Bravo!  A superb article!  Mr. Gottfried, you’ve always been one of the very few Western commentators who have gotten Israel right, but this is probably the best analysis I’ve ever read on this subject.

Regarding your rhetorical question, “Why should I rally to a plutocratic leftist who has spent decades networking incestuously with others of his kind...”, I think Hegel has given the answer in his article “Who Thinks Abstractly,” which I’m sure you’ve read.  For those who haven’t read this brief and accessible article, here it is.

There is some sophist-icated reasoning in Mr. Gottfried’s article, which leaves me flumoxed, and maybe that’s the intent.

If Mr. Gottfried thinks that Israel has become a “litmus test” for Conservatives, he’s setting up a straw-man designed to protect Israel.

With Israel sending heavy-weight ministers every week to the belt-way pushing the U.S. to start WW4 with Iran, Mr. Gottfried and his conservative concerns on gender and abortion can all go to hell!

The major political question of our lifetime is whether war-mongering Jews will succeed in setting the whole Middle East on fire, and afterward trying to blame it on someone else.

The immoral War on Iraq (engendered by the House of Israel) has now brought on the collapse of our U.S. economy.

Exellent piece, needing to be said and read.

Dr. Gottfried, I’m with you.

Some rightists seem to forget that Israel is on the side of the West. As a matter of fact, Israel and the Israelis are part of the same Western culture. Why only bash that country? Why not bash the human right record of Libya? Or the oppression of Christians by the Saudis? Or whatever evil all those dictatorship from around there still cultivate, female mutilation, stoning, beheadings, et al?

Why is the vote on Israel split between Sobran-paleos who believe Israel/Jews to be always wrong and bad intentioned and Little Green Footballs-like hawks who declare any discussion on Jewish verboten, paranoia and/or anti-Semitic? I don’t get that.

But, then again, I’m not an American living in the US. So, I don’t feel like I’m brainwashed into a philo-semitic position all the time. Quite the contrary, actually. I believe, I’m generally well informed by both Israel critics and apologists.

After careful reading and thinking, I’ve decided that I’m still pro-Israel and I don’t think the Jewish state should disappear or give up its identity. For the same reason why I think Thailand should be Thai and never give in to the separatists on their South border, who are, ofcourse, muslim fundamentalists as well—What else?

Israel should create two states, give the Palestinians their own, defend their wall and just leave it at that. No more settling et all. Keep the radicals from both sides under close controle.

Also, Phillip Weiss said on Anti-War Radio that the Clash of Civilizations could be related to the Palestinian conflict or similar words. He’s wrong. Islam(ism) is not a reaction to Zionism or Jewish presence. Islamism is an autonomous menace, it’s self-sustaining and growing and it will not stop if Israel ceased to exist. To believe otherwise will be a mistake.

The West should stop being so childish and eurocentric about foreign bred threats. We’re not the sole cause of all good in the world, neither do we cause all bad. Islamism is not caused by the US or Israel, it’s the ressentiment ideology of millions of unemployed young men who feel shut out from power, wealth and a deserving reputation. How is that our fault? (Yes I know, we support the dictatorships who keep those men intentionally poor and stupid, but what choice do we have? They’ve got the oil! We need it, so we kneel for the Sheikhs.)

But! The link between our unwavering support for Israel and the Arab enmity against us SHOULD be cause of concern for all, right or left. “They’re over here because we’re over there,” as Ron Paul had the nerve to say. Klein may not matter, but the neoconservative domination of government does… there’s been plenty of neoconniving in both Dem and GOP administrations for decades, and in my view noninterventionists should ally with whomever to see this stopped, to see the blood of our troops stop spilling in order to protect some other sovereign people—especially Israel, which has ample means to defend itself, even to pursue conquest if that was her desire. This is one of the crucial issues of our time, which is why an old right voice like Paul, who could have gotten away with most of his Goldwater-ish views on the debate stage, saw fit to make a HUGE deal out of our blunder in Iraq, thereby negating any significant draw on the new right and making himself a mockee at the debates.

If you have to pick your battles, it seems this is one we should be picking for the time being… and since Paul’s out and Barr/Baldwin have no chance, if that means an Obama administration that couldn’t possibly outspend Bush II’s, so be it.

Contrary to Mr. Gottfried’s assertion, there is nothing wrong with Americans on the left and on the right to join forces to combat something that they both perceive as contrary to America’s interests. I always assumed that Americans are Americans first. Paul Gottfried sounds like AIPAC’s Trojan horse in the paleo-conservative camp, and from the initial comments listed, it seems he has his cheering section organized to give his pro-Israel argumentation the veneer of respectability. Covering the Joe Klein subject from the America-first side is today’s Michael Scheuer article (http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=13139) at antiwar.com. It seems that Paul and his cheering section does what Michael decries:” As long as the Israel-firsters can define the limits of acceptable public discourse, Americans are on their way to the slaughter”. Now let’s see from the other commentaries, who stands where.

Is it certain that Klein was forced to take leave as punishment? Or is that just being assumed?

The biggest problem is that 2% that are the fanatics, Zionists or whatever. How many times have you heard someone Jewish say ‘those people, they’re crazy’, yet these nut cases control the agendum as they always have, and it brings revulsion against the other 98% who anyway are too frightened to stand up and do something about it. They could be called ‘not really a Jew’, cast out, harassed, etc.
Two thousand years ago, and surely before that, Josephus wrote that the sicarii (’knives’)roamed the Temple court and stabbed to death those who did not ‘toe the line’. Today, there is an Israeli action group called - ‘the bayonets’. I wonder what they do. Do things ever change?

Assuming that Klein’s “vacation” was, in fact, a forced one due to his criticizing the Israel lobby in print - and I that that might not be a certainty, but the circumstances are both familiar and suspicious - I would come to his defense not because I suppose him to be a conservative or a wonderful person in general, but simply ecause I think it is vitally important, particularly in these times, that people be able to question our foreign policy decisions vis a vis Israel without committing professional suicide.  This isn’t to say that I ascribe all of the blame in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Israel, which, as Professor Gottfried points out, leftists tend to do, but simply that our relationship with Israel must be as open to challenge and adjustment as our relationship with any other country.

Well said, Mr. Gottfried. 

