-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 0
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 2
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 22
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- US official — we went to Israel first (2)
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (22)
- traintosiberia: Spain has been allowing ( under pressure) any descendants of the victims of inquisition to settle in...
- Blake: Boy, history won’t be kind on you reprobates. I doubt anybody can be as despicable to you though as you...
- Talkback: Fredblogs: “Frankly if an odd sentence in a cherry picked report, and some obfuscating change of...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (110)
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants (129)
- talknic: Fredblogs May 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm “For thousands of years, and even since then for anyone who isn’t...
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look for war with Iran in 2013 (38)
- NickJOCW: Yes, it’s almost as if this is a delaying tactic, bounce the ball around while waiting for something else...
- Rafah’s nicest tunnel: Siege meets surf in Gaza (7)
- Blake: Good comment Avi but I should have entered his whole quote in my comment to put it into perspective:...
- US official — we went to Israel first (2)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Kate
- Annie Robbins
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Matthew Taylor
- Alex Kane
- Max Blumenthal
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
This is a supurb essay.
I'm painfully aware of my country's decline. We have serious structural economic and social problems, and it's obvious that Russia, China, and smaller regional powers "smell blood" and are moving to fill the power vaccuum.
Sadly, I think this is the best thing for us. I'm not opposed to imperialism in principle, but we do it very badly.
You last posted this silly Horwitz op-ed in January, so I'll repost my response:
This is not a debate I think is productive to bring to Philip's blog, but since it has come up I'll tell you what I think.
Horowitz's editorial is typical pro-immigration propaganda, which for one interested in the issue, is as tendentious as the Zionist propaganda that is dissected on this blog. Horowitz's main goal seems to be to smear anyone who believes immigration laws should reflect the interest of the nation, and be enforced, with the mortal sin of "racism."
I'm certainly familiar with the Louisiana Purchase and the history of Spanish Colonization. It's amusing that Horowitz blames Northern Europeans for this so-called black legend, considering that the most brutal description of Spanish atrocities in the New World came from the Spanish themselves, in particular, Bartolome de las Casas' *Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies*. The Spanish Empire was in severe decline during the period of US expansion, and describing it as authoritarian and plagued by corruption would hardly be outrageous.
The US ideal of civic spirit and self rule by an industrious, self-disciplined, and educated public was formed by English speaking Western European ethnicities and Protestant ethics and traditions.
Since then, many immigrants have been fortunate to come to this country, and until recently, it was expected that they would conform to this ideal. Certainly this is what the most recent immigrants on my family tree did.
My own experience in the southwest, is that uncontrolled immigration has impaired assimilation, and brought Mexican-style corruption and an acceptance of the idea that the point of seeking public office is to reward one's friends.
More cynically, I suspect that elites such as Horowitz find unrestricted immigration and the denigration of English as a common language appealing because it much easier for an elite to manipulate a public divided by ethnicity, culture, and language. I'll also point out that our politicians successfully court ethnic votes with the promise of entitlements such as affirmative-action or minority set-asides, or by offering a candidate of similar race. Whites, in fact, are the only major ethnic group who do not vote along predictable racial lines.
But Carnas, didn't you see my post? It does not suit the interests of the US or Israel for the Arab/Muslim world to reform, and we make sure it doesn't happen.
If we can't install a compliant dictator, we destroy the country. Israel took care of Lebanon, we took care of Iraq, and apparently Iran is next (although it isn't really Arab, it tends to be lumped in).
WJ, I actually thought that quote (from MRW) was by some 19th century German Jew writing about the Ostjüden!
I agree with some of your points, except I'd add that the US and Israel have consistently thwarted any attempt by middle eastern states to develop. We bomb them if they get too strong (Lebanon, Iraq...now Iran?) or else install and support corrupt leaders who will serve our interests.
If I were Israeli and thought that a single state solution would resemble South Africa I would fight it to the bitter end.
Witty, I agree with you in many ways.
