[Zionist Conspirator]

In this week's Torah portion we read of the birth of `Esav, the ancestor of the ancient Romans and culturally of the chr*stian West (as well as the grandfather of the accursed `Amaleq). So perhaps it is appropriate to ask these questions at this time.

[wideawake]

Oh . . . and regarding Israel (I know you do not consider any analysis complete without the Jewish people - and I'm not being flip).

There are two issues: Israel itself and Israel in its relationship to the US.

I believe the US should have a cordial relationship with Israel. I don't believe we should meddle in their internal affairs. I don't believe we should give them money like clockwork, and I don't believe the Israeli government should expect its spies in the US to receive special treatment.

I think Israel, in the palaeoconservative analysis, is as muddled as the US. It is at once a socialist Eurostate and the home of a deeply religious people yearning for a benevolent theocracy. That state of affairs cannot continue forever, just as the US cannot waver forever between being a socialist Eurostate and a Constitutional republic. I am fundamentally ambivalent toward Israel for this reason, just as I am fundamentally ambivalent about the direction our country is headed.

That being said, I support the Jewish people settling in their ancestral homelands and I support all efforts by the US to rid this land of Islamist terror and to destroy it wherever found. I consider Islam to be an ideology eerily dissimilar from Communism or Nazism.

[jonatron]

What leads you to believe that Esau is the Romans ?

[x]

Either you have been drinking too much coffee or have been taking too many diet pills, or you are deliberately trying to get a rise out of people. The essential idea of "paleoconservatism" is "back to the founders." But how are we to understand the founders? One way is through a libertarian or paleo-liberal framework, based on very limited government and the individual. Another way is through a more particularist approach. That is to say, one that is skeptical of the universalist claims that have been put forward for America, and argues that we are the specific nation of a specific people. Still another way would be to look towards those government institutions that the founders established. These are three different foci: the individual, the people or nation or region, and the government or regime. You can find paleos who lean more towards one focus or another. Sometimes the combinations, for example of Southern nationalism and individualist libertarians are pretty unstable and questionable things, though they do attract a following. You will find very few paleos who harken back to a European "throne and altar" perspective, though you will find many who wish that religion had a larger place in American life.

Dragging in Ayn Rand and Franco simply muddles things. To say one is more individualist than the mainstream doesn't make one a Randian. To say one is more traditionalist than the mainstream doesn't make one a fascist or even an authoritarian. Those are the terms the majority uses to stigmatize, isolate and punish dissenters, and if you are really asking your question in good faith you wouldn't use them.

As to why some paleos are critical of Zionism, one obvious place to start is that they feel that the conservative establishment has distorted the situation to lead the following around by the nose. Another is that they don't feel that that area is any business of ours.

[Mercuria]

Accept no labels. **g**

[JMJ333]

In this week's Torah portion we read of the birth of `Esav, the ancestor of the ancient Romans and culturally of the chr*stian West (as well as the grandfather of the accursed `Amaleq). So perhaps it is appropriate to ask these questions at this time.

I disagree with that statement, because in the New Testament [and particularly Gen. 1:1] there is a definitive link between common patriarchs with the Jews and the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Also, it is specifically wriiten that Isaac was the chosen son of Abraham, not Ishmael, the son of Hagar.

Some of the references are Matt. 8:11, Mark 12:12, Luke 3: 33-34, Acts 3:13, 7:8, and finally in Romans 9: 7-13.

We know that Esau despised his birthright and sold it to his younger brother Jacob. IN Genesis 27: 39-40 we have this:

39: And Isaac his father answered him [Esau] and said unto him: Behold, of the fat places of the earth shall be thy dwelling places [fat places in hebrew literally means "of the oils of the land]. And of the dew of heaven from above [meaning the desert].
40: And by thy sword shalt thou live and thou shalt serve thy brother, and it shall come to pass when thou shalt break loose, that thou shall shake the yoke off thy neck.

Its also important to note that abraham, Isaac, and Jacob insisted that their progeny marry only Aramean women from their place of origin because canaanite women were hateful due to theri idolatry. [Gen 28:6]

And in spite of Isaac's command "When Esau was 40 years old, he took to wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri, the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. And there was a bitterness of spirit unto Isaac and Rebekah.

Then you have Gen 28: 7-12--which shows how the old and new testaments refer to their geneaology of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and how the old testament alone refers to Ishmael and Esau, who were to lead lives in the desert. Ishamel isn't menationed in the New Testament and Esau only once.

Romans aren't descendants of Ishmael or Esau--moslems [arabs] are.

[lds23]

Conservatives who like harmonica music?

[Torie]

I found it interesting when I took that political test on that website that listed 10 ideologies, that for me necon was first (conservatism second, centrist third), and paleocon was last, dead last.

I believe in free trade, an activist interventionist foreign policy, am not much interested in fighting the culture wars, am anti-nativist, not that paranoid of immigration (except well recently certain kinds of immigration), am rather secular, am not against domestic government activity as long as it works and is cost effective, to wit, it is prudential, and am glad the Confederacy lost. Paleos appear to be on the opposite side on all these issues.

Conservatism is indeed a big tent. Within it apparently inhabit folks that agree on next to nothing.

[Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi]

bump.

Good question. Generally speaking, there are several varieties and the term is a comparative one. "Palaeo-conservatives," while embracing modern constitutionalism, are critical of the Enlightenment as well as of levelling and socialistic corruptions of mass, secular liberal democracy. The idea is that political problems and civil society are rooted in cultural traditions and codes which transcend any re-shaping by centralist statism. Most palaeos are Burkean conservatives and Christians. Some seek aristocratic and traditional Christian understandings of culture in priority to the expansion of the modern state, secularist ideologies, and social engineering. British conservatives ("Tories"), some U.S. conservatives, Catholics, Anglicans, and a wide variety of conservatives in Europe fall within the palaeo orbit. You can find these trends among some contemporary U.S. conservatives. One of the central ideas is that many of the most important aspects of Westen society should not be subjected to ideological and statist manipulation. These include the family, private property, religion, education, fine arts, and culture in general.

[redrock]

"What is "Palaeo"conservatism?"

Not sure of any definition that will please you.

But...I probably am one.

Sobran and Reese BUMP!!!!!

redrock

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

ZC, I think{?} your problem might be that you are trying to fit people into their "correct" pigeon holes based upon a few words they may have written and/or said. Even psychologists should have learned by now that no two" people think alike on all manner of topics, let alone groups. And, few thinking people will accept the "concensus" of the "elite" of their group, in all things, as being sanctified.

But, then again, PHDs, as I was told once, are about the only people in the world who might say something like, "We should use computers for voting. Machines can't be manipulated!" So, who knows. Peace and love, George.

[hoot2]

What is "Palaeo"conservatism?

its a guy who takes care of his own family n community without government interference

[Lurking Libertarian]

While I have been disagreeing with some of your Jewish "fundamentalist" beliefs (see my posts #190 and 200), I have neglected to say that this is an excellent, well-thought-out essay, and that your responses to some of the anti-Israel hecklers have been equally cogent. Y'yasher kochacha!

[Pelham]

I don't know where you get your "European" orientation for Paleos. Paleos share a traditional American outlook that can be found in the writings of Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, M E Bradford, Richard Weaver, among others.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

With respect to el Caudillo, you might find this of interest.

[malakhi]

Hi ZC. Bump for later reading.