I picked up the large Modern Age anthology not too long ago and was struck about how little was written regarding foreign policy over the years. It’s easy to forget considering today’s division of populist hypernationalism and strong anti-war paleoconservatism, but there was not always such disagreement on these matters.  Indeed, until 1989, the right’s consensus view was on of various degrees of “roll back” with respect to the Soviet Union.  But these views are all ephemeral and rightly shifting. Conservatism does not yield strict direction in foreign policy, which ought to be concerned with age-old prosaic goals like self-defense and preservation of the necessary conditions for commerce, and thus the field yields a multitude of practical and debatable considerations.  Conservatism may leave certain extreme sensibilities off the table, particularly revolutionary (neoconservative), utopian (globalism) or disloyal (fixation on foreign nations) ones, but it does not absolutely require an isolationist or interventionist view in a particular case, as I argued in my two recent pieces on Iran. 

It’s obvious that frustrations with the almost uniformly liberal American Jews have compelled certain unbalanced souls on the Right to wax poetical about the Palestinians, a la, Noam Chomsky.  But this viewpoint can become a farce.  For many--as we’ve seen among some of the more unhinged commenters here--in their ideal foreign policy, we would withdraw from NATO and South Korea and remain aloof from Iraq and Iran only to wage a full scale diplomatic offensive in support of the stalwart Palestinians.  Is this sane?  They in an isolationist ideal world devoid of NATO, the UN, and US oversight, Israel could ethnically cleanse or otherwise eliminate the Palestinians. Is this what they want?

I don’t believe Israel is strictly speaking part of the West, a natural ally, nor an actor always proceeding in good faith, nor someone whom we should be bribing every year with foreign aid. Our relations with them undoubtedly complicate our relations with the oil-rich Arab states, and these relations are more important for what should be obvious reasons.

That said, Israel is a nuclear-armed power and its people don’t generally blow themselves up to make political points, and in an ideal world we should be on friendly though more distant relations with them just as we are with the Turks and Egyptions.  That should not consist of constant badgering and interference and peace negotiations like we saw under both Bushes and the Clintons. Obviously, we should ignore disloyal domestic forces that counsel romantic foreign attachments, whether in Cuba, Greece, Bosnia, or Israel. But other than that, foreign policy is tricky and should not consist of so many nonnegotiable commitments by conservatives.

Fletcher’s point is a good one.  We should, if only out of enlightened self-interest, encourage full, fair airing of our differences on Israel and everything else.  That said, anti-Israel fanatics who have drifted in from antiwar.com frequently call for Taki and Richard to fire me, so it all depends on whose ox is being gored, I guess.

Any paleo attempts to win over the Left are a colossal waste of time.  For every Christopher Lasch, who sympathized with some paleo ideas, there are 100,000 knee-jerk leftists who despise the traditional Right.  I also suspect that most leftists are unimpressed by paleos who sympathize with the Palestinian cause but are otherwise oblivious to the plight of oppressed minorities outside of Israel.

I’m certainly not challenging the right of American rightists to take any view on the Middle East that they find morally compelling or congenial. What I am questioning is the priority given by some self-descibed conservatives to the defense of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups together with their unremitting attacks on Israel as specifically American rightist activities. In my view, they are not, although I am willing to recognize the possibility of honest differences on such matters.

Mr. Gottfried has, as usual, said much that is obviously right once read, yet much in need of saying.  In doing so, he also misses one critical point, which Fletcher has well raised: whatever motivations, or unhealthy obsessions, may be suggested by some conservatives’ Fannonian concern for Palestinian rights, and whatever Mr. Klein’s demerits, if Klein should, in fact, suffer professionally for the views he expressed, that would not bode will for the cause of free and open discussion either on the middle east or more generally.

Our politicians and media are jugged up in a Zionist fantasy world and they, in turn, relentlessly spew out this absurd context to us. We are galley slaves on the good ship Promised Land, and our captains have nothing but contempt for America and Americans.

What’s not to like?

Professor PG,
“(n)ot that Israelis have an especially unfriendly or tyrannical government. Compared to most of their neighbors, their regime looks positively angelic; and in terms of the protection of civil liberties, I would feel much safer in Israel today than I would in any of the politically correct “democracies” in Western and Central Europe. The problem.” You are a visiting American of Jewish background - do non-Jewish residents and citizens of Israel enjoy the same civil rights you would?  I hope the killing and dispossession of the Palestinians ends, as we as the safety of the Israeli Jews insured.  Does this make me “pro-Palestinian”?  The Israeli centgov is nasty - people who rightly or wrongly believe they are under an existential threat can be brutal in reaction.  I am on the side of the Iraqi patriots, just as I support anyone whose country is invaded without a shred of just war rationale.  I am especially critical of the Israeli centgov for its and its US amen corner for trying once again to get the US centgov to destroy another country on the Israeli hit list. Rather than trying to marginalize those on the right who do not share your opinions regarding the above, can you explain your support for the Iraqi invasion,as well as your current position re: the Iraqi debacle?  I would also be interested in hearing your take on the Jewish right of return to the Arab countries from which they were driven - since the Palestinians should have the ability to return to their homes, so likewise the dispossessed Jews.  ST

CR, do not knock http://www.antiwar.com.  It has lead me and many others to this site.  Your complaints about the mean old anti-Israel fanatics - come now, your columns generate more comments than the rest of the authors combined aat this site.  You must be crying all the way to the bank.  When you stick out your “my country has the right to decide matters of life and death for everyone on Earth” chin, expect a roundhouse kick or straight right to connect.  ST

Maciano, Islam is only a threat to the West if the West loses its Christian faith.  If the West does turn away from God, it deserves whatever it gets.  How about this solution to combating Islam - stop butting in to middle eastern states affairs with the power of the US centgov and trade openly with everyone in the region?  Israeli halveh make the Joyva brand taste pedestrian in comparison.  While the US is at it, stop trying to force democracy, abortion, feminism and the rest of Western degeneracy down the Moslems’ throats?  Whatever thug cuts his way into power in every oil rich mideastern country still has to sell his oil, or get overthrown so that someone else can sell it .  It is the oil producers’ oil until they sell it to someone else - this country has no right to the black gold unless someone purchases it from the producers.  The US has no more of a claim prior to purchase than it does to Mexican or Canadian petroleum.  If either of those two countries decided not to sell anymore oil to us I imagine you would urge the US centgov to invade them.  Such is the way of the jingo.  ST

