Is that a death threat, or are you trolling for a date?
Watch it or I'll, I'll tell the moderators!
Yes, I will!
By the way Bart, I see that you're back posting on that Malay site:
|
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.
Spoken like a true proponent of hierarchy and ethnic particularity!
Your case of victimology is giving you hallucinations. Really, go see a doctor.
Poor Canaanites. My heart bleeds.
BUMP! Thou hast said it all!!!
Where you refer to poor Irving being "attacked by PC forces".
Irving wrote garbage- which you pretty much conceded. Lipstadt wrote criticism of the garbage.
Where is the attack? Is Lipstadt's criticism an attack? Doesn't she have a right to her opinion?
Irving attacked by filing suit. An absolute defense to a defamation suit is truth. Lipstadt was found to have told the truth about Irving- that he is a liar and an anti-Semite.
The mystery for you is how the world wide Jewish conspiracy got to this Gentile English judge who heard the case. Get back to us when you find out.
Hey--Kahana' was a RIGHT-WING extremist!
Once again--what is the connection between opposing rightwing nationalism and hiearchialism among Jews as a means of restoring it everywhere else? Perhaps you can tell me of how Kahana' supported leftist social policies in the United States?
Second, I agree with what you say about each side having strange (and undesirable) allies. But while I am embarrassed by Dershowitz and the ADL, most anti-Israel conservatives are willing to make a hero out of any liberal who joins them in opposing Israel (Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Fulani, Findlay, Fulbright, etc.). I can explain to you very easily, though, why I do not allow my own undesirable allies to change my views. I idealize the Bible. In the Bible the Jew is permanently frozen in amber as Yehoshua` Bin Nun (Joshua), exterminating G-dless Canaanites as the sun and moon stand still in the sky to assist him. This is a far different picture than that which Joe Sobran sees, or anyone to whom the Jews are primarily the trouble-making dissidents of chr*stendom. Any further questions???
And btw, I am a throne and altar conservative. That's one reason it hurts me to be labelled a "neo" just because the Jews will always be Biblical Israel to me, and not rootless urban cosmopolitan exiles.
Thank you.
Is that a death threat, or are you trolling for a date?
Watch it or I'll, I'll tell the moderators!
Yes, I will!
By the way Bart, I see that you're back posting on that Malay site:
|
Irving isn't an anti-Semite (unlike some other Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zundel). He was just a man who thought he had discovered something important about the Second World War and wanted to revealed his findings to the world.
For this he has been besmirched and demonized. Anyone who tried to defend him from the accusation has been tarred with the same brush. This is not defending yourself from anti-semitism. It is witchhunting.
The boogiemen... The boogiemen... The boogiemen are everywhere.
At least the Malays are right. Jerks like you do want them killed.
A British court found that he was. I'll ask you again, how did the Jewish conspiracy get to the judge?
You are a clear example of the dangers and consquence of long term drug use.
Please, stop calling me names it is hateful and unpleasant.
I'm not aware that paleos are truly promoting nationalism or particularism everywhere but in Israel. Some of them -- and here one is speaking of a very small intellectual group within a small movement -- do have sympathies with European Rightist groups, especially the Lega Nord in Italy. The average paleo probably doesn't know or care about such groups, and is only focused on American affairs. Given the attitude of Thomas Fleming and some others in that small group towards Serbia and Bosnia, they probably would be very well disposed to Israeli or Zionist self-assertiveness, provided 1) that the US was not involved, and 2) that their real archenemies, the neoconservatives, were also not involved.
As for me, I've gotten a little tired of particularism precisely because of the kind of wild claims its partisans come up with. The problem isn't so much with the American heritage of individual rights, rather it's that we've let the ties that held us together as a nation and a people lapse in order to promote the global order. One can maintain universal standards of justice, yet recognize that some are family and others are not. One doesn't have to wish them ill or seek to disenfranchise them. One only has to recognize that good fences make good neighbors.
BTW, I suspect that most Israelis still would not agree with you. And that's something I'd hold in their favor.
The first I heard the term was in Pat's newsletter. Pat is the only one I know, that's right on the mark in his assessment on what are the critical issues and their solutions.
Wanna learn something and keep in front of the pack. Read Pat's weekly. He's now listed on Drudge, ignored by Rush, vilified by McCain, hammered by Kristol and his neocons (opposite if Paeloe). This surely must make him one of the greatest Americans of the century. It will be proven that the 'pen is greater than the sword' or the presidency.
Pat's now just coming into his prime!
Irving appears to take the view that extremely few, if any, people died in the gas chambers. He does acknowledge that many died due to the atrocious conditions in the slave labor camps and that as many 1.5 million died in the forests of eastern europe.
He is also of the opinion that, despite the rabid anti-semitism of his youth, Hitler lost interest in the Jewish question after he took power. In fact, according to him, Hilter actually protected the Jews from the rabid anti-semitism of other Nazis such as Goebbels.
So Irving acknowledges the existence of the Nazi Holocaust and the evil of the Nazis. He does quibble about its magnitude. His revisionism lies in his denial of the gas chambers and his peculiar idea about the role of Hitler.
The evidence provided pretty much proves that Irving is a nut. His theory was slaughtered at the trial. It is therefore true that he was a Hitler apologist and a Holocaust denier.
That does not make him an anti-semite. It is pretty obvious why he brought the suit too. Lipstadt's book simply does not make any distinction between the two.
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.
