FACEBOOK INTELLEKTCHUALS AND ANTI-SEMITISM
Anti-Semitism is increasingly obvious and there seems to be less and less attempt at disguising it. For instance today on a Tea Party FB Page that has become a running battle of Pro and Anti-Paulists (Ron Paul). Mixed with hilarious insults, that seem to be so exaggerated as to be in sport, however also posts darker comments. The Ron Paul contingent is, to me, unduly obsessed with Israel as the source of the New World Order. The thousand-year-old meme of International Jewry, and its tentacles sucking the life blood out of the Pure Races of the world is being refurbished. Rather than the typical Hydra-headed Jewish Conspiracy, I find a Hydra-Headed anti-Zionist beast.
Its many heads ironically are mutually hissing at each other though they find common cause in regard to Israel:
1. The Leftist Code Pink, and other Soros funded groups and their solidarity to the Palestinians;
2. the formerly Conservative American patriot that has joined the Blame-America-Firsters (as long as they blame Israel for leading America by the nose) of the Alex Jones type and unfortunately though not of Ron Paul’s type, but of his supporters’ type;
3. The Muslims and their useful idiot apologists, who kiss CAIR’s ass;
4. The “Christian” Left, like Rev. Wrong and the “Church at the Checkpoint” meeting in Bethlehem to enlighten Zionist Christians that Israel is an Apartheid State;
5. Roman Catholic Conservatives who have never quite internalized the papal dropping of the charge of Christ-Killer leveled on the Jews, and neither has the Vatican’s cherished plans for an Internationalized Jerusalem been given up.
Everyday I find one or more of these mutually exclusive groups on Face Book attacking Jews and Zionists.
Again today once more Connecticut Tea Party patriots are mud wrestling over Ron Paul. Once more the Paulists have succeeded in driving me away from supporting him; not for what he has said or done, but more for what they say and write, in what they perceive to be in his support. This was again demonstrated by several “likes” which were given uncritically by those who were happily swallowing a skewed “summary” from the Wikipedia article on Neo-Conservatives. The “Jewess” Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and the “Orthodox Rabbi” Scoop Jackson were included in the term “Neo-Con”. I had almost forgotten these folks, whose positions I admired back in the mid seventies in dark of the Carter régime.
The poster quoted one of many writers whose opinions were cited in the Wikipedia article on Neo-Conservatism. Namely the critic of Neo-Conservatism, Michael Lind, was quoted to the exclusion of many, many others.
“Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.”
The informative Wikipedia Article was well-written and afforded much information to those seeking it. Unfortunately it also provided good ammo for those whose interest is in seeking support for their pre-conceived ideas rather than seeking knowledge for its own sake.
The FB poster limited his Wikipedia research to the quotes that filled his needs.
Before I puke let me just address the worshipful attitude to Woodrow Wilson by Lind. “Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as Palestinians“. Wilson was the most damaging president we have suffered until this current one. He was a self-righteous Academic who was one of the masterminds of Progressivism. His naiveté shocked the leaders of the Allies, and he betrayed the Germans. He had promised a peace without victory or defeat. The German Army having fought the West to a standstill in France and Belgium had never been pushed back to Germany, let alone defeated in the field. Their diplomats arriving in Paris for te negotiations were stunned to learn that the Armistice demanded unconditional Surrender and full admission that the war was totally their doing. (The British naval blockade continued and starving civilians in Germany were defeated, but not the army.)
Wilson’s demand for self-determination” was only for Europeans. He was a racist to the core and a believer in the White man’s superiority. He never noticed the colonialism of the Allies as being opposed to the very sense of “self-determination”. And worse, his demand for self-determination in Europe mixed with the dismembering of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires set the stage for Hitler’s attraction to Germans. German minorities that were now stranded in newly self-determined nations; like the Germans in the Sudetenland now in a new country called Czechoslovakia, and Memel in Lithuania, and Austria and finally in the Danzig corridor, were not afforded self-determination.
Mrs. Astor a wit in English High Society when asked where Hitler was born quickly answered Versailles.
That is Wilson: a racist, academic, Progressive mastermind.
Now to the rest of WIKI article that did NOT fit your pre-determined research:
Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, “Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism.” Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).
Strauss asserted that “the crisis of the West consists in the West’s having become uncertain of its purpose.” Resolution lay in a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the pillars of the Great Tradition in Strauss’s work. Strauss laid great emphasis on spirit of the Greek classics and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American Founding Fathers were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition. O’Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss’s influence led his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted an Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism. Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.
NOW, I happen to hold John Locke in high regard; so I would strongly disagree with the totality of this view.
BUT A MIND OPEN TO LEARNING IS ABLE TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM HERE AND SOMETHING FROM THERE. I LEARNED JUST NOW THAT JOHN LOCKE WAS NOT RESPECTED BY ONE GROUP OF THE NEO-CONS. Mature intellects do not condemn an entire concept by a demand for 100% agreement on every point.
But I agree with Strauss here absolutely with his understanding that the West is doomed to decline as long as it is alienated from its roots, Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman.
It makes learning much more interesting when one is open to learning and not merely looking for proof or support for one’s preconceived notions!