Posted on 11/13/2001 12:10:56 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
I do not post these musings of mine to be disagreeable or provocative, but I simply do not understand the consistent inconsistencies of "palaeo"conservatives. And I am not referring to their position on Communist Arabs vis a vis their position on every other Communist in the world. I am referring to something far more basic.
I do not understand someone calling himself a "palaeo"conservative who then invokes "liberty," "rights," etc., for the very simple reason that "palaeo"conservatism connotes a European-style conservatism that opposes these very things in the name of Throne and Altar. So why do our disciples of Joseph de la Maistre pose as followers of Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, or Friedrich von Hayek?
I don't know. Honestly. I'm asking.
True, Charley Reese and Joseph Sobran (unlike their more honest and consistent fellow, Pat Buchanan) pose as across-the-board individualist Jeffersonian ideologues. But truly consistern libertarians, even the most "rightwing," took positions on civil rights and the new left in the Sixties that were (and are) anathema to some of these fellow travellers. I recently went to a libertarian site (this one here) where I was impressed with the fearless consistency of a true libertarian, such as Rothbard. I urge interested parties to read some of Rothbard's writings here (particularly "Liberty and the New Left") and honestly ask themselves if they can imagine "libertarians" like Sobran or Reese (or their supporters here at FR) saying such things.
Imagine, for example, the following quotation from Rothbard, from the article just cited:
It is no wonder then that, confronted by the spectre of this Leviathan, many people devoted to the liberty of the individual turned to the Right-wing, which seemed to offer a groundwork for saving the individual from this burgeoning morass. But the Right-wing, by embracing American militarism and imperialism, as well as police brutality against the Negro people, faced the most vital issues of our time . . . and came down squarely on the side of the State and agaisnt the person. The torch of liberty against the Establishment passed therefore to the New Left.
Okay, the militarism/imperialism quote is right in character, but can you honestly imagine Sobran saying such things about "police brutality against the Negro people" or heaping such praises on the New Left in an address before Mississippi's "Council of Conservative Citizens?" Or Reese saying such things before a League of the South convention???
Something doesn't fit here.
The thing is, the "palaeo"right has roots going back to the turn-of-the-century European right (eg, Action Francaise) as well as to the Austrian school of economics. In fact, sometimes these roots jump out from the midst of libertarian rhetoric--for example, when someone stops thumping the First Amendment long enough to bemoan the subversive, rootless, cosmopolitan nature of international capitalism (and surely no one expects libertarian Austrian economics to create a Pat Buchanan-style monocultural country!), or to defend Salazar Portugal or Vichy France.
In short, what we are faced with here is the same situation as on the Left, where unwashed, undisciplined, excrement-throwing hippies rioted in favor of the ultra-orderly goose-stepping military dictatorships in Cuba and Vietnam. In each case--Left and Right--the American section advocated positions that the mother movement in the mother country would not tolerate. For one thing, Communist countries exploit and use totalitarian patriotism; no one in Cuba burns the Cuban flag and gets away with it, I guarantee. Yet partisans of nationalist-communist Cuba advocate the "right" of Americans to burn their national flag. And can anyone imagine what Franco or Salazar would have done to some dissident spouting Rothbard's rhetoric back in Iberia in the 1950's or 60's? Yet once again, a philosophy alien to the mother country is seized upon by native Falangists as the essence of the movement.
I don't get it. Palaeos, like Leftists, don't seem to be able to make up their minds. Are they in favor of or opposed to "rights liberalism?" Do they dream of a reborn medieval European chr*stendom, or a reborn early-federal-period enlightenment/Masonic United States of America? Do they want a virtually nonexistent government or something like the strong, paternalistic governments of Franco, Salazar, and Petain that will preserve the purity of the ethnoculture? Or they for or against free trade? (It is forgotten by today's Buchananite Confederacy-partisans that "free trade" was one of the doctrines most dear to the real Confederacy.) Are you for Jeffersonial localism or against it when a Hispanic border town votes to make Spanish (the language of Franco!) its official language?
I wonder if I could possibly be more confused than you yourselves seem to be.
Honestly, it does sometimes seem that the issue that defines "palaeo"ism is hostility to Israel. Why else would someone like "Gecko," a FReeper who openly admired 19th Century German "conservatism," which he admitted was a form of state socialism, be considered a member of the family by "disciples of Ludwig von Mises?" None of this makes any sense at all.
