The Freeman story is huge. Andrew Sullivan is obviously enraged; here he links Fareed Zakaria's pretty good interview of Freeman under the headline, "Crackpot... See for yourself: the man too dangerous to be allowed into the US government."
And here is my piece in the American Conservative. Wow, they gave it a great headline: "Are you now or have you ever been an Arabist?"
Last night at the 92d Street Y, Eric Alterman said that Freeman was in a State Department tradition that included Arabists. I think Freeman's an Arabist, but I also wonder whether this isn't in the end a form of projection. Jews are engaged as Zionists on Middle East policy. Freeman's legacy is the traditional (yes patrician) State Department types who opposed Partition and the recognition of the state of Israel out of a concern for American interests; there'd be war for generations in that part of the world, they said. They were accused of antisemitism. And they were described widely as Arabists. I suppose some of them are Arabists, some have been driven to study Arabic. I want to study it myself. Adherence to Israel has deeply hurt the United States. The difficulty now is trying to reclaim an American interest that is not nativist or nationalist, which is why the American Conservative, which Pat Buchanan founded, has been the leader in the U.S. on this issue. No one did Gaza better here. I remember when my hero Mike Kinsley said that he believed Buchanan was an anti-semite. I was on Mike's side on that one. Now it is a matter of indifference to me. (As a friend states the issue: "since the danger of the spread of anti-Semitism in America seems infinitely smaller than the danger of the spread of lies that lead to wars; and Buchanan has been good at exposing the worst of the recent lies.") Chas Freeman grew up in a milieu that surely included antisemitism. Blueblood, childhood in the Bahamas, Yale, Harvard Law. Puritan roots and ethos. One beauty of his case is that so many Jews came to his side. We all get a chance to change in life.
an anti semite is one who occupies palestine, lies about palestine, hates the truth re palestine, attacks, lebanon, syria, and started the war in iraq.
This is interesting, Phil. I don't know what Buchanan is or isn't, and I don't care. But if Buchanan's words make him an anti-Semite, then as an average Gentile, I always sense that people like Kinsley have a dislike for people like me. Would people like Kinsley be anti-Gentile? This is important because the Kinsleys of the world have shaped American attitudes for the last 40 years far more than the Buchanans have. Which would be better for the nation? I'd say a nativist would have been better for most Americans over the last 40 years.
I guess the question is how differences will be settled when Middle East issues are put behind us.
"Which would be better for the nation? I'd say a nativist would have been better for most Americans over the last 40 years."
Not if you are Black, Hispanic, Jewish etc.
link to fair.org
"Which would be better for the nation? I'd say a nativist would have been better for most Americans over the last 40 years."
Not if you are Black, Hispanic, Jewish etc.
link to fair.org
Blacks and Jews make up around 14% of the population at present, and Hispanics were a much smaller percentage 40 years ago. Clearly, nativism would have been better for the majority than what was delivered. Opening the nation to destructive and massive immigration made/makes no sense, and doing everything to deleigitimze the demographics, culture and tradtitions of the majority-if not the people themselves-has hardly been good for the nation as a whole. Revolution rather than reform was the goal, and there is no reason not to recognize this, or from which corners the support came. In other word, I'd take Buchanan over Kinsley if I'd have to choose.
From Phil's American Conservative article — 'Having long battled the Israel lobby, these men have no illusions about how it operates and still dare to speak out.'
Dunno whether echoing the title of Paul Findley's They Dare To Speak Out was intentional, but it's a clever riff. Phil speakin' in code …
So Todd, I assume you are in favor of limiting Jewish immigration, or even reducing the Jewish population in the US.
Blacks and Jews make up around 14% of the population at present
Oy Gevalt how did we ever let that happen? Who let all these schwartzes and kikes in? What a country!
The 1965 Immigration Act greatly limited European immigration and greatly favored immigrants who make by far the mass of immigrations both legal and illegal today. Going on nearing a half-century of this non-stop. Is this wise? Shouldn't the decades of impact of this legislation be reviewed? Does it suggest maybe
some sort of moratorium might be best? Do any of our leaders even raise the question? At least Pat B
does. Even a teeter-totter does not work if the heavy weight stays on one side.
"So Todd, I assume you are in favor of limiting Jewish immigration, or even reducing the Jewish population in the US."
I don't have a problem with limiting immigration period. I think we have plenty of immigrants, and I sure as hell see no reason to open the doors to Israelis when things go bad. We don't need Israelis, and we don't need their supporters in the U.S., no matter how few or many there are. Does that answer your question? Am I a Nazi, racist or anti-Semite now? Why is it that so many anti-Zionists argue like Zionists when it comes to U.S. politics?
