An Anti-Semitic Left Hook: ("Left- and right-wing extremists are … ideological soul mates.")

FrontPage Magazine ^ | March 24, 2004 | Patrick Chisholm [The Christian Science Monitor]

[quidnunc]

Anti-Semitism traditionally has been associated with the extreme right. Now, it is becoming more common among the extreme left.

Leftist president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe huffed that "Jews in South Africa, working in cahoots with their colleagues here, want our textile and clothing factories to close down." Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who is no right-winger, lashed out against Jews who "rule the world by proxy." One finds pockets of anti-Semitism at anti-globalization rallies, and plenty of it at pro-Palestinian rallies. And in recent years anti-capitalist campaigners have been networking with radical Islamists and neo-Nazi groups via their websites, according to a draft report by the Technical University of Berlin's Center for Research on Anti-Semitism. (This was the same report commissioned by the European Union, which decided for who-knows-what-reason not to officially release it.)

Contrary to what one would think, left- and right-wing extremists are, in major respects, ideological soul mates. Don't be fooled by labels; applying the simplistic terms of "right" and "left" to complex political realities naturally begets confusion.

While ultra-rightists are generally thought of as racist and ultra-leftists as nonracist, the latter are by no means immune to such decrepitude.

And both camps share these core attitudes: a readiness to buy into conspiracy theories, hatred of the rich, contempt for speculators and financiers, a deep suspicion of large corporate enterprises, and a conviction that the privileged few oppress the masses.

These notions manifest themselves in the party platforms of radical groups. Here are excerpts from one such platform (courtesy of Australian writer John J. Ray):

• We demand that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

-snip-

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

National Socialists ARE Socialists.

Socialist. Leftist.

Leftist. Socialist.

The two words kinda go together.

All that differs is the reason for hating the same group of people. The Jews are hated by the National Socialists because they're not Aryan. The Jews (in Israel and the US) are hated by the Socialists because they're "the oppressors". Same net result.

[Nonstatist]

This also includes the resident Buchananites and John Birchers we run into every now and then, of course.

[Bismarck]

There are still many hardcore Antisemites in the Far Right, but most anti-semitic Hatmongers are either Leftists or Mohammedans. That's a fact.

[Bismarck]

I don't know about that. Defining Buchanan & Co. as Anti-Semites is kinda stretching it.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Defining Buchanan & Co. as Anti-Semites is kinda stretching it.

Pat "These Jackboots Were Made For Walking" Buchanan once described Congress as being "Israeli-occupied territory."

Pat "Springtime For Hitler" Buchanan, publicly and repeatedly, contended that Jews "manipulated" the U.S. into fighting the Gulf War. (... and William F. Buckley, Jr. spanked his sorry wrinkled hinder good'n'hard for that one, too.)

[Both quotes -- among many, many similar others -- can be found in the pages of Pat's own A REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE. Order now, and get a free black armband -- while supplies last!]

Pat doesn't seem to have any particular "problem" with being the nation's unofficial Senator (I. - Auschwitz) without portfolio, on the (apparently) all-important matter of seeing which noted public figure can out-whackjob Cynthia McKinney on the crucial topic of Da JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS, and their eeeeevil hold on the American body politic today.

Doesn't make much sense arguing against his own readily apparent wishes and beliefs in this matter for him, really, IMHO. :)

[Restorer]

While ultra-rightists are generally thought of as racist and ultra-leftists as nonracist, the latter are by no means immune to such decrepitude.

Decrepitude: state of being broken down with age, worn out

Wonder what word he meant to use?

[TopQuark]

I don't know about that. Defining Buchanan & Co. as Anti-Semites is kinda stretching it.

You can judge for youself, of course. But in my book, accusing an American Jew of engaging America in war on Israel's behalf --- accusing of something worse than treason, in effect --- merely on the basis of him being Jewish is anti-Semitism. It is one of the oldest libels favored by the European anti-Semites. And that is what Buchanan actually said.

[Cubs Fan]

The thing is thoough, most of the extreme righties you meet have gone back to the left.

Many of them hate free trade, Israel, and are ultra suspicious of corporations.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

PING, you! :)

[Qwinn]

"But in my book, accusing an American Jew of engaging America in war on Israel's behalf --- accusing of something worse than treason, in effect --- merely on the basis of him being Jewish is anti-Semitism."

Wait a minute... why?

If a Cuban-American in Congress urged Congress to liberate Cuba... and someone pointed it out... would that be anti-Cuban? Not necessarily. Depends on the context. Far as I'm concerned, a Jew in Congress would have every right to support Israel, just as any Cuban in Congress would have to support the liberation of Cuba. That doesn't necessarily represent a "dual loyalty" as much as it does a knowledge of the facts on the ground.