As a final postscript, I must add once more that I am myself a "palaeo" in all my instincts (except that I don't go around advocating a Biblical Theocracy for Israel and a Masonic republic for the United States, nor do I brandish the Bill of Rights like an ACLU lawyer). Whatever the intrinsic opposition between palaeoconservatism (at least of the more honest de la Maistre variety) and a reborn Halakhic Torah state based on the Throne and Altar in Jerusalem, I have never been able to discover them. I guess the rest of you know something I don't (although it sure as heck ain't the Bible). If there is some law requiring "true" palaeoconservatism to be based on European idealist philosophy, Hellenistic philosophy, or Austrian libertarian economics rather than the Divinely-Dictated Word of the Creator, I would like to hear about it. All I know is the rest of you "palaeos" seem to take hostility to Judaism (not just Zionism and Israel but Judaism itself) as a given for anyone who wants to be a member of the "club." And you seem to have a mutual agreement to act as though Biblical Fundamentalist Zionism didn't exist and that all sympathy for Israel originated in the philosophy of former Trotskyist/globalist/capitalist/neoconservatism (which is confusing because according to libertarianism capitalism is good). I have moreover learned from past experience that if I question any of you about your position on the Bible you ignore it with a smirk I can practically feel coming out of the monitor.
My attitude is as follows: for true libertarians who are actually sincere and consistent I have a deep respect, even though I disagree with you philosophy. For people who insist that one should be required to oppose the existence of a Jewish State on the ancient 'Eretz Yisra'el in order to even consider himself a conservative, you can all boil in hot excrement, since I have no desire to belong to your loathsome `Amaleq-spawned society. I simply wish I could understand why conservatism--which to me has always meant an acknowledgement of the Jewish G-d and His Word--has spawned so many people whose fundamental outlook is so diametrically opposed to this.
At any rate, while I do not expect any other than taunting, smart-aleck replies, I will most assuredly listen with an open mind to any explanation of the otherwise inexplicable Franco/Ayn Rand connection.
I also think you are probably right in viewing anti-semitism as such an emotionally laden charge that any discussion of the Jewish Question is impossible. In respectable and academic intellectual circles, it's been taboo since the mid-1940's, in conservative circles since the '50s at least.
As an historian of ideas, I find the notion of any truly taboo subject anathema, ultimately unproductive in the long run. While my original intention was to be an Enlightenment scholar, I ended up doing quite a bit of work in 19th and 20th century European intellectual history and am thus reasonably familiar with the history of modern anti-semitism, Zionism and the whole Jewish Question -- as 19th and 20th century writers termed the serious discussion of the role of Jews in modern society by both Jewish and gentile thinkers. It was Roumanian/Austrian writer Gregor von Rizzori who observed in the 1950's that perhaps the greatest damage done by Hitler was that it made discussion of the Jewish Question impossible. Jewish concern with anti-semitism is certainly legitimate and the urge to tell the world when you've found one is surely understandable.
In America today, Jews are as integrated into secular society as ever they havc been. Rightly so, in my view. Only in Wilhelmine and Weimer Germany have Jews enjoyed the political, religious and economic freedom that they do in America today. Yet, some anti-semitism lingers, apart from whatever nonsenses the Mohammedans foment and spout. There are those who believe Jewish influence is too great, whether their beef is politcal (the Israeli lobby), religious (the push against religion in public life, especially Christianity), financial (the "Jews run the financial system" crowd) or cultural (the "Jewish left wing intellectuals and professors are trashing the high culture of the West" crowd). Any discussion of these questions, whether it is of the ususal crackpot or a serious nature, is met with charges of antisemitism. As you point out, some of the charges are not well-founded and can lead to bitterness. I offer no opinion on Sobran's motivations.
My considered view, after at least 30 years of off and on reflection, is that the tarring of critics with the anti-semitic brush is not in the long term best interests of either Israel or American Jewry. I think Jews should not lose sight of the experience in Germany and should realize that suppressing hostile views can only make them spread underground in virulent ways, to pop up when there are other grievences from which some charismatic leader would divert the populace. Look at the passions the Pollard case ignites, for example. I believe that over time, open discussion of the Jewish Question, both within the Jewish community and in dialog with the gentile world, is more likely to lead to a stable acceptance of both Israel and American Jewry, and a better understanding of the cultural and religious issues underlying both Jewish and gentile views. But, frankly, I dispair that any such dicussion will occur in my lifetime or that of my children. I fear that the alternative will be a loss of support for Israel at some critical juncture, perhaps, or the growth of an anti-semitism that hides itself until it is too late.