Phil:
I seem to remember Kinsley saying he did *not* think Buchanan was an anti-semite. I believe it was after Buchanan made his famous "Capital Hill is Israeli-occupied territory" mot and was being rounded on for same. Kinsley stepped forward and said that while he didn't like Buchanan's views he had been co-host with him for a long time on Crossfire and no, he did not think Buchanan was an anti-semite.
Maybe Kinsley amended that subsequently, but at least at one time my distinct recollection is that he was defending him against the charge.
Immigrants made America great. Their descendants ruined it, partly by limiting immigration and partly by adopting the nationalism that caused their ancestors to flee their countries of origin.
Sin Nombre,
I think you are right that it was another person who slimed Buchanan. Eleanore Clift even defended Buchanan, if that means anything. For some reason Norman Podhoretz comes to mind, but I may be wrong.
Really good article in "The American Conservative," Mr. Weiss.
I just discovered your blog a few days ago.
I've been thinking about what happened to Freeman. At the end of the day, I suppose he is just ahead of his time.
It is generally believed by the majority of so-called 'Whites' that 'western civilisation was created by Whites.' The pitter-patter about 'political correctness' from the Right (and not just the 'far Right,'either) refers to the fact that it is now taboo to express this view, though I would say that the belief that 'western civilisation was created by Whites' seems somewhat circular and trivial, since 'western civilisation' is not really anything to be proud of, nor is it particularly 'civilised,' it is just technologically advanced and imperially dominant. The fact that Buchanan is like our parents' generation in the frankness of his expression of the belief that 'western civilisation was created by Whites' should cease to be an object of sanctimonious and oblique condemnation, and assume its properly trivial status. That would save time.
Well, what do you believe should take the place of Western civilization in Western nations, Rowan? I would love to live in a world without borders, wars, bigotry and conflict, but I know that that world will never exist. I don't blame Europeans for all of the world's ills, and I surely don't believe that Europeans shouldn't be able to live as they wish in their own nations and keep their own traditions and cultures if they want. How do you believe European civilization came about? How would you arrange the world?
I didn't call for the abolition of 'western civilisation, Todd; I simply stated the fact which is hypocritically ignored in the supposed 'liberal consensus'.
Rowan, your parents' generation would probably be my grandparents' generation, so we will probably have something of a generational conflict–I'm mad at your generation, and hope to see it broken and humiliated. But surely you see a difference in a person such as yourself possessing your attitudes, and millions of imported non-Western immigrants having similar attitudes?
I was disappointed. It was far more restrained than much that Phil posts here.
I think that the acknowledgement by Phil that he thinks of Freeman as an Arabist is important.
It surely means more than that he speaks Arabic. It means that he has a predisposition to understand the Arab thinking on issues, before Zionist.
Both amount to prejudices. If a Zionist brought prospective prejudice to the exact same job, I'm SURE that Phil would object, and would encourage those here that are sympathetic with that, to e-mail or write or call their Congressperson.
And, if Phil was in a position to donate $2000 to each of their campaigns, I'm sure he would suggest that he would pull that next time.
And, if Phil had an organization with a fourty thousand members, each contributing $2000 to their campaigns, I'm sure that he would ask them to mention that their contribution is at stake.
You all do get that the headline "Arabist, Americanist" is NOT an equation, but in fact a contrast.
"You all do get that the headline "Arabist, Americanist" is NOT an equation, but in fact a contrast."
Sure. I also see a difference in an WASP who speaks Arabic handling Middle Eastern affairs, and an American Jew who speaks Yidish or Hebrew, and may have family and friends in Israel, doing the same.
See, Toddila, that's a basic difference between me and you. I think that the current influx of Hispanic immigrants is wonderful, and the best thing which can happen to the US. We should really use it to our advantage, and they will repay us a hundredfold. That's what America did (in it's fashion) for my Jewish ancestors, and we can still do it for others.
Spanglish (Yiddish and Spanish) is the coming thing, and if you haven't tried it Mexi-Kosher cuisine is wonderful! Stay away from the pork tacos, tho.
But, of course, since your family no doubt traces its American provenance back to the Mayflower, you may see things differently. You flinty New England types often do.
"It surely means more than that he speaks Arabic. It means that he has a predisposition to understand the Arab thinking on issues, before Zionist.
Both amount to prejudices."
Richard Witty
Perfect! That's why a diplomat should under no circumstances speak or understand the language or culture of the country they are assigned to. One drink and they go native on you, every time!
Richard, are you even trying anymore?
Richard Witty wrote:
"You all do get that the headline "Arabist, Americanist" is NOT an equation, but in fact a contrast."
No, I didn't. No more so than "philo-semite, Americanist" is not necessarily a contrast.
