 until now has been based on (1) two-earner families, and (2) rising debt. America is in decline, and has been for nearly four decades.
But the origins of imperial decadence go back earlier, to the end of World War II. Unlike the case after previous wars, the U.S. never demobilized. Its troops stayed in Germany, Britain, Japan, and remain to this day. The wartime intelligence service became the CIA, and secret government began.
But also, as we were just reminded last month, the zionist project came to fruition in 1948. Israel would seem to be a relatively minor appendage to the U.S. empire. But the cumulative amount of tribute sent to Israel, reckoned in depreciated 2008 dollars, is profound. Add the $3 trillion cost of the Iraq war — multiplied by whatever percentage of it you attribute to the influence of Israel Lobby — and the sums easily mount into the trillions.
Israel itself could not cause collapse the United States. But its disastrous influence on U.S. mideast policy — the hopeless engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now the specter of conflict with Iran — certainly could. The economic Achilles heel of the U.S. is oil. Yet Zionism demands that the U.S. goad the Islamic world in the eye with a stick, as it finances the Israeli seige of the open sore of Gaza.
So, the neocon Spengler unwittingly casts himself as the single-handed protagonist in engineering the Decline of the West. You doin' pretty good so far, David! You gonna crash the market tomorrow, or what? Because economic collapse is probably the best and only way to discredit the neocon crime spree which sucked the lifeblood out of America, and left behind a looted shell.
That Spengler is a jew is no news for people who read him years ago. I was searching for the exact comment from Jose Pardinas when he trashed Spengler, but it seems the comment has been censored by Asia Times. The only excerpt I could find was:
"Now I know for sure that Spengler belongs to the tribe, the only tribe that is arrogant and believes in [its] superiority over others and that will go to"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Apt-BR%3Aofficial&hs=bAa&q=%22Now+I+know+for+sure+that+Spengler+belongs+to+the+tribe%2C+the+only+tribe+that+is+arrogant+and+believes+in+%5Bits%5D+superiority+over+others+and+that+will+go+to%22&btnG=Search
Sure this page will be lost in time too.
(from a letter I wrote a year ago to First Things, in which I quote from a post by Casey Khan on LRC, calling the FT bunch "Court Theologians")
[Khan] "In response to Bush's commencement address given at St. Vincent's College, a Benedictine institution outside Pittsburg, faculty, students, and families have rightly protested the president's presence on campus:
"In an open letter, St. Vincent faculty said the war in Iraq is not a just war, as defined by Catholic doctrine. The letter accused the president of launching a 'preemptive, unprovoked war' and stifling debate at home through 'fear-mongering and threats.'"
It will be interesting to hear how the court theologians respond to this incident.
St. Vincent pray for us."
[end Casey Khan quote]
That last hyperlink ("court theologians") was to George Weigel's First Things article 'Iraq: Then & Now,' which opens with the deathless sentence "Even as history continues to unfold–and explode–in ancient Mesopotamia…"
'Court theologians' pretty much sums it up. How JRN, Weigel and the rest of you can pretend that the war on Iraq is anything but an imperialist grab at oil is nothing short of amazing. And the joke of it is, the forces of Mammon for whom you provide such prolix apologia care not one whit for your tergiversation: they would have quite happily, without qualm, ordered the slaughter without your cheerleading.
But you look awfully nice in those skirts.
How can Weigel have penned these words without being conscious of Orwell's admonition in 'Politics & the English language' about words being used to mask lies?
Weigel:
"In other words, the just war tradition is, first and foremost, a tradition of prudential political reasoning about good political ends, informed by the natural moral law; the natural law dimension of just war reasoning also creates the possibility of a public moral grammar for the public deliberation of public goods. The just war tradition begins not with casuistry about this or that particular military or nonmilitary option, and not with a set of hurdles that moral theorists set before statesmen, but with the legitimate sovereign’s moral obligation to defend and promote right order."
Ha! And the result of this casuistry? That the Iraq invasion is just!
Orwell brilliantly lampoons this style by "translating" scripture,
" Ecclesiastes 9:11 ,
“ I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. ”
into "modern English of the worst sort,"
“ Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
Elsewhere in the essay, Orwell examined what he believed to be a close association between bad prose and inhumane ideology:
“ Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."
Orwell comments that:
“ The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find—this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify—that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.