Self-governance also only works for groups that are relatively homogenous. Mixing groups with irreconcilable cultural, linguistic, religious, or other diferences can be a recipe for a failed state, dictatorship, civil war, ethnic cleansing, or other nasty outcomes.
I don't think the Palestinians and Israelis are irreconcilable. I think the gulf between a secular Israeli in Tel Aviv and a Haredi settler is probably greater that that difference between the average Palestinian and Israeli. I'm often struck by how similar Palestinians and Israelis are.
The problem is that that the US Zionist lobby and the political leaders in Israel have effectively made a two state solution impossible. Without land for a Palestinian state, a two state solution is simply idle fantasy.
PS-
There is nothing undemocratic about a "Jewish State" or any other republic or democracy with a restricted citizenship. Such a state may not be *progressive*, but there was nothing progressive about democracies and republics in Rome, Greece, or early America. All of them had large non-voting or slave classes. Real self-governance requires leisure. We have a lot of that now due to industrialization (although we waste most of it), but for most of history if you wanted self-rule, you needed helots.
"Your work at the head of the South Africa Reconciliation Commission and in helping to find a just solution to the Bosnian conflict deserves the highest commendation."
Translation: "Your muckracking against those nasty racist goy Afrikaners and those dirty racist Serbs warmed my heart."
"With this background, I wondered in the first place how you could take on the chairmanship of the investigation of the war in Gaza…"
Translation: "Fool! Your job was to use "human rights" as a club against gentiles, and make us look good! I can't believe I liked you...I trusted you! I never imagined that you actually BELIEVED in UNIVERSAL human rights. How could you do this us?
"Your work at the head of the South Africa Reconciliation Commission and in helping to find a just solution to the Bosnian conflict deserves the highest commendation."
Translation: "Your muckracking against those nasty racist goy Afrikaners and those dirty racist Serbs was heartwarming."
"With this background, I wondered in the first place how you could take on the chairmanship of the investigation of the war in Gaza…"
Translation: "Fool! Your job was to use "human rights" as a club against gentiles, and make us look good! You mean you actually BELIEVE in UNIVERSAL
Ha Ha! I'm glad you found FM, Mooser. I'm would have mentioned it to you if I didn't think you probably already knew about it.
Very weird stuff goes on in the Chabad and haredi worlds...
I read an article in Haaretz that Shin Bet was very displeased that the IDF had not adequately protected their "assets" during Gaza.
"Among those killed were Fatah members who were spotted in the vicinity of Hamas installations bombed by the air force, and who were carrying cell phones, and could not satisfactorily explain what they were doing in that particular location at that time. "
...
"Sources at Southern Command and in MI claim that intelligence-gathering personnel both at the Shin Bet and MI were frustrated that in a number of instances, operations officers failed to adequately protect a source of information - namely Palestinian agents.
According to one source, a number of agents were "intercepted" by Hamas during the operation because the intelligence they provided was used carelessly.""
link to haaretz.com
Ah, yes. No one would dare go after Israeli agents/assets in Congress (Harman), or Israeli leaders, AIPAC, or the many Zionist unregistered foreign agents!
It's so much easier to get one's self-righteous kicks by going after those bad South African nobodies. No one likes Afrikaaners, right?
The Rabbi isn't trying to impress leftists with his mastery of post-colonial modes of discourse. He's addressing the real fear that if the Israelis yield power to the Palestinians it will lead to oppression or violence against Jews.
Giving up power is a dangerous proposition for colonists or their descendents. Palestine/Israel is not Rhodesia, and I think much (not all) of the fear in Israel and among Zionists is based on atavistic paranoia. Their fear is real fear, though, and advocates for Palestine must address it if they hope to win over moderate Zionists.
It seemed to me that a lot of people had no idea where Chris' ideas were coming from, Todd.
In part, I think, because the left has controlled higher-ed for over 40 years, the gap between the left and right is colossal. The two sides read different books, use different assumptions in their reasoning, and often seem to speak different languages.