AP probably responds to all kinds of influences. However, having just disproved your previous assertion that the Saudis own AP, I'm skeptical about your newfound assertion that Saudis "bankroll much of AP".
But... I'm sure you think its all a Jewish conspiracy. Don't you? They cause all of life's problems--including when you get a hang nail.
I helpfully point out pertinent falsehoods in your post and instead of graciously accepting correction you respond with spiteful personal attacks.
I think the Romans came from The descendants of Japheth, I imagine that if the Romans were really Esau, that it would have been mentioned in Josephus. Not to mention that Latin is not a semitic language. I think what Libertarian Lurker wrote seems feasible.
2264 Herodes {hay-ro'-dace}
compound of heros (a "hero") and 1491;; n pr m
AV - Herod, Antipas 27, Herod, the Great 11, Herod Agrippa 6; 44
Herod = "heroic"
1) the name of a royal family that flourished among the Jews in the
times of Christ and the Apostles. Herod the Great was the son of
Antipater of Idumaea. Appointed king of Judaea B.C. 40 by the
Roman Senate at the suggestion of Antony and with the consent of
Octavian, he at length overcame the great opposition which the
country made to him and took possession of the kingdom B.C. 37;
and after the battle of Actium, he was confirmed by Octavian,
whose favour he ever enjoyed. He was brave and skilled in war,
learned and sagacious; but also extremely suspicious and cruel.
Hence he destroyed the entire royal family of Hasmonaeans, put to
death many of the Jews that opposed his government, and proceeded
to kill even his dearly beloved wife Mariamne of the Hasmonaean
line and his two sons she had borne him. By these acts of
bloodshed, and especially by his love and imitation of Roman
customs and institutions and by the burdensome taxes imposed upon
his subjects, he so alienated the Jews that he was unable to
regain their favour by his splendid restoration of the temple and
other acts of munificence. He died in the 70th year of his age,
the 37th year of his reign, the 4th before the Dionysian era. In
his closing years John the Baptist and Christ were born; Matthew
narrates that he commanded all the male children under two years
old in Bethlehem to be slain.
2) Herod surnamed "Antipas", was the son of Herod the Great and
Malthace, a Samaritan woman. After the death of his father he was
appointed by the Romans tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. His first
wife was the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia; but he
subsequently repudiated her and took to himself Herodias, the wife
of his brother Herod Philip; and in consequence Aretas, his
father-in-law, made war against him and conquered him. He cast
John the Baptist into prison because John had rebuked him for this
unlawful connection; and afterwards, at the instigation of
Herodias, he ordered him to be beheaded. Induced by her, too, he
went to Rome to obtain from the emperor the title of king. But in
consequence of the accusations brought against him by Herod
Agrippa I, Caligula banished him (A.D. 39) to Lugdunum in Gaul,
where he seems to have died. He was light minded, sensual and
vicious.
3) Herod Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus and Berenice, and
grandson of Herod the Great. After various changes in fortune, he
gained the favour of Caligula and Claudius to such a degree that
he gradually obtained the government of all of Palestine, with the
title of king. He died at Caesarea, A.D. 44, at the age of 54, in
the seventh [or the 4th, reckoning from the extension of his
dominions by Claudius] year of his reign, just after having
ordered James the apostle, son of Zebedee, to be slain, and Peter
to be cast into prison: Acts 12:21
4) (Herod) Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I. When his father died
he was a youth of seventeen. In A.D. 48 he received from Claudius
Caesar the government of Chalcis, with the right of appointing the
Jewish high priests, together with the care and oversight of the
temple at Jerusalem. Four years later Claudius took from him
Chalcis and gave him instead a larger domain, of Batanaea,
Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis, with the title of king. To those
reigns Nero, in A.D. 53, added Tiberias and Taricheae and Peraean
Julias, with fourteen neighbouring villages. He is mentioned in
Acts 25 and 26. In the Jewish war, although he strove in vain to
restrain the fury of the seditious and bellicose populace, he did
not desert to the Roman side. After the fall of Jerusalem, he was
vested with praetorian rank and kept the kingdom entire until his
death, which took place in the third year of the emperor Trajan,
[the 73rd year of his life, and the 52nd of his reign] He was the
last representative of the Herodian dynasty.