Replace "Russian totalitarianism" above with "The Rape of Iraq" and one sees the true prophetic nature of Sir George's writings. Weigel and Neuhaus would do themselves favors to read and ponder Orwell's words.
My own favorite idiocy from the Weigel piece (there were so many) is this: "The Iraq War has also had a dramatic impact in the world of ideas."
It certainly has! Torture has now returned as a defensible idea, embraced as a matter of utility by the noble defenders of Freedom's Land, and the security of the Homeland. Torture reintroduces itself into the "world of ideas," into the polite salons of the demimonde, where bluestockings sit and twitter about its advantages and, um, applications!
I hope Mr. Weigle has discovered (through an examination of his conscience) the answer to his question,
"Who would have imagined, fifty years ago, that a passion for the democratic transformation of the world would find its primary American political home in (at least some) conservative circles?"
Yes, who but the John Flynns and Murray Rothbards of the world, warning as they did against the lapdogs and court pundits of State-Corporate alliance, of what Mussolini labeled fascism, who already were appearing in Freedom's Land, thwarting the very idea of democracy while pretending always to promote it.
I used to read FT with keen interest, until I finally sickened of the pro-War monomania, seeing it as having nothing to do with true Catholicism, but everything to do with intellectual mendacity, which everywhere and in every age war-making empires find so useful.
JRN and Weigel would benefit by spending fifteen minutes surveying photos of Iraqi war dead and wounded, both ours and theirs. Then they should ask themselves what the true nature is of the program they support, who its true spiritual father is, in such contravention of the clear teachings of Christ.
But they are too lost in pride to engage in such a process of metanoia.
"But if ideas really do have consequences, the impact is likely to be significant."
Indeed.
Phil:
I don’t see any reason to publish "Spengler's" name like you did.
I pointed out on my blog two years ago
that Spengler was an old Larouchie because that fact provides some perspective for his readers. It helps them realize that, smart as he is, he’s not the most calm and level-headed of thinkers. But I didn’t publish his real name:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/so-who-is-ex-larouchie-foreign-policy.html
Obscure individuals with day jobs who want to express their views pseudononymously should be allowed to. Violating the privacy of pseudonymous Internet pundits like this has a chilling effect on free speech.
"I pointed out on my blog two years ago that Spengler was an old Larouchie because that fact provides some perspective for his readers."
But that's precisely the least relevant kind of perspective. Almost a diversion.
i am still astounded at how much evidence there is out there that shows clearly as all hell how the zionist never cared about the jews in europe…why in G-ds name do you, who call yourself jewish still insist on selling yourselves out to this movement.
there is just no defense, none, zilch, nada, zero.
http://jewsagainstzionism.com/
Rabbi Stephen Wise
As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.
This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge. He stated:
"It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference. … It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws."
…"Our Shomer 'Weltanschauung,"' Hashomer Hatzair, December 1936. Originally published in 1917, Brenner, Zionism, p. 22.
Steve, I noticed that you didn't give away his identity two years back.
I dont see an ethics around this issue. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who writes can be written about, and though there are privacy issues, a person's actual identity isnt in that zone. it's not like he's in china and going to serve a prison term.
if he loses his job because of his views, i frankly dont care; i dont think the murderous statements should have anyone's support. and the issue of making murderous statements anonymously, i think thats ugly.
anonymous–joe klein– who wrote Primary Colors got exposed for pure curiosity. and that's fine. it was considered newsworthy.
spengler's true id is obviously a real focus of interest, no matter how obscure; and in the blogosphere, whats obscure?
the politics of this make it a more newsworthy and vital piece of info. this now goes into a real datapile: manipulative pro-israel types.
"I dont see an ethics around this issue. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who writes can be written about, and though there are privacy issues, a person's actual identity isnt in that zone. it's not like he's in china and going to serve a prison term."
I pretty much agree. I'd have a different view if he were a poet or fiction writer who just wanted to write for a living in private, but Spengler doesn't seem to fall into that category.
Then again, you did drop my name- and I'm just some guy with a day job.
todd, touche. and i apologize for that. i could eliminate the reference, wherever it is.
i possessed that information on a confidential basis, so that sucks.
but commenters open themselves up to this too. look at al the speculatoin on who Sword of Gideon is. news is what people want to read sometimes.
and yes, people could blast me for not saying Mark's last name…
It's okay, Phil. I seriously doubt that you could ruin my career or reputation. I never even saw where you dropped my name.