Good points, Danaa.
I agree that the sense of belonging within Judaism is unique and great source of strength. I look forward to the day when it is not chained to Israeli politics and Zionism.
Danaa, Chris was anything but a nihilist. I think he had one of the most traditionally religious worldviews of anyone who posted here; which is probably why few people here ever seemed to get the basis for his arguments.
If anything, the traditionalist right (including many Ron Paul supporters) is less individualistic that the left. They are far more likely to be concerned that the US maintain a dominant cultural and linguistic identity, for example. They often support tariffs and other nationalist economic policies in order to protect communities that depend on agriculture and industry.
When the traditionalist right attacks government, they are not seeking to replace state power with unchecked individualism. Rather, they want to strengthen traditional family, religious, and community authority over education and local affairs. They might better be described as communitarian rather than libertarian.
PS--Patriotism is an integral part of most Christian Americans' worldview. Christianity is so dominant among members of the Armed Services that the chattering classes have started wringing their hands about it. Christianity is, actually, the only religion with a proven track-record as the official or unofficial public faith of liberal Western nation-states, and has been a major channel for nationalist sentiment since the Reformation at least.
Citizen, I attended the UC for a few years in the '90s. The only visibly active political group I remember was the Ayn Rand society, which covered the campus with wordy denunciations of the Clinton health plan.
Pretty much everyone is obsessively focused on their pre-professional/academic elite career, and pays little attention to current events. I remember one young professor (who had recently come from Harvard) expressing amazement at how dull and listless the extracurricular student life was.
I have also missed Martillo's commentary. His rhetoric can be quite provacative and a bit nutty, but his possesses a truly extraordinary level of knowledge of Eastern European history and Zionism.
I considered both him and Chris Moore assets to the discussions here. Martillo brought a level of historical expertise that no one else here possesses. Chris, for his part, was a good representative of traditional American/Christian right views that are held to some degree by a great number of Americans.
One of the serious problems I have observed on the left, even amongst Progressive/Liberals whom I consider sincere and admirable, is a literal inability to understand modes of thinking that give great weight to tradition, theology, established social roles, and cultural continuity over generations.
Although I do not see this happening now, Phil needs to take care that his blog does not become a liberal intellectual echo-chamber. The divide between progressive orthodoxy and heresy does not describe very much outside the world of the modern college-educated American or European.
Richard, you and Chaos make excellent points.
Since I started following this issue a few years ago, I have been impressed that there are powerful forces that benefit from *not* resolving this conflict.
Israeli society is seriously fragmented from conflicts between the left and right secular classes, the Haradim, and Israeli Muslims. Before Cast Lead, the government was nearly paralyzed. Without a perpetual exitential threat, and potential targets for military action, I'm not sure the country would even be governable.
In addition to being a nation in its own right, Israel is also burdened by functioning as a client state to the powerful US diaspora. This is an unhealthy situation for Israel as well as the US, since US-based Zionists are often more motivated by a sentimental vicarious nationalism rather than a realistic understanding of the country and the interests of those who actually live there.
The concessions necessary for a real two or single state solution would require decisively abandoning the Zionist fantasies of manifest destiny and unbounded Jewish pride and power. I think that is will be very difficult for many Jews to do this.
Lastly, the beneficiaries of US aid for arms, security, and good behaviour have a vested interest in keeping the money flowing.
I'm afraid that Israel will eventually hit a brick wall when US popular opinion shifts against Israel, and possibly against the Jewish community as well. Maybe they will be able to salvage something; I hope so.
Chaos4700,
(entering Christian mode)
I'm not sure what you mean by compatible. From an orthodox Christian perspective, Judaism cannot offer salvation, and Jews should be evangelized and encouraged to convert.
Since Christ died for the sins of the whole world, all humanity is guilty of His death. Of course, anyone can be forgiven by earnestly repenting and accepting Christ's forgiveness. Since Jews have not, and Christ died for their sins, then they technically still bear the guilt for Jesus' death.