I have to agree with mr. gottfried. europe today is
attempting to get untangled from the web of present
delusions in the west. well at least in Vienna now
wondering what on earth possessed it toward embracing
a mass european society, which the likes of the affable
joe klein so ardently endorse. it’s a fake punishment he
allegedly suffers at the beach.

perhaps in saving itself Vienna again will have the salutary effect of saving its european neighbors by example. state capitalism though, like its siblings socialism and communism, wants or needs mass societies that do not because they systemically cannot cater to the needs of individuals. it’s a paradox because then they overly promote “democracy” when they believe they have a handle on it, and overly promote bizarre forms of individualism that do not cater to the needs of individuals for community which is lost to the mass society being cultivated instead. that is the witting or unwitting betrayal inside the walls since it is, isn’t it, presently systemic. the way it’s rigged right now the system/s themselves make the meeting of an individual’s needs impossible. it is only possible to meet those needs even minimally when the individual conforms to the amalgam or mass intention required by the system. culturally speaking that is not christian either. the individual soul in its journey needs for its realization, what it has as a *given, a certain freedom within narrow parameters yes. but not those determined and otherwise delimited by a system, which with each passing day proves itself worldwide to be more and more unnatural. the unnatural in behalf of alleged transcendence or alleged improvement of the human condition is something christianity has always sought to avoid. only an aggressive mimicry of our culture by an alien culture with an inevitable agenda of its own, could achieve today’s grotesque distortions of our own? is it merely modernity and post-modernity or is it an invisible culture’s agenda within the wall’s? if so it’s not even betrayal. that would simply be a natural event at the expense of the host.

Simon, if only I could monetize all that comment activity.

Your statement, “I am on the side of the Iraqi patriots, just as I support anyone whose country is invaded without a shred of just war rationale,” is beyond the pale.  It’s one thing to say the Iraq War has proven a mistake, a shame, even an unjust exercise, and to thereby recognize the reasons others are aggrieved. It’s quite another to root for the other side. That’s treason, and an extreme deviation from ordianry sentiments of fellow feeling for one’s countrymen that is unnatural for anyone of conservative disposition.  Of course, this kind of intemperate crazy talk is all too common at antiwar.com, which occasionally has good articles, but has far too many where such suicidal and anti-American sentiments are common.  I should think since Iraq has an elected government, its genuine patriots are pursuing their reasonable goals through legal means rather than blowing up innocent Iraqi civilians and American troops resident in their country with the support and legal blessing of the Iraq government. It’s a peculiar patriot whose ultimate goal is to accrue power for his tribe in order to oppress his countrymen, not so unlike the “patriotism” of someone like Mugabe or Castro.

Israel is NOT on the side of Western civilization in any clash of civilizations; it is on its OWN side, which is Judaic civilization.

What is Judaic civilization? Something very different than Old Testament Judaism of Judeo-Christianity, which is really the only claim that contemporary Judaics have to any kind of continuity with Western civilization.

Since the Talmud, which I regard as a quasi-fascist doctrine, organized Judaism has followed course and rejected the cosmic rough justice milieu of the Old Testament and morphed into a much more clannish, supremacist and even racist religo-ideology than pre-Christian Judaism, so much so that it is now a completely different entity.

Not coincidentally, Talmudic Judaism has produced Jewish Bolshevism, Zionism, and Neoconservatism, none of which can be regarded as paradigms of Western civilization despite the desperate spinning of Zionists. In fact, all are not only alien, but hostile to Western civilization.

I am familiar with Gottfried’s work, and there is no way in hell he would be a supporter of Israel and its Zionist lobby in the US if he weren’t Jewish. Why, just look at what it has wrought: entangling alliances, the centralization of power and big government in Washington, massive spending on Israel and Zionist related wars, Neocon authoritarianism that is mindful of Soviet Russia, the suppression of free speech and dissent, essentially a One Party State on the question of Zionism in particular, but increasingly on many other issues in general as well, an anti-Constitutional, elitist approach to governing primarily on behalf of a wealthy Zionist oligarchy…these are all initiatives that Gottfried otherwise adamantly opposes—that is, when he’s not defending Israel.

A handful of US Jewish Zionists like Gottfried are torn between their principles and their Judaic loyalties, but the vast majority of Zionists have no such qualms about their Israel-first loyalties. And really, in the end, you can’t serve two masters.

In the West vs. the rest formulation, Israel is with “the rest.” Authentic conservatives, libertarians and Constitutionalists recognize that.

Funny, but I always thought that Joe Klein was one of the more moderate of those liberal talking heads out there in the media. I never took him for one of the flaming “hate America” leftists out there. 

Professor Gottfried has always been a paradox to me. He defends Israel despite the fact that Israel has committed absolutely grevious harm to the US as a result of its continual, and so far successful, attempts to push this country to attack Israel’s enemies. He also seems to ignore the the absolutely corrupting effect Israeli controlled organizations such as the ADL have have had on the erosion of our civil liberties in this country.

Why doesn’t Professor Gottfried try telling the families of who have lost loved ones in the Israeli inspired Iraq war what the virtues of Israel, a truly justified pariah state, are. Somehow I don’t think he is going to get very far.

CR, I would be more careful about accusing someone of treason if I held your position re: the invasion of Iraq.  You are the one supporting an unconstitutional act of piracy unleashed against a prostate nation.  When this country’s military is beating the tar out of another country the US centgov and it myrmidons should be condemned in the strongest terms.  I find your hypernationalism that discards all just war tenets repulsive also, but I am careful about mentioning treason. Putting myself in the Iraqis’ place, I would be hardpressed to work through the US imposed system of Iraqi democracy while getting my slats kicked in.  Had Iraqi invaders treated US citizens the way the US centgov treats them, you and I would probably object with more than ballots.  ST

Chris Moore, would you then agree that not a cent of US taxpayer money should go to any foreign country, and thatt the US centgov should butt out of the ME?  ST

Professor Gottfried
I agree that support for Joe Klein is ill-considered, even if on this rare occasion Klein was correct. However, that does not make the rest of your article valid. Indeed, I believe that the rest of your arguments are quite fallacious.