Leander, I found this post through trackbacks. So by linking to my post, you did lead me here. Thanks!
I didn't know Weiss was on Colbert. I'll have to check that out.
I registered at the Spengler forum and tried to link to my post, but wasn't allowed to as I didn't have a high enough postcount. I was told to just copy the text sans links, but when I did so it was removed for infringing on his anonymity, which I didn't think I really did to any significant extent in the post. So apparently he takes it quite seriously. A lot of stuff was also removed from his Wikipedia article before it was deleted because it speculated about his identity.
Phil writes:
"if he loses his job because of his views, i frankly dont care; i dont think the murderous statements should have anyone's support"
More likely to lose their jobs from a tit-for-tat competition to strip privacy away from Internet commentators would be people who share your views. In this country, a lot more bosses and powerful people think pro-Palestinian statements are "murderous" than vice-versa.
And that's exactly why you shouldn't want to start an Outing War. Your pseudononymous allies have more to lose from being unmasked than your enemies.
Pseudonyms contribute to free speech. And free speech is a good thing.
Speaking of Christian Zionists…
Why God Doth Thou Make Christian Zionists So God Damn Stupid?
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-god-doth-thou-make-christian.html
"Pseudonyms contribute to free speech. And free speech is a good thing."
Steve would you ever want to out somebody that sticks to basic ethic rules? Would you at all be bothered about finding out who is behind it? … A question very much on my mind lately.
As TGGP I find it very interesting, how he supports his arguments. It's an insult of the reader. And while I never bothered to read anything of Spengler to the end before, I followed TGGP's link, and OF COURSE checked the EU report too. No doubt would have checked it if TGGP had not pointed on it. For the very simple reason, that Iran never ever before surfaced in that trade. So what audience is he addressing? Who is his target group. Obviously TGGP and me do not belong to it. So what "image" does he have of his readers? What features do the masses he wants to influence have in his mind?
That is a very condescending treatment of readers. And thus gets a high mark on my ethic meters and/or disgust meters, if you like.
As a German I feel the masses should be protected from propagandists. And while I wouldn't go public with this myself, I support Phil for doing so. It will leave traces on the net, and help people to decide.
I doubt this will harm Goldman.
And while I completely agree with the sentence before, I would stop to reading at this one:
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=934
"The Germans have jettisoned their own high culture in a paroxysm of self-disgust, to the point that young Germans cannot quote a single line of Goethe’s."
That's the good old decline of culture stuff, that has become a standard accompanying the introduction of new media. It always carries traces of the Guilded Age ideology. And yes it is a generalization.
samuel burke,
This information (Rabbi Weiss) is also in the first edition of The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black. 1984 macMillan. Since the DL took over subsequent edits, I cannot tell you whether the info was retained. But I have the 1984 book beside me and what you write about Rabbi Weiss is quoted in that book as well.
Correction to my post: should read
"1984 MacMillan. Since the ADL"
Joachim Martillo ,
Your blogsite is fascinating.
Whoops, Meant Rabbi Wise, not Weiss.
=============================
Chaim Weitzman also said the same thing in 1933.
Read Pages 259-260 of The Transfer Agreement (1984).
I don't follow your reasoning here. I can't figure out why you think it is "creepy" to "market Zionism to Catholics" using a pseudonym. Nor why "any writer who calls for more killing and barbed wire for Arabs shouldn't be able to hide from those views behind fancy pseudonyms."
I want to hear views that differ from mine, even if I find them offensive. Even if I wish no one had such views. Even if I think anyone with such views should "lose their job". Such freedom of speech requires that people be able to use pseudonyms.
I don't think it is creepy to convince Catholics to support Zionism. But I consider it "creepy" if this support is not for Zionism or better Jewish Christian relations but basically together against a new scapegoat. There is a brand of Judeo-Christian outlook that is absolutely close to white Aryanism. In fact it merges.
"Even if I think anyone with such views should "lose their job". Such freedom of speech requires that people be able to use pseudonyms."
I may be wrong, but I do not think that anybody that supports this line of thought will loose his job. Not in our societies, quite the opposite they seem to be well funded and promoted.
Nothing wrong with using pseudonyms, I do, although I am easily traceable. As I said, if you are out to trick people, they may unite to find out who you are. That's their right. That's the positive new aspect of the crowd "clowd".
Simply accept basic ethic principles, and you are absolutely safe. The services know anyway who you are.