In common language, "blood guilt" sounds like an accusation of a crime (and an implied threat of vengeance), although the point was to emphasize the need for the Jews to convert to Christianity (at which point they would be free of this guilt).
Certainly, there is no problem with Christians getting along with Jews, and most moderate Christians avoid the injunction to evangelize.
CMI, Bush II's America was no more capitalistic than Clinton's. In a strict capitalist model, the essential role of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and avoid interfering in the market.
Public education, entitlements, health and safety regulations, wars of choice, bailouts, and a manipulated money supply all distort the free market.
Bush's wars, for example, were incredibly profitable for well-connected contractors, but their profits are the result of coercive transfer payments (i.e. taxes), not free-market competition on the capitalist model.
Agreed, Todd.
Chris was the only person on this blog who wrote from an explicitly Christian-traditionalist perspective (i.e. Pope Pius X). This worldview is completely alien to most college-educated liberals.
I think many of this blog's readers really had no idea where his ideas were coming from, and awkwardly tried to classify them under "heresy: antisemitic: racial essentialist."
Chris certainly considered Christianity morally superior to Jewish particularism or any modern ideology, whether it be based on race, class, or secular ideals of "universal human rights."
I agree, C.M.I. I have been very concerned that most of the Jewish community in the US seems detached from reality. It's hard to blame them, since they are inundated with comfortable propaganda: Jews are moral leaders; their critics are dimwitted anti-semites; Jews have always been hated without cause, etc. etc.
In general, the Jewish community, and Israel, for that matter, seem to be unable to tolerate or learn from criticism or "self-correct." Perhaps, having lived in subjugation for so many centuries, this ability was never cultivated as it was amongst the ruling Christian classes.
The issues of outright corruption (Jane Harman, and now see the Sibil Edmonds interview linked below) are quite serious. Jewish media figures seem to be getting more, rather than less brazen in advertising their contempt for middle America, and I am not sure how long the US can remain the sole exception to the disgust that the behaviour of Israel and the Zionist lobby have earned worldwide.
If no correction occurs, there will inevitably be a pushback, or backlash if you will, and matters will be taken out of the Jewish community's hands. Phil has done a great thing by seizing the initiative, but I do not know if it will be enough.
link to amconmag.com
I think Phil is nitpicking regarding Chris' posts. I did not think he was the more divisive posters, and I have found him to be consistently civil to his many opponents.
I cannot see what was supposedly anti-semitic about Chris' deleted post. He raised some very interesting questions about the contradiction between a Jewish identity and secular humanism. I would have been interested in seeing a response to his points.
I have come to like and respect the overwhelming majority of regular participants on this blog. The issues that we discuss are very volatile, and have a lot of baggage attached to them; I think we have done surprisingly well at maintaining a civil relationship with each other. I am sorry that this arrangement seems to have broken down.
I am disappointed that Chris was targeted, as I certainly do not think he was among the more divisive posters, and I have found him to be consistently civil to his many opponents, however offensive they may find his ideas. Chris wrote in a blunt, polemical style, but he hammered at questions that most many well-meaning liberals avoid in discussions amongst themselves.
I think that what made Phil and some others most uncomfortable was Chris' direct challenge to the progressive vision of history and human nature. He constantly reminded readers of the inherently destructive nature of universal movements, which demand the sacrifice of particularistic and traditional social structures to which many peoples are deeply attached.
LeanNder,
Thanks for that source, I'll check it out.
Here is an excerpt of Gottfried's review and replies.
link to csulb.edu
Others are available on Macdonald's "Replies to my critics" section on his homepage, including links to a discussion by John Derbyshire on *Jewcy*.
*What is ethical about implicitly demanding “all” Polish Jews had to essentially fight both Nazis in the West and Russians in the East, instead of partially helping the Russians against what they considered more evil and the time? I think we are confronted with this imagery of “the Jew” as a traitor among nations, based on his theories quite often now.*
I need to make it clear that MacDonald is an evolutionary psychologist, not an ethicist or a philosopher; he makes this quite clear in his writings. He studies the ways different human groups compete for resources and promote the groups' survival over time.