Most Americans who deal with the influx disagree. Current immigration policies are not popular, and I don't see how most Americans benefit. My view is that the few people who view the immigrants as vital and exotic should move to where the immigrants came from and leave the rest of us alone.
"and leave the rest of us alone."
Sorry Todd, there's nobody but you and maybe a few other scaredy-cats under the bed there with you. Oh, BTW Todd, are my Jewish traditions in America in there with the "rest of us"? We're not Christian, you know. Deny the saving power of Christ, is the way I heard it. Does that fit in, along with our mostly Mittel-European, Russian and even more "exotic" ancestry. Will you let us live in your traditional America. Remember Todd, almost all those Hispanics are Christians, many of them devout Catholics.
But most of all, you can take that "rest of us" and shove it where the sun don't shine, toddy babe. Why don't you go get "the rest of us" bring them back here, and we'll all talk about it?
The "rest of you" Todd, is what's missing.
It's important to remember that certain Jews, deep down, despise any successful gentile-built institution, country, or civilization, and, if they can't completely co-opt it on behalf of their agenda, seek to destroy it.
Therefore, we get far-right Jews like Julian and far-left Jews like Mooser in agreement on swamping America to the point where no assimilation can take place into Western and American legal standards, norms, values and civilizational conduct.
There really is no gentile reasoning with haters like this, because both sides aren't arguing from a point of good will. One side wants what's best for the institution, civilization or country, and the other side wants either blind destruction or personal opportunistic advancement…think of it like Palestinians trying to negotiate with Jewish Israelis.
Zionism and its behavior truly do reflect the “bad will” character of a certain kind of Jew, whether that Jew is a Zionist or not. Even Jews like Mooser who have forsaken Zionism carry with them a malicious cauldron of contempt for successful gentiles, perhaps because they prosper in an environment of chaos, and thus seek to sow hatred, enmity and conflict into their environment out of personal opportunism.
I don’t know, does dividing the Jewish people between the well-intentioned and the chaos-sowers instead of between the Zionists and the anti-Zionists make me an antisemite?
Todd,
There is no rational discourse with the likes
of Mooser. This a fundamental conflict of interest that will not
be solved through compromise and glib political arguments.
The question is on which front will the conflict be fought. I can't
say for sure but it will be in the real world and not in cyberspace.
Right now the exurbs are teeming with millions of white teens who will be underemployed and angry over the next decade. These are
the first generation who will realize they have been stripped clean of their birthright. Most likely they will be the force that pushes
it over the top. I personally teach my kids harsh realities my parents never felt comfortable teaching me (was it soft-Christianity or the liberal zeitgeist that prevented them)? The pliant white mass of brainwashed Christians in the hinterlands no longer exists. This a major difference from 40 and 50 years ago when things really started going off the rails. I feel that those elites that made these changes possible took that pliant mass of moral folk for granted all those years, but they will be in for a surprise when they realize they have a massive high I.Q. amoral proletariat to contend with.
"…since 'western civilisation' is not really anything to be proud of, nor is it particularly 'civilised,' it is just technologically advanced and imperially dominant."
How can you seriously say that? Rule of law, our adversarial system of justice, classical music and literature, the Enlightenment, the founding of the US, the right to debate on these topics at all…nothing to be proud of?
I am simply perplexed by the contempt that so many have for all the labour and sacrifices of the generations before them.
@ JH, re going off the rails: "was it soft-Christianity or the liberal zeitgeist"
It had nothing to do with Christianity, which is actually a primary component of the base of Western civilization, and America, and will be their salvation if re-established. It is left-liberalism and Right greed, in combination, that have eroded America and the West.
I'm assuming you're a right-winger, so I suggest you take a look at the corporations lobbying for open borders for cheap labor, and plying America's children with the latest cultural trash, twinkies and soul-corroding crap product. (And this doesn't even mention the Right war profiteers.) Then get back to me about Christianity.
since 'western civilisation' is not really anything to be proud of, nor is it particularly 'civilised.. Rowan
I'm on pins and needles. Pray tell us which 'civilization' ought to be proud? And by what criteria do you judge?
Christianity is the weak link in Western civilization. It would be much better for Westerners if we returned to our Aristotelian roots. Let the desert religions stay in the desert.
Leftist Rowan’s hostility towards Western civilization in favor of some unnamed, unattainable internationalist future utopia goes to what I’ve been harping about here for a long time: the Hegelian convergence of Jewish and Leftist malcontents and ideologues who hate Western civilization with open-borders, money worshipping Corporatists looking to profit from the international markets. Both want to destroy the “narrow minded” concept of Western civilization, but for different reasons.