The Israel vs Palestine and Israel vs the Muslim World battles must be a central concern for all Americans including conservatives. Israel has and continues to cost America dearly, in human, monetary, and prestige terms. The wars in the Middle East instigated by the Jewish neocons, have bankrupted America, threaten to result in ever-widening conflicts, and have made America synonymous with evil. Israel’s numerous disgraceful acts (eg the murder of hundreds of Lebanese civilians in 2006 during the indiscriminate bombing of defenceless cities by an Israeli airforce supplied with American weapons) have continued to heap shame on America. For you to suggest that Israel vs Palestine should for Americans be akin to Greece vs Turkey is patently ridiculous.

It is critical to note that one can be anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-neocon without being pro-Palestinian or pro-Muslim. You are making exactly the same mistake as your wretched co-contributor Christopher Roach. Either you should attempt to judge these matters fairly or have the honesty to admit that you have a strong pro-Jewish bias.

WRONG!.... fact speaks volumes - one cannot argue that jews have been in the vanguard in leading the forces of cultural rot - immigration, hollywood (porn), abortion, affirmative action, muli-cult - that have overtaken this land (no longer a “nation,” folks).... so, yes, i will continue to submit a sly grin when they come under ANY form of attack - grin and cheerish such minute victories....

what i find truely humorous - the concept that, somehow, israel is *ahem* “part of the west”.... HA!.... this is the most singularly absurd thesis i haveever heard - it’s like the old nazi saying - the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.... now, don’t get me wrong, i don’t wish to send ANYONE away one traincars.... BUT, that DOESN’T mean i will EVER forget what the *ahem* “choosen” have done.... need i remind of jewish assistnace to the moors in the conquest/domination of spain?.... need i remind of the ethnic make-up of the dominant group of russian bolshevism?....

Simon,
I would put severe restrictions on any foreign aid, and tie it to a schedule of concrete steps towards Western civilization human rights standards. Any country that failed a step on the schedule would earn immediate suspension from the foreign aid program. And yes, the US government should butt out of the Mideast. All of our economic interests can be attained through trade.

Daniel, last time I checked Judaism was a religion, such as Christianity, and not a genetic condition.  Note the number of non-European Jews around the world.  You can no more condemn Jews or the Jewish faith for the rotten apple within it than you can pillory Christianity for the likes of Hitler or Napoleon.  To see only the evil done by people who are of Jewish background is to be blind to the contributions of some of the finest minds in history such as von Mises and Rothbard (and greatest of all, a certain Nazarene carpenter born 2000 years ago.  Swing over to http://www.lewrockwell.com or http://www.mises.org for far more and better info than I could give you.  When did you last see monsters such as Stalin, Mao, Lincoln, T and FD Roosevelt,and Wllson wearing yarmulkas?  Only State-lovers condemn entire groups of people for the crimes of a few.

i find this article precarious, at best.... i don’t believe many “rightists” have ANY love for the palestinian “cause”.... i think we would prefer minimal interation with that geographic locale, at best

i find this article precarious, at best.... i don’t believe many “rightists” have ANY love for the palestinian “cause”.... i think we would prefer minimal interation with that geographic locale, at best

Agree with you, Dan.  CM, we are agreed on 2 out of 3 and 1/2 - now if we can get the inveterate warmonger C “Wilson/Palmer” Roach to see the light.  Talk about cleaning the Augean stables ...  ST

It is difficult to limit foreign ‘aid’ under the present
state-capitalistic system because when our government
‘loans’ money to a foreign country for example, it is done
through private banks and bankers here in the u.s. and
they love to make such ‘loans’ since they are guaranteed
by we the taxpayers. It means if the foreign country
doesn’t repay the private bankers, we the taxpayers pay
such bankers the rest of the unpaid loan plus the interest
or points that the loan would have generated had it gone
to term. So when you hear all the time things like poor
so-and-so nation has outstanding loans from the beneficent
u.s. that it can’t repay and ‘we’ should forgive those loans.
We the taxpayers are the ones ‘for*giving’ it, since our tax
dollars immediately are given to the private bankers to make
up for the loan default plus the interest or points had the
loan gone to term. Yet that is NOT considered foreign aid
per se. Banking folks, nice work if you can get it, right?!

Also never think in terms of tieing u.s. so-called foreign aid
to western values regarding civil liberties since it takes like
it did with us thousands of years to arrive at the civility
and civilization it takes to even begin to be able to support such
civil liberties. You can’t wave a magic wand and make it so in
nations with no such past. In fact it’s even cruel and profoundly
so to try, and leads us into debacles like Iraq. The neocons for
instance noticed this naivete or stupidity of ours in this regard
and have MILKED it for all its worth, which is plenty. But I guess
we can’t consider iraq foreign ‘aid’ - right? (humor)

simon,

silly boy.... judaism is no more a strictly “religious” construct as I am ready to sprout wings and fly.... tribe = blood....

Daniel yes judaism is a tribal religion like some native
american tribal religions which believe the tribe is
chosen and by comparison with other allegedly human
creatures the only real human beings or the only such
creatures worthy of the name. For this reason for example
the Lakota Sioux called themselves the HumanBeings - and
as recently in the orient as 60 years ago the very
tribalistic island nation of japan believed overwhelmingly
they were the only humans and of divine origin.

So it’s a way of attempting to keep the blood or tribe
both pure (i.e. there’s some eugenic benefits in that as
well as liabilities) and also keep the tribe congealed as
a group i.e. ‘solid’ with little or no conscience pertaining
to what it may inflict in terms of pain and suffering on those
outside the group/tribe. As one candid jewish friend said to me:
‘it’s a way of eating and feeling better than other people.’

Daniel,

Many Jews and non-Jews regard all Jews as tied together through blood, but this is a Zionist-orchestrated myth designed to unify Jews behind their political agenda.

Read ‘An invention called the Jewish people:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html

…or Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe, both of which demonstrate that Ashkenazim (European origin) Jews don’t have a drop of Old Testament Israelite Semitic blood.

In fact, the lesson is a good illustration of why racism and racialism as a general ideology are deeply misguided and largely based upon innuendo and myth, hence largely invalid as a political ideology.