Thinking along those lines (that someone -isn't- allowed to have a position on things they're close to) brings us one step closer to having everything decided by those with the least knowledge or personal stake.

Qwinn

[Ohioan]

What "begets confusion" are articles such as this. While up until a certain period in history, there was much anti-Jewish sentiment in Western and Central Europe, on all sides (right and left); since the time of Karl Marx in the middle of the 19th Century, the aggressive promotion of such sentiment--especially in the form of scape-goating the Jews as the source of Societal woes--has come almost exclusively from the Left. (I will not deny that in Eastern Europe it persisted on all sides for a longer period.)

Of course, predictably, those who want to smear Pat Buchanan, chime in with their silly accusations, whenever you post something like this. But does anyone really believe that Pat's suggestion that certain Jews and Christian Fundamentalists (his "Amen Corner") have over-emphasized Israeli concerns, in any way, shape or form, equates with Marx and Hitler's blaming all societal evil, not on some individual Jews, but on a Jewish mind-state? Anyone who takes that tack--i.e. that Pat's honest criticism is such an equivalent--is so far in denial of reality, that they ought to be laughed at, not encouraged.

It was Marx, however, and his successors, which would include the Nazi offshoot, which have been responsible for the demonization of Jews in the 20th Century. The old religious right has had virtually no part in that effort. On the other hand, the Left's hatred is a species of the same jealousy which also demonizes Chinese in the Malay countries, and which led to the massacre of Tutsi in Central Africa--that earlier led to the mass killing of the Russian Kulaks. The Left believes in totalitarian egalitarianism, and that leads to hatred of high achievers.

William Flax

[Alouette]

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel ping list.

WARNING: This is a high volume ping list

[AmishDude]

You nailed it. The thing about Pat is that he doesnt have that insane Dr.-Strangelove-trying-to-hold-down-the-Nazi-salute vibe that most other "right wing" anti-Semites have. Doesn't take long to sniff most of them out.

Somebody said that Pat makes anti-Semites comfortable.

[AmishDude]

The truth is, it is a ridiculous charge. Cong. Peter King (RINO-NY) is well-known for his attachment to Ireland and, until recently, to the IRA. These accusations of dual loyalties come from this point of view that the US only has attachment to Israel because of Jewish voters and/or Jewish congressmen. Fallacy #1. Also, they believe if we weren't tied to Israel, then we wouldn't be involved in the ME and the nice Muslims would leave us alone. Fallacy #2.

But your comparison to Cuba highlights what's going on. Your scenario won't hold because opposing Cuba is in sync with US policy. (But to see your point, look at how some elements on the left view the Cuban Americans.) The only reason support for Israel would be viewed as a dual loyalty is that these people view such support as opposing US policy and US interests.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

that insane Dr.-Strangelove-trying-to-hold-down-the-Nazi-salute vibe that most other "right wing" anti-Semites have

ROTFLMAO!!! Oh, perfect! That describes Mr. The-U.S.-Congress-Is-Israeli-Occupied-Territory to a fine and proverbial T, doesn't it?

Pat Buchanan has morphed, over the years -- in the final analysis -- into a pale, pink Cynthia McKinney. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. End of story. :)

[AmishDude]

Don't underestimate Pat. He's much smarter than Cynthia McKinney and he's often lucid on non-foreign-policy issues. But sometimes you'll read Joe Sobran, for example, and he'll go from tax cuts seemlessly into Israel. It's remarkable.

BTW, I saw the original The Producers the other night. I will never forgive Mel Brooks for writing that catchy tune.

[TopQuark]

I agree with you but this is not what Buchanan said: he alleged that someone in the Administration sent our boys to die ONLY on behalf of a foreign country, to the detriment of our own. That is different from "urging to do something to help" --- whether Cuba, Israel, or Germany.

I am sorry if I did not make it clear.

[Qwinn]

"The only reason support for Israel would be viewed as a dual loyalty is that these people view such support as opposing US policy and US interests."

Well... from the point of someone like Buchanan (and some others I know who I do respect), they -can- make a case, given the Israeli transfer of our military technology to China. That they did so is not in dispute.

Now please, before you go off on me - I have -staunchly- supported Israel against the Palestinians. I can show a billion and one posts of mine to establish that. I would have no problem right now with Israel deporting every single Palestinian tomorrow, or doing whatever they had to do to kill the terrorists. I think Israel has been getting a -massive- shaft from the international community in terms of their own self-defense.

But you know what?

I am pretty irked about that sale of our technology to the Chinese. I'd be willing to pass it off as some dissident within the Israeli government, if not for the fact that Israel was complicit in covering up/denying the whole thing.

And I think that's where Buchanan's position comes from.