Consider how many anonymous blogs and sites are on the net, how many of them are studied more closely and why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=934
"The Germans have jettisoned their own high culture **in a paroxysm of self-disgust**, to the point that young Germans cannot quote a single line of Goethe’s."
Meaning? The Germans may have antisemitism deeply in their genes via their cultural traditions, or the deepest meme in German culture is antisemitism brought to the height in the Holocaust (Goldhagen), but now that is not relevant. Now they have to fight bravely like Hitler's soldiers against the evil Arabs.
Absurd as it may seem, when Willy Drager made that unfortunate comment in this blog the first thought which came into my mind was:
"Hooah, King David!"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FL07Aa01.html
That was the last I read from Spengler, because it was clear to me what kind of slogan was dear to him and the extend he would go just to drop a single line of deception. One by one, one at a time.
Now I know the vanity was even greater than I thought.
"Hooah, King David Goldman!"
May one day the Willy Dragers of this world perceive to whom they fight for.
.
"The Germans may have antisemitism deeply in their genes via their cultural traditions, or the deepest meme in German culture is antisemitism brought to the height in the Holocaust (Goldhagen), but now that is not relevant. Now they have to fight bravely like Hitler's soldiers against the evil Arabs." — LeaNder
I feel your pain, LeaNder. One murderous ideology (fascism) was swept away, only to be replaced by a new one (neoconservatism).
Germany's tragic mistake was not closing the U.S. bases and sending the U.S. soldiers home, with thanks and a cannon salute. Germany remains an occupied country; Merkel dances to the neocon tune; and German soldiers serve as target practice for the Afghan resistance.
Will 'Free Europe' ever be free again? Not under the American bootheel …
———————————————
"Let me offer a theory of how the politics will play out that is more plausible than that, say, Phil Rushton is suddenly elected President-for-Life.
"We’re living in an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes moment. But those moments can go on a lot longer than Hans Christian Anderson suggested. People seldom say to themselves, “Why, yes, that little boy is right and I have been making a fool of myself. Of course the emperor has no clothes, just as Occam’s Razor would suggest.” Instead, what they typically say for a protracted period is: “What a stupid, evil little boy who attacks our poor emperor. That brat can’t see that our emperor is wearing a higher form of clothing that you have to be really smart and ethical, like me, to understand.” And the closer the emperor comes and the more obvious his nakedness becomes, the angrier the crowd will at that little bastard.
"So, outside of the United States and its First Amendment protections, the word “crimethink” will continue to slowly move from metaphor to reality as the police power is brought down upon heretics. Within the U.S., outspoken heretics won’t be investigated by the police, but they will be rendered largely unemployable in management positions because institutions will worry that their employment presents too much risk of the institution losing job discrimination lawsuits.
"In pockets of the Internet, some anonymous individuals will continue to exchange facts and ideas, but, really, how many people like to look for truth for its own sake?
"The long term outcome will be an increasing stultification of intellectual life rather like that seen in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. Just as mathematicians and astronomers at the abstract end were relatively free and engineers at the practical end were too, but any Soviet scientist or intellectual in the middle who tried to theorize about human beings was in danger of losing his career or his liberty, so will it be in the West.
— Steve Sailer
———————————————
I see your point, Steve, then again you really wanted to know the names of those ominous “genetic maximalists” who endanger our freedom, didn't you? ;)
Spengler/Goldman worries about "entartete Kunst" even if he does not use the phrase.
It is a sort of floating controversy in Germany and possibly part of the ongoing effort of Jews to tell Catholics how to practice Catholicism.
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/09/nazism-zionism-and-nutty.html
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/12/followup-nazism-zionism-and-nutty.html
steve, seth,
i accept that my comment re spengler losing his job was heartless. but then: i make no money doing this and lost a platform at the ny observer because of issues of zionism in american life. it's a contact sport. a journalist got spanked and almost fired for saying that hillary had pimped chelsea out.
as to the general issue of outing people, i accept that there might be a line. i dont violate email confidentiality. but authorship questions is one of the great sports of cultural life, consider the brilliant Don Foster's book on the subject, Author Unknown. i dont understand the politesse that surrounds spengler, an extremist trying to mystify people on theological issues.
Hate speech, lying hurt Goldman/Spengler? Which zionist has been hurt by lying and spewing hate?
My name is Dershowitz. I am a hate monger. I am also tenured and protected.
Joachim, you will find it very hard to find a Meissner fan in Cologne.