***
2401 Idoumaia {id-oo-mah'-yah}
of Hebrew origin 0123;; n pr loc
AV - Idumaea 1; 1
1) Idumaea, the name of a region between southern Palestine and the
Arabian Petraea inhabited by Edom or Esau and his posterity
>>>
0123 'Edom {ed-ome'} or (fully) 'Edowm {ed-ome'}
from 0122; TWOT - 26e; n pr m
AV - Edom 87, Edomites 9, Idumea 4; 100
Edom = "red"
1) Edom
2) Edomite, Idumean - descendants of Esau
3) land of Edom, Idumea - land south and south east of Palestine
***
These Herods were a bad news buffet. One thing always sticks in my mind: it was an Idumaean who expanded and restored the temple.
...the name of a royal family [of Idumaea] that flourished among the Jews in the
times of Christ and the Apostles.
Sounds awfully familiar. http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3bb48aaf452f.htm
And then there's the next...
Shabbat
Annual Selection:
Toledot: Gen. 25.19-28.9.
Malachi 1.1-2.7.
That is your opinion, not fact.
"Israel-the only nation in the Mideast that offers no-strings political and military allegiances to the US"
One of the most ridiculous statements I have read on FR.
I have many objections to globalism/imperialism, but I do find US support for Israel particularly loathsome, as I abhore bullies and connivers. Your post provided a great example of such contemptible behavior.
Why am I not surprised?
You may rate Israel on par with Britain and Canada, I certainly do not. BTW, just what have we gotten from Israel that serves US interests?
P.S. Thanks for at least acknowledging that US/ISRAEL relations has "strings".
Architect: No. Joe believes in the existence an American pro-Israeli thought-control apparatus. He is right. This apparatus exists.
Just wanted to ask you for a clarification, if you don't mind. Some words a key here, both in terms of the meaning and prescription for action.
Many people who use "control" in this context, mean something like "leading your thought, by various manipulations of facts, to a conclusion that is harmful to your own interest" --- an abominable behavior, if you ask me. Another meaning is "influencing by ensuring the presence of and focus on relevant information." This meaning is consistent with that of the word "lobby," although a combination "Jewish lobby" seems to be utilized it the former mode.
What do you mean by "control," and which belief do you impute to "Joe?"
This apparatus is only a conspiracy in the original sense of the word - people who breathe together.
I do not question your expertise in entimology, but here is what I found:
con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)It appears diffiult to see what is "orignal" when it comes to English.
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas. ---------------------
[Middle English conspiracie, from Anglo-Norman, probably alteration of Old French conspiration, from Latin cnsprti, cnsprtin-, from cnsprtus, past participle of cnsprre, to conspire. See conspire.]
Regardless of the foregoing, however, surely you do not fail to see that most who speak of "Jewish conpiracy," especially when in a sentence together with "control of the media," are concerned with more than breathing together.
A simple test appears to be this: had the extento of the genocide was not a qeustion involving Jews --- if it were to involve the Roma people (Gypsies) or Khmer Ruge actions, say --- would he be as adamant to establish the "truth?"
Similarly, many people who criticise Israel on this board are often indignant and offended when they are suspected of being anti-Semitic (it is true that some Jewish respondents are too quick with such accusation; while the sensitivity is understable, I do not condone such hasty critism). They say that they are not prejudiced, they are simply "America first." If so, the same test applies: do they complain (ever) about out aid to Egypt, which in size comparable to that we give to Israel; or our support of Taiwan, which may indeed get us into WWIII.
It is perfectly legitimate to question and disagree with our position with respect to Israel. And it is perfectly fine to question the number of Nazi victims. But the aforementioned test appears to be rather effective in localizing the motives for the inquiry. Purhaps, it is no wonder, then, that many people conclude that "Sobran has no love lost for Jews?"
No, I do not need a deconstruction. Actually, I do not really need much at all in this area: in the past, I have designed optimal control for a number of aerospace objects still in use in the defense of this country.
Given how cavalier most people are with this term, I was curious and open-minded about teh meaning with which you endow this word.
Well, I am delighted that you exceed my knowledge so much that this issue for you is trivial. Forgive me, then, for posing the question. Please do not bother to reply: as I said, I am quite content with my understanding of this area.
I agree with you fully; David Irving has no symathy from me either, especially when, as you so well put, "[one has] to twist the truth in order for it to fit [one's] world view."
Like you, I try to distance myself from emotions in such cases, and in this case may have overdone being careful to address the issue rather then proceed ad hominem. Regards, TQ.