You may not agree with it, but it's wrong to dismiss that instantly as WILDLY anti-Semitic. I can see keeping an -eye- out for anti-Semitism, but making it sound like he's Hitler Reborn is out of line.

Qwinn

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I can see keeping an -eye- out for anti-Semitism, but making it sound like he's Hitler Reborn is out of line.

And The Jackbooted One's repeated avowals that the United States Congress is "Israeli-occupied territory"...?

There's no "pretty" or ameliorative spin that can be placed on such a statement. That much is painfully, patently obvious.

It's simply an updated "twist" on the old, odious Everything's-Secretly-Controlled-By-Da-JOOOOOOOOS canard first given currency within the pages of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

NOT accurately labeling anyone willing to traffic in such vile stuff as (yes) anti-Semitic is what's genuinely "out of line." IMHO.

[AmishDude]

Buchanan has always opposed Israel and continues to do so on virtually every issue. And long before anybody sold anything to China.

But if that's your standard, there's another country that sold weapons technology to China.

Are you opposed to them as well?

[GOP_1900AD]

Imagine the power if the Right were to purge out all anti Semites, and adopt an unambiguous across-the-board position of protection of Jews and support for Israel. We are most of the way there already. Whereas we have been giving the Left issues such as outsourcing , now here's one they are giving us. All we need to do is take it and run with it.

[Qwinn]

I wouldn't be troubled at all, if I'd ever heard anyone able to discuss the Israeli espionage and sale of our military secrets to the Chinese -not- get dismissed as a foaming at the mouth anti-Semite.

It's like we have to pretend that that didn't exist. While Buchanan certainly may have anti-Semitic sentiments, I think the Dr. Strangelove comparisons, literally taking the charge against him to the most UTTER EXTREMES POSSIBLE, as if he's dictating aloud directly from the Protocols every chance he gets, is over the top.

Just as we saw with the Gibson movie, it leads me to believe that anti-anti-Semitism is even more pronounced than anti-Semitism.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

You mean Clinton? Yeah, I think that he should be shot for treason for selling our military secrets to the Chinese, as well as anyone who covered it up for him.

And I think the Israelis should have been more upfront about cooperating with us to nail the guy who stole our secrets, instead of repeatedly DEMANDING his release.

Qwinn

[AmishDude]

Aw, my personal over/under for a Pollard mention was post 30. There's one more inevitability on a thread like this, and my over/under on that is post 45.

And like it or not Clinton was Head of State of the US.

[Qwinn]

As for Pollard - does that mean it's not a legitimate point? Maybe it keeps getting brought up cause it keeps getting dismissed?

I am a strong supporter of Israel... I don't think that the Pollard issue alone is enough to break our alliance with them - but it DOES MATTER, and what you're indicating to me is that it doesn't really, because it's something only anti-Semites bring up.


"And like it or not Clinton was Head of State of the US."

Don't remind me. Still, the Clinton analogy doesn't work because it was an American selling American secrets. There's a difference here. We're not talking about an international alliance. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Jews are involved - if England sold our secrets to the Chinese, I'd be just as pissed off.

If Israel captured an American who was stealing and selling Israeli military secrets to, say, Syria, wouldn't you consider America reacting by -demanding- that person's release to be... anti-Semitic?

Qwinn

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I wouldn't be troubled at all, if I'd ever heard anyone able to discuss the Israeli espionage and sale of our military secrets to the Chinese -not- get dismissed as a foaming at the mouth anti-Semite.

I'm sorry... but: how is this in any way relevant to the issue of whether or not Buchanan's echoing of an ancient Protocols smear -- warning shrilly that "the Jews have taken over!" (i.e., "Israel-occupied territory") IS or IS NOT anti-Semitic, please?

Kindly remain on point, and answer with a simple yes or no, as the reasonable and courteously phrased plainly merits: is describing the United States Congress as "Israeli-occupied territory" -- a bald assertion that U.S. Jews are an evil, alien presence therein, serving a foreign master (to the U.S.' detriment) -- an anti-Semitic sentiment?

Yes, if you disagree with Buchanan's naked and unattractive statement, as written; No, if you agree with it. Not a terribly knotty or difficult question to answer, forthrightly and honestly, surely.

While Buchanan certainly may have anti-Semitic sentiments

Really? Do you genuinely believe it possible, then? Oh, surely not -- !

literally taking the charge against him to the most UTTER EXTREMES POSSIBLE

You're absolutely right, of course. Fairer, by far, to subject nakedly Jew-loathing public statements to the LEAST "extreme" reading possible, no question, fer shure. That's the proverbial ticket!

Ummmmmmmm... and just what exactly, pray, IS "the least extreme reading possible" of a centuries-old blood libel, gussied up and snarled anew, dare one ask...?