Let me give you one example. During a concert in the Dom (Cathedral) he harshly said, he couldn't tolerate applause for the musicans in the cathedral, this statement was greeting with even bigger applause.
He is the most silly hardliner you can imagine. Many of his statements turn into a scandal. And what you picked up was probably his comment about the Richter window. If you take a little more time, you'll find out that Meissner said it would better fit into a mosque.
http://www.cyberday.de/news/ausgabe_100104.htm
http://www.art-magazin.de/kunst/1236.html
Meissner heavily suppresses the more "enlightened" and educational branch here, the Jesuits. He wanted to close their academy down:
http://www.kath.de/akademie/rahner/index2.html
But it still exists supported by sponsorship.
I was aware that he said the window might fit better in a Mosque.
There are many sorts of windows that Muslims might consider more appropriate in a church.
It is a matter of taste, and this particular issue took a flying leap into the twilight zone.
Landzettel's editor should have squashed this story before it took flight.
Hm,
re-reading comments in Phil's previous Spengler post, I noticed this, posted by some David:
"You've just now heard of Spengler? What kind of out of touch buffoon are you, Philip? Spengler is probably one of the most influential opinion columnists in the world! People in Europa all know him–his name comes up all the time . . ."
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/pthe-other-day-a-friend-sent-me-a-hrefhttpwwwatimescomatimesmiddle_eastje13ak01htmla-piece-by-the-columnist-spengler-of-asia-times-onlinea-saying-that-israel-is-the-happiest-country-in-the-world.html#comment-115667204
I mean, David is a fairly common name, by still, Spengler-Shushan-Goldman, is that you? :))
I am amazed at the lengths some will go to in order to put a positive slant on the modern nation of Israel.
Whereas Israel, the beautiful dream, does not need such defense and support.
It has lived in the hearts of many for ages.
Linking things like the restoration of Israel or Zionism (or "wealth" -another popular idea), to Christianity is mischievous.
Consider, for a moment, some possible comments on the nature of Christianity.
Christians are wont to give their lives to the spirit of Love.
Christians give their lives away to this spirit and follow it faithfully and courageously, wherever it takes them.
They invite the spirit into their hearts.
They do this by giving themselves to others in countless different ways.
Christianity is big enough to acknowledge and respect the Gods of others.
It is not about taking stuff away, it is adding something.
That something is the spirit of Love.
Love that is by its nature, universal.
Christians know that, in reflecting the universal nature of this love, that they must also love their enemies.
Christianity emphasises the centrality of, and value of Love in all life.
And so on and so forth……
Notice I did not mention Israel or Zionism or wealth at any time in my description of Christianity.
It is entirely possible to give a rough outline of the Christian faith without mentioning any of the aforementioned trio.
They just don't figure in it.
Christianity does not depend on such things.
This is meant to be at the start of the last post.
Thanks for those very interesting observations.
"…deluded into believing that support of the state of Israel is a matter of fundamental theology for Catholics…"
Leave it to someone calling himself moonkon to restore my faith in Christianity. I've started to feel lately that Christianity is bad for westerners because it ties us to people, places and traditions that are not in our best interest. You've set me free, moon.
Todd | June 12, 2008 at 11:40 PM
You're welcome. :-)
Christianity and Judaism are not so much the problem as the debasement of their ideals for the sake of political goals. These religions have suffered from a "Concretization of the Spiritual." See http://members.aol.com/ThorsProvoni/JudoniaComplete/JudoniaCompleteA.htm#_Toc199522895 .
Indeed, "political Islam," "political Christianity," and "political Judaism" are probably all examples of the "Concretization of the Spiritual." But so is "secular humanism," a religion (or anti-religion) unto itself that has also been politicized.
But "political Christianity" is Western civilization; the others are not, and are indeed hostile to Western civilization because they are hostile to Christianity.
The problem with politicized diaspora Judaism and secular humanism (Socialism/Communism/left-liberalism) is that each simultaneously seeks to deny and wage war against the Christian foundation while at the same time purporting to embrace the "liberal Western values" that are in fact a manifestation of Christianity. That is why diaspora Jews and left-liberals are so prone to statist-authoritarian "solutions": they have not imbibed and internalized the concept Christian free-will, and so view the world as a power game of who's doing what to whom in which the final arbiter of what is "right" is the tribe, cult or political movement that has seized and exercised the most power, as opposed to the free will marketplace and social natural selection.