"How would you describe a national, ethnic interest? An ethnic, national identity?"
Well, since a nation (an ethnically similar group that intermarries) typically shares more genetic material, cultural beliefs, etc., than those outside the nation, it is in an individual's genetic (and often social and religious) interest to favor the interests of members of their own nation in preference to outsiders. The national interest would be in promoting the survival and reproduction of its population.
I'm not very interested in what names someone is called, or their likes or dislikes. I simply care how good the arguments and sources are.
Incidently, there have been some fascinating public correspondences between MacDonald and paleoconservative Jewish scholars Paul Gottfried and Eric Kaufmann.
However, neither side would probably please most readers here! They all agree that organized Jewish organizations were leaders in promoting multiculturalism and modern liberalism in general, and that these ideologies have had disasterous effects on the West. They argue over the scope of the Jewish role, the degree to which Anglo-America's demise is self-inflicted, "Suicide--Or Murder?", etc.
"I know, I’ve quoted MacDonald myself, still, he chills me, I think he dislikes Jews."
Phil, I think this quote is very important.
First of all, it is true. Kevin MacDonald definitely does not like Jews. After doing decades of research and writing three books on the subject, he decided that Jewish interests conflicted with his own ethnic and cultural interests.
So what?
Why should you care whether MacDonald *likes* us or not? If Kevin MacDonald were committing or advocating doing physical or legal harm against Jews, the situation would be different.
My point is that I think many Jews make themselves sick assuming that any critical thoughts or words reveal violent intent.
I think it is essential for Jews to understand the ways in which their institutional activities conflict with those of non-Jews, and that is impossible without making an honest attempt to understand intelligent critics' points of view.
Why are you so suddenly worked up, Mooser? Chris has been nothing if not consistent in his views. I find his posts provide a pleasant balance against the left-wing humanism of this blog.
Most liberal blogs simply amount to a group of people who think exactly the same attempting to impress each other, and then becoming enraged when no one outside their bubble understands or agrees with them.
Worse, the blueprints plans Netanyahu was showing off are not proof of anything. Other copies were found years ago, and they are not even of Auschwitz. They depict plans for a planned slave labor camp with delousing chambers.
The Himmler initials are probably forged. (Why would the SS chief initial a copy of a blueprint?)
Van der Pelt:
"Everyone is repeating the same nonsense, and the deniers are having great fun because it shows how people are gullible," he told JTA. "
link to jta.org
link to haaretz.com
Agreed, this analogy makes utterly no sense.
Nixon was trying to *restore* law and order.
The Gaza operation commenced with the *destruction* of a graduating class of police cadets! It was intended to destroy infrastructure and government in Gaza.
Agreed. It might be worth mentioning what the "V" in the V1 and V2 stood for: *vergeltung*--revenge. The Blitz was in part a response to the RAF's bombing of German population centers.
Lovely Futura-lika hand lettering on that sign.
Sorry for the irrelevance of that comment, but I was struck by what a difference a really well-lettered sign makes in a demonstration.
v. - - I don't see how you expect to persuade anyone with personal insults mixed in with mouldy socialist polemic that sounds like it was cribbed from Weimar-era Spartacist pamphlets.
v., I have no idea who you are arguing with. I don't see any messianic neocon globalists here.
I think that it's a bit of a stretch to conflate the Founding Fathers and the weak antebellum Federal Government with the modern imperial machinations of transnational capitalists, which I don't think even Hamilton could have dreamed of.
Good points, Sin Nombre.
I think that certain motifs are perennially popular in drama, for example: powerful, quasi-religious cabals, characters who seem normal but are tied to a sinister underground culture, and characters whose averice is only governed by inscruitable rules and codes.
I also find that humans universally need some safe "bad other" to define themselves against.