[Qwinn]

"Ummmmmmmm... and just what exactly, pray, IS "the least extreme reading possible" of a centuries-old blood libel, gussied up and snarled anew, dare one ask...?"

How did I in any way imply that we should be applying the "least extreme reading possible"? I think if you held it to "He's very anti-Semitic" is a reasonable censure for that comment.

Now, as for the comment itself, you'll scream for this I'm sure (you're already showing your sacred cowness on this issue) but I'd like to see the context in which he said it. Is that an unforgivable crime, to ask to see the context? I mean, if he said it after pointing out something really bad, like that Congress unanimously voted to ignore the whole Pollard incident or something (I don't really know the specific history well enough to know if that happened, I'm just saying) then I could see such a statement made in anger at what would be a genuine betrayal of American interests, YES.

If it wasn't for something -that bad-, if it was not said in a case where it was -clearly- against American interests, then I would agree with you that it was clearly an anti-Semitic statement.

So let me see if I can submit that again in a clearer way for you:

If Buchanan said that because Congress voted to maintain our very large level of aid to Israel, where it is a matter of opinion as to whether that is in U.S. interests or not, then yes, it was anti-Semitic.

If Buchanan said that in anger over something like Congress unanimously letting Israel completely off the hook over Pollard, WHERE THERE COULD BE NO REASONABLE AMERICAN INTEREST TO JUSTIFY CONGRESS'S POSITION ON THE MATTER, then yes, I could see such a statement being made in order to point out that Israel had a dangerously high influence on Congress. In a case where there was -no way- to claim that America's interests coincided with Israel's on a given issue, if all of Congress sided with Israel, such a statement -could- be made without raging anti-Semitic, Dr. Strangelovian overtones, just as it could be made if the BRITISH were to sell our secrets and Congress gave it a total pass. Hey - I happen to feel that most of the U.S. government during FDR's tenure (and since) was SOVIET-occupied territory. Does that mean I'm anti-Russian?

No, I'm not going to apologize for that. I don't know what context Buchanan said it in, so you could very well be right that he said it in a context that was totally uncalled for, and he really is a raging anti-Semite. But if something really shocking happened, where American interests were definetly undermined, such a statement would not necessarily be any more racist than my feelings about the Soviet KGB agents in the FDR administration.

Qwinn

[Zionist Conspirator]

Of course, predictably, those who want to smear Pat Buchanan, chime in with their silly accusations, whenever you post something like this. But does anyone really believe that Pat's suggestion that certain Jews and Christian Fundamentalists (his "Amen Corner") have over-emphasized Israeli concerns, in any way, shape or form, equates with Marx and Hitler's blaming all societal evil, not on some individual Jews, but on a Jewish mind-state?

In one of his "defenses of the South" the Hamiltonian Federalist Buchanan (who waves his anti-Hamiltonian Confederate ancestors like a flag) admitted that Southerners support Israel because the Bible tells them to. In other words, the anti-Zionist Buchanan admitted that Zionism is the true Biblical position. What kind of man knowingly opposes G-d?

As for overemphasizing anything, the only thing that really matters at all is G-d and His Will. Only G-d truly exists. To deny this is to commit basic idolatry, positing an independent reality to something created and held in being by HaShem, Yitbarakh Shemo. G-d's Will is the only reason for any position, be it foreign policy (supporting Israel over the Arabs) or domestic (opposing homosexuality and "gay marriage"). To take any position on any issue for any other reason is to miss the boat entirely. The whole purpose of our life here is to bring out the G-dliness hidden within Creation by submitting everything to the will of the Creator. What kind of "conservative" could disagree with this???

[Zionist Conspirator]

This is a promising article, but it doesn't go far enough. Instead it merely reiterates the obvious.

What really needs to be understood is great ideological realignment taking place in the world among the weirdos. One area where "left" and "right" mesh (in addition to the Arabs) is the Celts, who are admired by the "right" for being the "ultimate aryans" and by the "left" for their communal "indigenous pipple's" view of nature and of property.

Personally, I disagree with the view that because Nazis are socialists they are on the left. The spectrum does not run from individualist to socialist as so many claim but rather both left and right run from individualist to socialist (ie, anarchists on the left and socialists on the right). Modern individualism, which so many American conservatives celebrate, can be labelled "leftist" from a traditional, pre-capitalist perspective. I myself think that unbridled capitalism and individualism are very destructive and prefer a softer, more pre-modern version of society to that of either the modern left or the Malthusian, social Darwinist right. I might even be called a "palaeoconservative," except of course that I believe Judaism is the True Religion and therefore am disqualified at the start, since "palaeoconservatism" seems to consist entirely of hatred of Jews and Judaism.