Diaspora Jews understand that the Christian majority bears an instinctive dislike for Judaism, just as left-liberals understand that it bears an instinctive dislike for Big Brother secular humanism. Each must consequently seize the levers of statist power to bash and coerce the Christian majority into accepting their power over it, but in doing so destroys the very foundation of liberal Western society, and turns it into a spiritually and morally baron, totalitarian hell.
Perhaps for them it is truly better to rule in hell than serve in heaven; but then they are hardly justified in whining about getting burned by their hellish creation.
So long as they are at least tolerated, Jews, left-liberals, homosexuals and the type need to comprehend that they are far better off more or less in the closet of Western civilization than they would ever ultimately be at the helm of a totalitarian substitute that would ultimately and inevitably consume them and everybody else.
For those that can't accept that, there's always Israel…and San Francisco.
Phil,
Given your concern with problems of Jewish identity, you might find it fascinating to delve more deeply into something you only touch on above: the early history of Lyndon Larouche's organization.
During the late 1960s and 1970s, Larouche ensnared dozens bright young Jews with identity problems, starting with a core of Trotskyites from Columbia University, and transformed them into an idolizingly loyal corps of anti-Semitic neo-fascists. Frequently, this master of mind control would ask his assembled worshippers: "What are you Jews good for?" Larouche's answer was that Jews could be redeemed from their Jewishness only by serving him in his fight to save the world from the International Jewish Conspiracy.
This story is told:
– by Dennis King, in his book, "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism," the full text of which is online at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/ ;
– by Chip Berlet in articles online at http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/ ; and
– by dozens of LaRouche's former victims, on their discussion forum, at http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/13197.html , continued at http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/forumdisplay.php?f=1229 .
A leftish young Jewish intellectual with Jewish identity issues could do worse than to give thanks that he was not at Columbia in the late 1960s or early 1970s; for there, but for the grace of God, go you, Phil.
Phil,
Given your concern with Jewish identity issues, you might find it fascinating to delve more deeply into a subject you merely touch on above: the early history of Lyndon Larouche’s organization. Most of Larouche’s early followers were leftish young Jewish-American intellectuals with Jewish identity issues.
During the late 1960s and 1970s this master of mind control ensared dozens of bright young Jews, starting with a core of Trotskyites at Columbia University, and transformed them into a cadre of idolatrously loyal anti-Semitic neo-fascists. Larouche told them to ask themselves: “What is a Jew good for? What can a Jew contribute to humanity generally which obliges humanity to value the Jew?” Larouche’s answer: Jews could redeem themselves from their Jewishness only by serving Larouche in his ostensible fight to save the world from a putative international Jewish conspiracy.
This story is told by:
– Dennis King, in his book, “Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism,” the full text of which is online at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/ ;
– Chip Berlet, in articles online at http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/ ; and
– dozens of Larouche’s former victims, on their discussion forum at http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/13197.html , continued at http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/forumdisplay.php?f=1229 .
There, but for the grace of God, go you, Phil — and, for that matter, many of us.
As a point of clarification: the Asteri Capital that David seems to be a prominent spokeman for in NYC, is not the Paris entity you picked up by Googling. Goldman's Asteri is the London hedge fund of Marc Rich's old firm, Glencore, the commodities trading giant which has been assigned by it's controllers to dominate key raw materials trades. Whatever David's personal attitude might be, it is nonetheless the case that Asteri was set up for Glencore Finance by Evan Kalimtgis, who usually worked besides David, going back to their days together at Polyconomics of Jude Wanniski, Bear Stearns, and then CSFB. After that, Goldman went to Banc of America, and Kalimtgis to the investment bank arm of Dresdner Bank, etc. etc. This is relevant for people of your age group and political orientation, as Evan Kalimtigis is the son of former LaRouche associate Kostas Kalimtzis (aka Gus Axios, a co-author of Dope Inc). The father of Asteri Capital's head became a cooperating part of the then Vice President George Bush-sanctioned operations against Larouche, the Get LaRouche Taskforce. Pinochet-backing NYC financier, John Train, the grandson of JP Morgan's leading partner Charles Henry Coster, ran the Train Salons, which brought "left" and "right" interests together to go after Larouche. Gus/Kostas was an active part of that in the early 1980's at the point that Greek-American associates of his were captured by business associates of Ariel Sharon in NYC. When NYC financial doge John Train organized his salons to run components of that taskforce, 1983-84, Gus/Kostas was soon brought on to work with the U.S. Prosecutors Office. The interests behind those affairs, also ran the mole in the Wiesbaden office of EIR, Laurent Murawiec. His status as a mole was publically confirmed by Arnauld de Borchgrave after Murawiec's 2002 appearance at the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, then run by Richard Perle. Murawiec was run in the 1985 period on by a small clique at the Pentagon under Fred Ikle, which included Perle and Stephen Bryen. Ikle was a part of the old RAND nuclear brinkmanship group: Wohlstetter, Andy Marshall, Herman Kahn, and Ikle.