The net result of all of this, of course, is the Neocon/Neolib internationalist ideology, which is the contemporary American establishment’s status-quo. Each side in the equation fantasizes that it will be the ultimate “winner,” but in the mean time, together they are destroying Western civilization.
Ed,
I always enjoy reading your posts, and I admire your plain speech and iconoclasm.
I do not see any substantial distinction between the mainstream left and right. Both share a contempt for any traditions, religion, or history that threatens their ideologies. They are both eager to use the power of the state to impose their worldview by force, whether through social engineering at home or military crusades abroad.
Thanks, David F. And the military crusades abroad (aka "nation building") are also grandiose attempts at social engineering as well, aren't they. These people all have really sick minds. They’re like sadists who like to keep live flies in jars and take them out from time to time to pull their wings off and see if they'll survive.
Ed,
to be fair I did qualify Christianity with the word
"soft" meaning that a certain strain of Christianity
has taken hold which is destructive. Nations
and Christianity went along well for a while, but
something happened and that is what I am getting at.
Although one could say this either a byproduct of the
reformation or the secular revolutions of the 18th century.
You have to be honest that for centuries Europeans resisted
the true Christian philosophy (made it serve their own ends
one might say). When we came around to accepting it as a
pure philosophy things got bad.
I seriously question if pure Christianity is compatible with
Nationalism.
JH
Just a reminder, but Christ didn't teach Christianity, Paul did or shall I say Saul did. The ancients didn't have a problem with doing what was necessary to deal with troublesome minorities, it wasn't until Christianity came along that loving thy neighbor and everyone being equal before the eyes of God blurred the distinction between mine and thine. Think about it, cui bono?
"Christianity is the weak link in Western civilization. It would be much better for Westerners if we returned to our Aristotelian roots. Let the desert religions stay in the desert."
I tend to agree with you, Laurie. There are many things that I like about Christianity, but I believe that the fatal flaw is that it can be used to tie Westerners to peoples, cultures and conflicts that should be "left in the desert." I guess the problem is in the way the religion is taught, since Christianity was supposed to be a break from Judaism and other ancient religions. But a flaw is a flaw, and we can see how this one has been exploited.
By and large, Christianity has not been practiced as Jesus intended since Constantine made it the imperial religion. To answer your question, JH, the religion of Jesus is incompatible with nationalism but the religion of the empire (Roman and now) uses this bastardidized form of Chritianity to increase its power. I am very angry at the Christian fundmentalists for being so nationalistic, war-loving, and materialistic, yet claiming to be true followers of the pacifist, Jesus Christ.
I have to agree with Suzanne's remarks about Ed, though I can't be bothered to repeat them
Jesus was a Jew, that is if Jesus ever really existed and there is scant secular evidence for this. If you take the Bible as historical fact than Jesus was reacting to the corruption of Judaism by the Pharisees. It is correct to say that Judaism by in large has not been practiced the way Jesus believed it ought to be. If Jesus existed he would have never heard of Christianity since Christianity didn't exist then, so it stands to reason that Jesus had no opinion on how it was practiced. If Jesus is half the man I imagine him to be, he would be appalled at the thought of a religion being named after him. This isn't to say that there is no good that comes out of myth because there is and one of those 'goods' is that it keeps the herd in line. I apply this across the board without prejudice to all religions. Judaism/Jewishness/Jew being no exception.
@ Todd – I'm on the same page as you in regard to the past generation. They were intellectual weak and lazy and we reap the reward.
@JH
Christianity has certainly been bad for the nation over the last 50 years or so. The Catholic and major Protestant churches have become too political, and really do little for Christians in America other than suck money from them while tending to other people–I known of several Christian groups that regularly sponsor members to go to Haiti, Latin America, third-world Asia and Africa to build and support whole communities. American Christianity is involved with empire as much as the government is.
@Laurie
I agree that the past generation of Christians has become intellectually weak and lazy. Being fairly intellectually weak and lazy myself, it means something when I can spot it in others.
@Ed
I think there is a real dislike of Gentiles among many Jews in the West, and a desire to undermine goes along with the dislike. If you just look on the surface at attitudes often expressed by Jews in the media, politics and entertainment towards Christians/Gentiles it is pretty obvious. However, I think that the Christian Church in the West has done a pretty good job at serving other interests and being a handmaid to empire. From the Catholic and Major Protestant denominations to the small local churches, organized Christianity sends tons of money and supplies, cothing and food abroad, while supporting massive third-world immigration (often non-Christian)into Western nations. An organized religion has to grow and make money to, doesn't it? I'm not sure that Christianity can be saved.
"Let the desert religions stay in the desert."
Laurie, that's uncommonly well said and truly an excellent idea.