“silly boy.... judaism is no more a strictly “religious” construct as I am ready to sprout wings and fly.... tribe = blood.... “

Dan, have any proof of this, genetic or otherwise? What about all the good done by those of Jewish background What about free will?  Any other group that labors under “tribe=blood”?  Better get flapping those wings, fly-boy - at least you will save money on airfare… ST

If we don’t know our limitations we have one more, I say.
Blood and soil are the fundamental ingredients of any
community. Just like it is such a group or community
that makes anyone’s individuality subsequently both
possible as a practical matter, and thus enjoyable too.

Group be it family etc. trumps its singular individual
members because it makes their individuality possible.

When we go to a mass society (devoid of community = of blood
and soil) as we have done today ‘believing’ abstractions of
any ilk or color can replace the fundamental then we’re doomed
since it ain’t possible.

Jeff W., an individual’s relationship with God trumps the group.  When we go before Him we are not judged by ‘our group’ but by our singular actions and beliefs.  One of the reasons my faith rules as much as my behavior as possible, despite my great faults, and that I no longer worship the State.  To the extent that my relationships with my family, friends, and community do not interfere with my relationship to the Man-God, I will agree with you about blood and soil.  ST

“...in their ideal foreign policy, we would withdraw from NATO and South Korea and remain aloof from Iraq and Iran…”

Chris, I’m just trying to clarify your position. Do you not think we should withdraw from NATO and South Korea?

“…only to wage a full scale diplomatic offensive in support of the stalwart Palestinians.”

I believe this is largely a straw man. While some may desire that, they would not, by definition, be non-interventionists. They would be meddlers with an ax to grind. Non-interventionists call for neutrality and no entangling alliances. Not taking sides.

I’m not quite sure what relevance to the discussion is provided by the fact that Jews, like Japanese, have a tribal, biological sense of identity.Unlike neocons, Israelis don’t lie about this fact,but whether they do or do not have a tribal identity, should have no bearing on whether American rightists should view them favorably or unfavorably. Most of the world, outside of decadent Western Europeans and the present generation of American WASPs have shown strong tribal identities.

I would withdraw from NATO, remove most of our European bases, while remaining friendly with the various NATO nations. 

I would disentangle our interests in SK from those of the South Koreans, removing all troops and bases from NK artillery range to Japan.  Our goal there should be to stop NK from arming other countries with Nukes.  That’s basically it.  Since the Cold War is over, the impact of another Korean war would be minimal beyond Korea, and I belive ROK can defend itself just fine if pushed to do so. 

I would maintain our good relations and basing in Japan and maybe some accessible part of Europe, perhaps Italy or the UK.  These bases would chiefly be prepositioned equipment and logistics bases, if we should be required to fight on the other side of the globe.

I would maintain power projection capability, basing and refueling rights, a more nuclear-heavy Naval fleet, greater military airlift capability, and pre-positioned equipment in places like Diego Garcia. 

I would develop ad hoc alliances with friends to deal with specific problems, such as in Afghanistan.

I would reduce alliances including NATO and SK as mentioned, and probably also Taiwan.

I would have trade with nearly every country on Earth with a modest tariff to raise revenue and prevent excessive American dependence on foreign goods. 

I would precipitously withdraw from Iraq, but I would maintain good relations with the new Iraqi regime, sell them weapons, buy their oil, protect sea lanes for theirs and all civilian shipping, and generally provide them technical and advisory assistance. 

I would stop funding Israel and Palestine and Egypt.  I would not involve the US in that conflict in nearly any way.  I would not go to war for Lebanon any more than for Palestine or Israel.  It should shake out however it does. I am undecided on whether selling arms to Israel is worth the PR trouble. It’s probably not. I don’t believe we should join in the European chorus favoring sanctions and ostracism of Israel, not least because it is so hypocritical.

I believe we should consider protecting vulnerable and friendly nations whose territorial integrity is threatned that are *also* sources of essential resources.  Future wars may be much more about resources than those of the latter 20th Century, which focused on ideology and the elusive goal of stability. 

I would specifically maintain American supremacy in the Western Hemisphere and our defensive alliances in the region. 

I would try to stop proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly within unfriendly and unstable quarters of the Islamic world.

Jeff W,

Your points illustrate the contention between nationalism (blood and soil) and universalism, and why the Neocons are such hypocrites, preaching a universalist ideology, but backing the practice of blood and soil nationalism (Zionism) for their own “kin.” At least Gottfried is more consistent in his general backing of nationalism, but it is impossible to be an American nationalist AND a Jewish nationalist without then entering into the realm of internationalism (ie universalism), hence the Neocon (and Gottfried) quandary.

For me, the answer comes back to “Render unto Ceaser,” ie let government take care of the business of administering government, and let religion take care of the realm universalistic ideals.

The problem for Leftists is that they don’t believe in God or religion, so their universalist ideals get channeled into internationalist political ideologies, and the problem for many Jews is that Judaism doesn’t proselytize, and so they end up in the same place as Leftists. In fact, given their particular quandary, it’s easy to see why so many ambitious Jews have historically been involved in internationalist, universalistic political ideologies.

But, as I see it, the fact that each either doesn’t believe in religion, or doesn’t want to proselytize is their problem and their mental issue, not the fault of Western (Christian )civilization. Just because they either can’t handle the idea of God (the Left), or can’t handle the idea that God doesn’t sanction merely their own tribe above others and want to keep it exclusive (the Jews), doesn’t mean we should all be dragged into their psychodrama, which is what so many of these militant, State-centered, internationalist ideologies come down to.

CR, I am impressed by your latest post.  Still lots to disagree with, but much to praise as well.  Hope this version of CR is as entertaining as the more sanguinary model.  Once more shows that anyone who defends gun owners the way you have must have much good in him.  ST

What Prof. Gottfried has identified, I think, is the difference between paleo-conservatives, whose top priority is broadly speaking culture, and paleo-libertarians, whose top priority is damning the warfare state, closely followed by the welfare state. If America attacks Iran, it will be at Israel/AIPACs behest, period. Criticism of the Zionists on this point seems entirely reasonable as a top priority; thats not the same as defending Hamas, which I don’t see paleo-libertarians doing much of anyway. So long as war is hell, opponents of it have a right to be mad as hell about it. Its also reasonable to get mad as hell about everything Prof. Gottfried is upset with. But to impugn those whose top priority is the antiwar cause, which naturally implies atacking Israel’s pro-war fifth column, as Rightists with leftist sensibilities is not reasonable. The Old Right would certainly not have considered it so.