Whether David is a neocon in the sense that you understand that term, I don't know. He was always though somebody hanging on to the utterances of Robert Mundell. Mundell can be found in many political camps, be it the "anti-NeoCon" Wanniski-ites, in Beijing, or, in Vienna by the von Hayekians, where he joined last month at a conference with Jose Pinera, Pinochet's Labor Minister and social security "reformer." Criton Zoakos, who was with David in Wanniski days, was a proponent of the Chilean modeled privatization of Social Security, which the re-elected Bush II wanted to do away with after his 2004 victory. It was LaRouche who catalyzed, after the election defeat, the successfull resistance to the Social Security privatization of Bush in late 2004 and early 2005. Is David Goldman a Pinochet Death Squad proponent??–as a Red Diaper Baby (does anybody of your generation in the U.S. still know what that term means?)–who knows, but the financial logic of the computer programs, which have reduced economics to buy-sell trades, to hedge fund mathematical alogorithms (Kalimtgis's specialty), certainly demands a fascist, dictatorial "final solution."
When your are stumbling around in the internet search engine garbage pails, take a look at Marc Rich and "neocon" Laurent Murawiec. Rich is a mystic, Kabalistic numbers cruncher, just like Michael Milken. This is the milieu Goldman jumped into, certainly for the money, but equally because of the ideological/psychological proclivities of the, anti-blue collar, make-a-quick-buck, child prodigy, baby boomers, who went to Wall Street, to sell their cleverness–irrespective of the results in the real world of physical economy.
If you are interested in Jewish culture/politics debates in the context of extended European culture, then take a look at Moses Mendelssohn and his ties via Goettingen Universities Abraham Kaestner with Benjamin Franklin in the years before the outbreak of the American Revolution. Mendelssohn was know as the Socrates of Europe in those days, and with playwright Lessing, helped launch the German classical renaissance associated with the poet of Freedom, Friedrich Schiller. These are rigourous republican currents, which rejected the Anglo-Dutch liberalism of the British empircist schools. That British liberalism, in its economic form, is responsible for the disaster now decimating liberalized financial markets that no longer have anything to do with physical economic reality.
Yours truly,
Roger Moore
Executive Intelligence Review
Wiesbaden, Germany
moore@eirna.com
As a point of clarification: the Asteri Capital that David seems to be a prominent spokeman for in NYC, is not the Paris entity you picked up by Googling. Goldman's Asteri is the London hedge fund of Marc Rich's old firm, Glencore, the commodities trading giant which has been assigned by it's controllers to dominate key raw materials trades. Whatever David's personal attitude might be, it is nonetheless the case that Asteri was set up for Glencore Finance by Evan Kalimtgis, who usually worked besides David, going back to their days together at Polyconomics of Jude Wanniski, Bear Stearns, and then CSFB. After that, Goldman went to Banc of America, and Kalimtgis to the investment bank arm of Dresdner Bank, etc. etc. This is relevant for people of your age group and political orientation, as Evan Kalimtigis is the son of former LaRouche associate Kostas Kalimtzis (aka Gus Axios, a co-author of Dope Inc). The father of Asteri Capital's head became a cooperating part of the then Vice President George Bush-sanctioned operations against Larouche, the Get LaRouche Taskforce. Pinochet-backing NYC financier, John Train, the grandson of JP Morgan's leading partner Charles Henry Coster, ran the Train Salons, which brought "left" and "right" interests together to go after Larouche. Gus/Kostas was an active part of that in the early 1980's at the point that Greek-American associates of his were captured by business associates of Ariel Sharon in NYC. When NYC financial doge John Train organized his salons to run components of that taskforce, 1983-84, Gus/Kostas was soon brought on to work with the U.S. Prosecutors Office. The interests behind those affairs, also ran the mole in the Wiesbaden office of EIR, Laurent Murawiec. His status as a mole was publically confirmed by Arnauld de Borchgrave after Murawiec's 2002 appearance at the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, then run by Richard Perle. Murawiec was run in the 1985 period on by a small clique at the Pentagon under Fred Ikle, which included Perle and Stephen Bryen. Ikle was a part of the old RAND nuclear brinkmanship group: Wohlstetter, Andy Marshall, Herman Kahn, and Ikle.
