Posted on 12/28/2008 12:36:24 PM PST by goldstategop
Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received - hatred. The great creators... stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The first airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won" (Ayn Rand, "The Fountainhead," 1943)
"The Jew is constantly searching. He is imprinted with a soul that comes from an ideal world and this leaves a deep, usually unconscious, impression of another reality. This soul continually pushes him to go further and never be satisfied with any contemporary human reality" - Moti Karpel, "The Belief-Based Revolution," 2003
"The radical left has created a parallel between the democratic method and its own values, and emptied the term 'democracy' of its content," Feiglin wrote in a 2004 article. "[Former Supreme Court president] Aharon Barak's test of the 'enlightened man' is a blatant example of the coercion of the concept of democracy in the hands of the ruler's individual values. The term 'democracy' may have become so distorted that it's impossible to use anymore."
Feiglin dreams of a small-scale governmental administration and a nation full of motivation. "The government has to supply two things only - security and justice. All the rest, including education and welfare, should be left to the citizens. They'll do a better job of it in any case."
"The Jew is a free man," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I had a good opinion of Feiglin until I read the remarks in the following article. I know it’s AFP, but the quotes from his interview with Haaretz 1995 is eyebrow raising... if legit the man has some serious issues. No problem with his “eeeevil anti-arab racism”, but his choice of words for Hitler had me scratchin my head.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2147147/posts
Feiglin called Hitler "an unparalleled military genius. Hitler savoured good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals. Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order,"
We know that the press loves to twist words... but his remarks are pretty unambiguous. His later statements on these remarks aren't quite reassuring either:
Ten years after the Haaretz interview, Feiglin told the Maariv newspaper that just because he considers Hitler a military genius, "this doesn't mean I admire him."
If this wasn't what he intended to say he should have come out more clearly. If he has, maybe someone can provide a source. Otherwise he's a loony nut not worthy of consideration.
I think folks like Netanyahu or Mofaz are the real deal.
Feiglin is only an end “g” away from being the German word for “coward.”
When they call Haaretz "The New York Times" of Israel -- I believe it and I don't think such a remark is complimentary.
As for the remarks, I think Hitler was more a political genius than a military genius. He understood the weakness of his opponents (particularly France) and knew how to exploit them. Hitler showed his military acumen in his drive through the Ardennes in 1940 (I'm not talking about the failed "Battle of the Bulge"), but wasted resources in turning away from Moscow in 1941 and heading toward the Ukraine (Operation Barbarossa). Hitler also didn't put enough resources toward a German atom bomb (thank G-d).
As for this stuff that artistic skill negates evil, Dennis Prager pointed out that the commandant of Auschwitz could play Schubert on the piano.
I think Feiglen is a good man and certainly better than the present occupant of the Prime Minister's office in Israel.
Anzway, regarding that squishy Olmert... he's done soon enough. I hope that either Mofaz or Bibi step up and put Israel back on the track.
A critical concept in Jewish intellectualism was very unique when it was innovated in the ancient world. Simply put, it is “A good idea is a good idea, no matter who thinks it up.” And that concept proves itself over time. Jews have always done better when they were on the lookout for new ideas, instead of content with the ideas they already knew.
Conversely, Jews get in a lot of trouble when they confuse the message with the messenger, and discard the good idea because of it.
Here is a weird hypothetical idea:
If Israel wanted to push all the Gazans into Egypt, then slam the door behind them, it could be called “ethnic cleansing”. But what if Israel then gave a big, whopping lot of money to an honest neutral country, to dispense to the Gazans, individually, as payment for their expulsion?
If Israel set aside just 10 billion dollars, dispensed evenly to every Palestinian man, woman, and child in Gaza, about 1.5 million people, by say, the Swiss, that would be worth $6,600 for each of them.
The average annual wage in Egypt is $1,350. So Israel would be giving every Palestinian three years wages as reparations.
Heck, if Israel did this, the US would probably be willing to double that amount, making the Palestinians in Egypt downright wealthy, by Egyptian standards.
And the only condition would be that Gaza no longer had any Palestinians living in it. If Israel was feeling magnanimous, it might even move the Israeli Arabs to Gaza, out of Israel proper. In doing so, the Israeli Arabs would also prosper, yet no longer demographically threaten Israel.
Your headline is bogus. This article has nothing to do with Objectivism. Why did you do this?
Hitler is a monster despite being a painter, a truly inquiring mind that has hardly ever been seen without a book, etc. These are just facts; they do not in ANY way diminish the monstrosity of Hitler.
This level of clarity is also helpful in recognizing immorality. It teaches us, I believe, to recognize evil for what it is despite the veneer of other, positive qualities. This is in contrast to the approach most people have: I like him and see therefore no evil. Or, I hate him and therefore he is no good in anything. Both are factually and logically incorrect.
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.