Paul Gottfried wrote:  “Nor was proper attention paid in Jerusalem or Washington to the Israelis’ sinking of the U.S. Liberty, a ship that had wandered too close to then Israeli-held territory near El Arish, on June 8, 1967. Some of the surviving crew had questioned the Israeli account for why the vessel had been torpedoed, a disaster that had resulted in the killing of 34 and the wounding of 173 American sailors. The survivors had trouble believing the Israeli account of what had happened, namely that Israel’s forces had mistaken the American ship for a hostile Egyptian one. Others on the right have also complained about an unsettling lack of interest on the part of our government when it comes to the operation of Israeli intelligence in the U.S.”

The Liberty was in international waters.  Not some, but all survivors of the cowardly Israeli attack questioned the lying by Israel.  Paul Gottfried was one of the few who purported to believe the Israeli’s lies.  The very worst part was that not one member of the US Congress questioned these lies.

The US remains the vassal state.

All these “Professor Gottfried” posts leave me embarrassed at my earlier reference to “Mr. Gottfried”.  I have been reading you long enough to know better, and I apologize. 

EG’s assertion raises an interesting point: is it literally true that ALL of the surviving crew members agree and, if so, what exactly do they agree about (apart from, presumably, regret about the incident: need for hearings? Israeli intent?)

I suppose Prof. Gottfried is right, by definition, in his statement that she wandered “too close” to Israeli-held territory.  Given the outcome, this seems plainly right even though she was in international waters.

“I’m not quite sure what relevance to the discussion is provided by the fact that Jews, like Japanese, have a tribal, biological sense of identity.”

ARE YOU SERIOUS?!.... It’s the very essence of the question at hand....

(Quote from above): “Jeff W., an individual’s relationship with God trumps the group.  When we go before Him we are not judged by ‘our group’ but by our singular actions and beliefs.  One of the reasons my faith rules as much as my behavior as possible, despite my great faults, and that I no longer worship the
State. To the extent that my relationships with my family, friends, and community do not
interfere with my relationship to the Man-God, I will agree with you about blood and
soil.” (end quote by ST)

ST - i doubt the ‘St’ stands for “saint” too - and thus I appreciate your kind and human
response.  However I consider it blasphemous on your part that you would consider a
so-called ‘individual’s’ relationship with God trumps the group as ‘axiomatic.’ You do
not and cannot know that. Jesus who I prefer to think of as GOD (one in three, Father,
Son, Holy Ghost) pointed out the reverse to be the case in saying about that very issue:
“IF WE CANNOT LOVE WHAT WE SEE, HOW CAN WE LOVE WHAT WE DO NOT SEE.” First things FIRST,
even under GOD. He’s invulnerable the group is not. I’d consider you in such a choice a
sell-out if you put YOURSELF and allegedly God over us in the group and someone NOT
willingto SACRIFICE themself. In my opinion i suspect that’s how God sees it. That’s MY
religion and the religion of the vast majority of Americans THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, sir.
That’s OUR Culture. What’s YOURS?

I do hope you’re not really an undercover neocon drinking OUR blood rather than
christ’s? that’s one of our virtues ‘hope.’

What’s your culture?!

Jeff W., the ST doesn’t refer to either Saint or saint (I should be so fortunate).  I am a Christian free-market anarchist who puts the Risen God before all, temporal and spiritual.  I did not say I do not love the seen, but that I try to love God before all else.  I believe that is a requirement in being a Christian, as well as practicing what one preaches, however imperfectly, using the New Testament as the best guide.  No neo-con State worship here. Culturally Western European/American when it doesn’t clash with my faith. Pro-life and pro-gun ownership, with a deep appreciation of the mega cubic inch Rat motor, one of western civilizationn’s greatest creation (along with kudos to the Rat’s arch-rival, the dreaded Mopar Elephant motor, the Hemi 426).

A true supporter of Israel would work to ensure that Israel provided minimum justice to the Palestinians while time to do so is still available.  The emir of Qatar is both shrewd and well-informed on this issue, and he believes that Hamas would accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders, and that the right of return could be limited to the West Bank and Gaza.  To urge Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank, and the Golan Heights for that matter, is not to be “anti-Israel” when so many Israeli academics and other intellectuals believe that the long-term stability of the country depends upon making peace with Syria and ending the occupation of the West Bank,

St - i like you with reservations. i’m not an anarchist
neither was christ in my opinion so we love different gods.

god wants us in my opinion to love what we see first and
use it as a measure about what we ‘believe’ we love in our
imagination.

good luck. but in candor whether i believe what you said
or not, (i don’t know you) - it’s affable like a ‘joe klein’.

i’d love to do battle hand to hand with swords with you i
just realized… which means sadly i can’t sanction you. to
each his own. no longer good luck - break a leg. that could
be a good admonition if you’re an actor which i think you
may be whether you realize it yet or not. happy anarchy.

Jeff W., we all share the same God, whether we acknowledge it or not - it’s that our paths to His Judgement vary.  You seem to be someone to whom I would stand the first pint of your choice.  Happy trails and I hope to see more of your wisdom at this site.  ST

now I tire, here’s your quote:

“Jeff W., we all share the same God, whether we acknowledge it or not
- it’s that our paths to His Judgement vary.  You seem to be someone to whom
I would stand the first pint of your choice.  Happy trails and I hope to see
more of your wisdom at this site.  -ST “

you believe you know the unknowable. ok. you don’t seem to want to accept it’s
belief but draw comfort from the delusion it’s knowledge.

i’d bet he does judge us if he exists in the end. there’s many gods (no doubt) but we
are admonished to worship one in three Father Son Holy Ghost.

in the meantime from this side of paradise it’s faith...(i.e. or culture) and that
frankly speaking determines in the here and now, if we can get along or not, as a
Practical matter.

we all pause there at the conceptual level as human beings and it is our culture
which largely informs us. blood & soil also means same culture not anarchy.