Most people with whom I had a chance to speak are puzzled when I ask: "ABC News is a business. What does it sell?"
The easy answer is, of course, advertising. That is, ABC News, out of goodness of their hearts and the best they can, informs us of the developments in the world. They do this free of charge becasue their costs and reasonable profiuts are covered by advertising. This story is presents usually as a wonerful invention --- everybody wins (or, in the language of professional economics, Pareto-efficient outcome).
This is too simple. What drives the price of the advertising? The A.C. Nielsen ratings. Thus, the loop closes: it matters what ABC News reports in bewtween commercials, for that will determine whether we maintain our attention span and stay until commercial, so that ABC can make a buck.
Which is why I submit to you that
Television news broadcasts are in the business of selling public sentiment.You do not need me to notice the uniformity of broadcasts. We all know that the three networks, which are purportedly independent, report almost the same thing. So we ask, why? If some entities are supposedly independent, yet act in almost perfect unison, there must be...
The most simple-minded complete the sentence with the word "conspiracy." But by whom? "Leftists," say some. And, indeed, there is a clear bias in the media. Some other say: "Jews." Indeed, there are many Jewish-sounding names associated with the media (well, there are many Jewish doctors, too; do they conspire to kill our children? But that's another point).
Many people do not know about the A.C. Nielsen (and some other, similar) ratings being broadcast to all advertising agencies in this country and abroad every morning. For these executives, reading them is like reading the Wall Street Journal for finance specialist on Wall Street --- a daily religious ritual. These reports are extrmely detailed, and they translate immediately into the advertising revenues.
Thus, rather than conspiracy we have conformity dictated by purely economic forces. Have you noticed how all gas stations are somehow group at a major exit from an interstate? Have you wondered why you see a Burger King accross from MacDonald's? As stranfe as it seems, game theory predicts this as a stable (equilibrium) outcome.
Similarly, all network news take position next to each other in the space in out minds; they sell the same thing. Just like a Burger King does not collude with MacDonald's across the street, there is no collusion among the networks --- Jewish, leftist, or any other. It is just a stable competitive outcome; pure profit maximization lead to it.
But for this result to obtain, they must be selling a product. What I submit to you, is that they are selling a prevailing sentiment.
Thus, when the public sentiment was with Israel --- a country viciously and repeatedly attacked by hew neighbors, founded by much persecuted people --- the sentiment was with Israel, and it could do no wrong. They have not died, however, which is a big fault in the present-dat ethos of victimhood. Then we noticed that Palestinians, although barbaric in behavior, are without a permanent home for a long time, hence are victims. Hence on the network news they can do no wrong and Israel is a tyrannic state that can do no right. This wekend, the pendulum may haev moved back a little. Conspiracy? Absolutely not! Just a shift in sentiment. If some network does not feed our current sentiment, we shall not watch, their rating will go down today and revenues tomorrow.
This central premise explains prety much everything else. All of a sudden, every sitcom has a homosexual for the first time --- all in the same season. They will all have a same-sex kiss during the same week. On the other hand, it has become "cool" to show patriotism. Regarldess of the individuality of the anchor, this becomes possible ---- and happens on the same day --- by our shifting sentiment.
You can see now that I cannot agree with you supposition: it is not that the news media have an agenda and "filter out information which opposes its prejudices." We have something of an agenda --- a prevailing public sentiment. And they merely feed us what we want. Action movies if this is what sells. Sex and violence. Patriotism. Cooking shows. Springer. Cynical treatment of the government because after Nixon the masses wanted to be saved from the "corrupt SOB politicians."
Once the sentiment shifts, these diappear as soon as they came, and we wonder, "Whatever happened to...?"
In sum, you and many other people think too highly of the media: to have an agendum or prejudice that impute to the media they must have a msssion and, frankly, expertise and brains. The media have no more of that than Ford or IBM. Just like Ford or IBM, they sell a product, but less tangible than cars or computers --- sentiment. They probe for it; look at feedback via the ratings; and, once it is found, run with it until we become nauseated (this may take a generation, as in the case of cynical tratment of the government). Then we signal, by our yawning, that we want a change. They sense it, and... ad infinitum.
WRT the Arab/Israeli question, the truth is easy enough to discern. For a thousand years, Arabs treated Jews and Christians decently in Palestine. As second-class citizens, true - but decently. Then a group of Jews decided that they should have first-class status and Arabs should come second, so they created a racist state in Palestine. After that, all hell broke loose...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.