Whether David is a neocon in the sense that you understand that term, I don't know. He was always though somebody hanging on to the utterances of Robert Mundell. Mundell can be found in many political camps, be it the "anti-NeoCon" Wanniski-ites, in Beijing, or, in Vienna by the von Hayekians, where he joined last month at a conference with Jose Pinera, Pinochet's Labor Minister and social security "reformer." Criton Zoakos, who was with David in Wanniski days, was a proponent of the Chilean modeled privatization of Social Security, which the re-elected Bush II wanted to do away with after his 2004 victory. It was LaRouche who catalyzed, after the election defeat, the successfull resistance to the Social Security privatization of Bush in late 2004 and early 2005. Is David Goldman a Pinochet Death Squad proponent??–as a Red Diaper Baby (does anybody of your generation in the U.S. still know what that term means?)–who knows, but the financial logic of the computer programs, which have reduced economics to buy-sell trades, to hedge fund mathematical alogorithms (Kalimtgis's specialty), certainly demands a fascist, dictatorial "final solution."
When your are stumbling around in the internet search engine garbage pails, take a look at Marc Rich and "neocon" Laurent Murawiec. Rich is a mystic, Kabalistic numbers cruncher, just like Michael Milken. This is the milieu Goldman jumped into, certainly for the money, but equally because of the ideological/psychological proclivities of the, anti-blue collar, make-a-quick-buck, child prodigy, baby boomers, who went to Wall Street, to sell their cleverness–irrespective of the results in the real world of physical economy.
If you are interested in Jewish culture/politics debates in the context of extended European culture, then take a look at Moses Mendelssohn and his ties via Goettingen Universities Abraham Kaestner with Benjamin Franklin in the years before the outbreak of the American Revolution. Mendelssohn was know as the Socrates of Europe in those days, and with playwright Lessing, helped launch the German classical renaissance associated with the poet of Freedom, Friedrich Schiller. These are rigourous republican currents, which rejected the Anglo-Dutch liberalism of the British empircist schools. That British liberalism, in its economic form, is responsible for the disaster now decimating liberalized financial markets that no longer have anything to do with physical economic reality.
Yours truly,
Roger Moore
Executive Intelligence Review
Wiesbaden, Germany
moore@eirna.com
Plausible, maybe? He did say he was at the DNC convention reporting there. I think he is American, co-wrote a book w/ Lyndon LaRoach attacking Milton Friedman as a Fascist (if David P. Goldman). The style of that book (pdf on web) seems much muted compared to current style so I don't know.
Smart guy, but damaged in some way. Perhaps as his 'past' with LaRoach's (spelling? well, cockroach's is appropriate. ) would compromise him as an 'expert'.
Spengler, Oswald also had a similar twisted history.
David P Goldman writes in today's Asian Times under his own byline,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JK22Dj01.html
In the concluding paragraph he states that Obama:
"Barack Obama is the only man in town with a checkbook, and by virtue of the Treasury's near-monopoly of financial power, will take office as the most powerful peacetime president in US history. Faced with the collapse of private pension, health care and financing systems, Obama will have every reason to use his mandate to socialize medicine, pensions and many other aspects of US economic life."
This slightly positive comment seems completely at odds with the writings published under the pseudonym Spengler. On the other hand, here's a proven link between Goldman and the Asian Times.
(I haven't seen much else published by David P Goldman recently, so this also given any skilled exigetes a chance to do some literary style comparisons.)
(I posted this on Maurice Pinay's similar Spengler page too…)
Anyone else notice that David Goldman is now blogging under his own name at Asia Times?
http://blog.atimes.net/?page_id=31
I like the Spengler. Your charges of racism are baseless. Your gripes are small items which you amplify to the Nth degree. My true test of character is a mind experiment. Would I feel comfortable in a room of 10 Spenglers and a circular saw……which I would. I can not say the same of many others in the middle east.
Comments on this entry are closed.