I suspect you’re smart enough to know this...you’re almost that oxymoron an actor
with a brain, except it’s so. i like you. but you’re not in MY tribe. i have to
say thanks to the beer we can quaff together - though you paddle your canoe, i’ll paddle
mine. adios.

isn’t that 2 + 2 = 4. you’ve no doubt got a stupid and corrupting ‘new’ math, right?

Jeff, my anarchism does not preclude blood and soil, but it makes allowances for different interpretations of it.  A “Live and let live” philosophy.  I require that I be allowed to practice my faith, keep my property, and be free of private or state coercion.  If that does not fit in with your tribe, all well and good.  You work your side of the street, and I’ll work mine. I do not claim to know the unknowable - your statement that I do as well as your last sentence possess nothing but prideful snark, something I would have thought earlier to be beneath you.  Perhaps it is you who are in need of some Christian humility and self-examination.  ST

ouch - snark? you say (St) of my comments, and you thought
previously of me having just met, i was above it? (that
means to me you’re sensitive - sorry.) really.

you must be unstable as an anarchist. don’t it go with
the territory?

have the same things you describe you want in
stability.

that i can be, or anyone - even you can be ‘snarkful’
is the reason for stability via our community…

which ok (you don’t want our community) - wuv’ya mean it - like
hollywood - you’re entitled ‘believe’ you. i have a
sense of humor also, hope you do. plus you exist so do I?

wuv’ya… mean - it. (that’s hollywood for - i’ll diss
ya, at least Not to your face.) funny, right, our world.

luv’ya - mean it. (errrr........

As President, Wilson repeatedly stated in 1919 that U.S. policy was to “acquiesce” in the Balfour Declaration but not officially support Zionism.

I am a Christian free-market anarchist who puts the Risen God before all, temporal and spiritual.

You cant serve two masters Mammon [free-market materialist greed] and God [Spiritual/Temporal]

As we have seen, this free-market thing is nothing more than greed which has cost the tax payes billions if not trillions bailing out the fraudsters of Wall Street who lobbied for the deregulation that is strangling Americas economy today and creating debt peonage.

jet 100% correct (your two posts above this one)
it’s all it is. we’re nothing in the cosmos. we’re a
little bit more than the rest of the nothing since we
became able to be aware of what we are thinking anyway,
consciously and refine it. the other creatures just think
the same things but unconsciously.

they have no chance to refine it and make it better (for
us), like we have… thank god. ? or thank mother Nature
she seems to wanted to have something capable of seeing
her - she’s a woman, after all, right?! So here we are
we see Her, and us ........... under god.

ain’t life grand? best thing to come along to say yes
it’s natural but here’s how to better refine thought what you’re
thinking anyway is christianity…

i defy anyone to show me a better way!? I really do, jet.

To Jeff - Check again regarding who has the stability issue.  Yep, snark can go with anarchism, although personal attacks are foolish as well as against Site rules.  Sorry for my violation.  Worse, unchristian of me.

Jet, please explain to me how you can morally justify taxes.  It is robbery, plain and simple.  I have nver seen you accuse the rotten State of being greedy, when everything it takes is at gunpoint. What is strangling the American economy is the state corporatism that uses the surface trappings of the market in order to grow like topsey until the whole ponzi scheme comes crashing to the ground. What you call greed I call peaceful exchange among parties coupled with voluntary Christian compassion for the less fortunate.  Please explain also how using the State’s fist to take away my God-given rights, foist infanticide on demand, and commit mass murder here and abroad is not serving Moloch.  The State may not be the anti-chr**t, but it will do until the real beast appears.  ST

Paul Gottfried is fascinating as a commentator because he comes close, but not close enough, to shedding the ethnic constraints of the empirical ego in favor of the total abandonment to truth exemplified by the transcendental ego. Few are capable of the sacrifice this entails, as it means finally living as an individual in the truest sense of the word without any of the comforts or props afforded by identification with one’s nominal ethnic group.

Christ, of course is the model, in whose life on earth the love of God and one’s fellow man trumped all other considerations of personal identity. In losing oneself in the pursuit of truth, wherever it might lead and whoever it might offend, and identifying with the suffering of simply the other, one finds one’s true self, or in existential psychological terms, the transcendental ego.

Most of our politics, whether national or international shipwrecks on our inability to come even a little bit close to these ideals.

The short shrift we give to the disposession of the Palestinians is a primary case in point. Most of us in this country cannot identify with their suffering much less begin to understand how we contribute to it.

In Nazi Germany, the confessing church found its soul when it refused to acquiesce in the dehumanizing campaign against the jews and affirmed their human worth and dignity.

If only, Christendom could find its soul now in a like manner and affirm the worth and dignity of the Palestinians as a people. That would mean swimming against some powerful political and cultural currents, but Jesus expected nothing less of his followers, and we should expect nothing less of ourselves.

A pearl from Steven Falls.  Thank you and please write more. Joseph and Ian, if you have blogs I would like to know where to locate them.  ST

Jet, please explain to me how you can morally justify taxes. -ST

Who said I justified them morally? This is your opinion you are placing, unjustly, upon me.

Please rephrase the question.

Jet, how can you claim the freemarket is greedy when it depends on voluntary exchange, while the State cannot exist without morally unjustifable robbery (taxes, the ultimate greed).  ST

Jet, how can you claim the freemarket is greedy when it depends on voluntary exchange. -ST

Okay, lets look at the repeal of the Glass Steagall act which was accomplished thru the Gramm Leach Bliely act.

This is what created the Enron loophole and has led to investment bankers and highly leverage investment vehicles [SIVs] this was not about free exchange but gaming the system for large profits under the guise of ‘free markets’

I understand the concept of free market, and in theory it looks great, however there are people that will, and have, abused the free market system. The subprime mess is directly relates to such abuse of the system.

while the State cannot exist without morally unjustifable robbery -ST

The state can exist without morally unjustifiable robbery. The problem is our servants use government as a means for enriching cronies and repaying the debts they incurred while running for office. Our servants it seems are whores. =) I am not for such a system but it is necessary for taxes to pay for such immoral things as highways and water systems [reservoirs etc]

Now, when the market is not regulated it exerts pressures on other markets. Lets take the high price of fuel generated by futures contracts. It has exerted pressure on the airline [travel market] and forced other csrriers out of business. I doubt they are now rallying for free markets and deregulation.