What changes is what groups play these parts. Jews were simply irresistable for many of these roles, although Freemasons were extremely popular as well. Jews are now off limits, and Masons seem too harmless, so the Catholic Church seems to be taking up the slack (both in Da Vinci and the Philip Pullman books). The government was particularly popular in the 1990's (i.e. the X Files).
Grinning white southerners (and sometimes small-town midwesterners with dark secrets) are a horror staple, and middle-American whites (esp. from the South) tend to play the role of bogeyman for most liberals. The MSM's suggestions that the tax and health-care protests were being masterminded by some fascist network of racists is an example of this same conspiratorial motif.
The most important thing for these motifs to work dramatically is that the "sinister/evil other" needs to be something that the whole audience can see as hostile and alien. What it is seems less important.
Considering that the real power and cultural force of the Jews has been in the diaspora for the last several centuries, and that the US remains the cultural, intellectual, and financial center of Jewish life, I don't think that there is anything too dubious about potsherd's assertion.
In Tractate Pesach of the Talmud, the rabbis discuss why God dispersed the Jews. One of the reasons they propose up is that the diaspora made the destruction of the Jews impossible.
Very good points, Chris.
Juan Cole does plenty of good work, but he is no specialist on the Shoah.
“We know perhaps 20 per cent about the Holocaust.” -- Raul Hilberg (From an address given shortly before his death.)
Ahmadinejad's use of the Holocaust is as politically self-serving as that of the Zionists he attacks, and I'm not really interested in employing him as a defender of open research.
Generally, any serious study of the Holocaust is troublesome because the actual history is messy and ugly, and does not lend itself to neat good/evil dichotomies and poltically profitable "lessons."
Thanks for that great post, Shmuel.
I tend to bristle when I hear references to "Tikum olam" because, as you say, its popular usage is essentially a modern invention. It also tends to function as a synonym for left wing poltical positions, which would probably astonish the medieval Kabbalists!
I also find the notion of human beings presuming to "repair" God's Creation to be theologically offensive.
Hey, I like the headline! I had to look up "tumbril," but it's a great word and I'm always glad to learn cool new words.
From my perspective on the non-neocon right (which is not that of Fox News), Jones' fondness for revolutionary Communist and race-baiting rhetoric was what really made him a target.
Incidently, the only reason I definitely do NOT believe the Bush Administration knew about 9/11 is that Rove would have ensured that Bush was positioned to make a appropriately Churchillian address with an appropriate backdrop, rather than being caught flat-footed reading "My Pet Goat" before disappearing as Cheney took charge.
And if our food weren't so cheap, maybe we (Americans) wouldn't be so fat!
(As for support for immigration--in past years Americans have been favorable to legal immigration, but not illegal immigration. In this economic crisis though, popular opinion seems to be shifting towards restriction.)
You are certainly right about agribusiness benefiting from mass immigration. If it could not get new throwaway workers so easily, it would have to offer higher wages.
Margaret, here's an article by Stanley Kurtz on Obama, ACORN, and the subprime mortgage collapse. Obama did much more for ACORN than merely act as a lawyer.
link to article.nationalreview.com
Margaret, I agree with your remarks about Bush. Both parties have adopted policies hostile to middle-America (they are unified on free-trade, for example, and both Bush and McCain were pro-immigration). The Republicans have been better at giving lip-service to heartland concerns.
The voting blocs we're discussing would not have seen tax-cuts as objectionable since the generally think of "tax cuts" as simply letting people keep their earned money. The bailouts was a giveaway of *their* money to those responsible for their economic suffering--a big difference.
To Todd's remarks I'll add that the Obama administration blew off the tea party and town hall demonstrations as formented by an irrelevant malcontents and Fox News. The dominant media has repeatedly dismissed the protesters as racists, and the Times mocked them as a dying demographic that could be ignored.
Nothing in the health care proposals prevented illegal immigrants from receiving care, although Obama claimed otherwise before his health care address.
I agree with Todd. While previous Democratic presidents have at least paid lip-service to some of the concerns of middle-America, the Obama administration has been quite overt in their contempt for small town whites.
As Todd said, this contempt *has* been noticed, and it has fueled a great deal of resentment on the right. I'm sure Obama's race amplifies the resentment for many people, but most of all I think Obama's attackers are angry that their concerns (such as the behind-the-scenes bank bailouts and dissembling on the issue of health coverage for illegal immigrants) are being laughed at.
Seth,
Thanks for your post. Considering how often references are made to McCarthyism and blacklists, I don't think the sectarian battles that you mention are quite dead yet.
I hope you will not let Chris scare you off. He is quite knowledgeable and brings a useful (and uncensored) hard-traditionalist/Christian-right/paleoconservative persepective to a blog that is generally left-leaning. One of Phil's major achievements is acting as a bridge between the old non-neocon right and the progressive left in discussing Jewish and Zionist issues.
(BTW, I've read this blog for years, and Chris definitely is not a Nazi-fan.)
Thanks LeaNder,
Briefly, I agree that family, religion, and community parochialism are not any kind of perfect solution for a good society. I don't want any single social institution to have total power, and I see these traditional institutions as a buffer between the individual and the state. When these traditional institutions are weakened, their authority doesn't disappear, rather it is assumed by the state.
LeaNder,
I can't speak for Jack, but it is a mistake to assume that anti-communists are all market-worshiping libertarians.
My own visceral loathing of Communism comes from its track record and my general hostility towards total systems of social organization. I am hostile to "global democracy" for the same reasons. Both systems reduce individuals to interchangeable economic units, and weaken or destroy the institutions that traditionally act as a bulwark against state power, such as the family, intact communities, and religion.
I agree! Thanks, Jack. The history that you recount is too often forgotten.
Thanks, Jack. This was a very fine post.
v..., for Plato, in a well-ordered society the slaves would be those whose nature was to be ruled. The strife would result from "slaves by nature" occupying roles inconsistent with their nature. Plato took it for granted that only a minority was suitable for rule, and most needed to be ruled by others.
The idea that inter-group ethics should be the same as intra-group ethics (i.e. universal human rights) is a pretty new idea. The ancient Israelites had very strict internal ethics, but the rules for dealing with competing peoples were quite different:
When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it.
And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.
But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.
Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here.
But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.
Deut. 20:10-20
Donald,
I simply don't see any point in projecting late 20th century post-colonial mores on long-dead individuals.
When looking at history closely, it is definitely possible to play monday-morning quarterback and say that a certain decision was wrong or foolish. It isn't possible, though, to really know the whole mind of a historical actor. Over something as vast as North American Euro-American/Indian relations, one can say that displacement was inevitable, but the means might be different, and in fact they were: they covered the whole range of missionizing, assimilation, forced assimilation, ethic cleansing, war, reservations, etc. There was a lot of human drama on both sides, and Indians were anything but passive victims shifted around by omnipotent white demigods. That post-colonial narrative degrades Indians as much as it demonizes whites.
Richard, thanks for your posts on this page. You know a great deal more about the history of the Indian removals in the US than most people here.
This commentary is worthless; it's little more than a disconnected mass of ad-hominem attacks. I am not even sure if it is about McConnell's review, Caldwell's book, or what the author doesn't like about Europe.
Mr. Idrees seems to have completely missed McConnell's irony in his comparison of traditional Muslim values to secular European decadence.
I'm glad that you are writing here, Mr. McConnell.
It's good that you point out the demographic issues. A fairly consistent problem with secular liberalism is that secular liberals do not reproduce at replacement rates.
Western Europe has become so culturally and demographically listless that perhaps only the pressure of Islam can inspire it to assert itself as a civilization worth preserving. The alternative may be serious ethnic/religious conflict between right-wing Europeans and Moslems, with a liberal elite despised by both caught in the middle.
Thanks for your post, Ms. Kusmierczyk, and to Eva and others for their comments.