That said, free Market must then be broken down as it cannot be simply defined as ‘free market’ for it encompasses varying ideologies.

If you are speaking of trade between countries as being ‘free trade’ we traded before NAFTA and CAFTA came about. Why then do we need free trade agreements?

Now, I will have to bring Empire and the NWO into focus, for that is what free trade is really about here, and thats a North American union somewhat following a European model. As a economical conglomerate, US, Canada, Mexico, will be combined, it follows a new monetary order must be created for this N American model, The Amero.

Now, I know many conservatives are nationalist, traditionalists. Yet free market is not in really in those interests. Catch 22.

I understand internationalism and its drawbacks and positive possibilities. We are, as a people, used to seeing geographical borders as part of our identity. Free market breaks down that identity and many people are not, now, for it.

Currently I am against the NWO as it serves a small portion of the population with little regard to what the masses desire.

Steven Falls: Thank you for bringing it back to the source: Jesus. This country was not founded by Talmudic Judaics, but as Chris Moore above explains, they control and have taken us down the wrong road.

The USA was founded by Freemasons, based on the Enlightenment.

Just how is that, philosophically, any different from being founded by Talmudic Judaics?

The “Talmudists” are able to steer the USA because it’s ideology is in no way Christian, but entirely humanistic materialism.

Jet, your responses were reasoned, polite, and lucid.  I will try to reply in knd, but I ask your idulgence in advance for my shorthand, as it is late and I am tired (no rest for the wicked,eh?).
act which was accomplished thru the Gramm Leach Bliely act.

This is what created the Enron loophole and has led to investment bankers and highly leverage investment vehicles [SIVs] this was not about free exchange but gaming the system for large profits under the guise of ‘free markets’

I understand the concept of free market, and in theory it looks great, however there are people that will, and have, abused the free market system. The subprime mess is directly relates to such abuse of the system.

Enron created by crooked businessmen working in cahoots with DC pols for pelf in exchange ofr protection.  The SEC was purposefully in the dark about Enron - it was a furtures trader who studied Enron’s financials who caught the scam.  State failure once again.  Possible solution - private monitors and rating agencies along with private enforcement of anti-theft/fraud laws made as simple and as clear as possible.

“Now, when the market is not regulated it exerts pressures on other markets. Lets take the high price of fuel generated by futures contracts. It has exerted pressure on the airline [travel market] and forced other csrriers out of business. I doubt they are now rallying for free markets and deregulation.

High prices are not caused by futures market but are a market response to inflated frn’s coulpled with market uncertainty caused by - the State in both cases.  Airline industry heavily regulated by the State in exchange for market protection from newcomers.  Scratch far too many Big Businessmen and you will not find freemarketers by socilists/fascists who are willing to game the politically created systems to enrich themselves and their godfathers, the pols and bureaucrats.  Revolving door effect on all levels of gov from the District of Criminals all the way down to dog-catcher.

“

That said, free Market must then be broken down as it cannot be simply defined as ‘free market’ for it encompasses varying ideologies.

If you are speaking of trade between countries as being ‘free trade’ we traded before NAFTA and CAFTA came about. Why then do we need free trade agreements?”

Free market is either free or not.  Unfortunately, most economic activity in US labors under heavy burden imposed by the State for the sake of Big B and Big Gov, and to a lesser extent Big Labor.  NAFTA and CAFTA are no moere free trade than North Korea is Club Med.  Solution:  Real free trade agreement state: There shall be free trade between signatories as long as both parties agree that said trade is in items legal in said signatories countries, or words to that effect.  Our masters sign, end of story.  simple short and sweet.  A freemarket economist at http://www.mises.org or http://www.lewrockwell.com would write it much better than I, but you catch my drift

“Now, I will have to bring Empire and the NWO into focus, for that is what free trade is really about here, and thats a North American union somewhat following a European model. As a economical conglomerate, US, Canada, Mexico, will be combined, it follows a new monetary order must be created for this N American model, The Amero.

Now, I know many conservatives are nationalist, traditionalists. Yet free market is not in really in those interests. Catch 22.

Gold standard possibly along lines recommended by Ron Paul and his ilk is going to replace the dying fiat frn.  All fiats going the way of the dodo.  Freemarket may or may not be in nats or trads interests, but it would nice to let the poor schleps on the street make the decision, not their ‘better’.  If freemarket is halted somehow by State, the ensuing tyranno-chaos will be ugly.

“I understand internationalism and its drawbacks and positive possibilities. We are, as a people, used to seeing geographical borders as part of our identity. Free market breaks down that identity and many people are not, now, for it.

Currently I am against the NWO as it serves a small portion of the population with little regard to what the masses desire.”

I too oppose NWO because it is a state construct meant to further disrupt US independence through the “invade them and then invite them’ State syndrome.  State past master at divide and conquer.  Free markets can preserve various cultures of US.  think Amish, Vermont, grey market urbans, barter.  State is constantly trien to destroy and homoginize, while constantly accruing power to itself.  When the State does anything, always ask cui bono?  It is invariably the state and its ramoras, with minimal trickle-down to the av Joe.

“The state can exist without morally unjustifiable robbery. The problem is our servants use government as a means for enriching cronies and repaying the debts they incurred while running for office. Our servants it seems are whores. =) I am not for such a system but it is necessary for taxes to pay for such immoral things as highways and water systems [reservoirs etc]

It is inherent in the State to rob and expand until collapse just as rain is wet.  At least sexual whores provide a desired service to willing customers - the subject of slavery being another matter.  Free market can provide at least as good if not better services at competitive costs, sans coercion.  See Hans Herman Hoppe on territorial defense, Robert Murphy or Roderick Long on private roads and water, or any of the fine folks at the free-market site I listed above.

Granted, the free market is not a panacea for all issues.  Christianity should guide one’s moral compass, but even a simple personal non-agression pact will do wonders.  I will be happy to see our going to the free market in time.  First, a Constitut gov, Articles of Confed, libertarianism, free market with the flourishing of individuals, families, and communities.  FM is inimical to inflation, cronyism, robbery, and eternal domestic and foreign aggression. Thanks for the chance to praise the FM, Jet.  Looking forwart to your replys.  ST

another fine diagnosis, doctor. keep treating the ziys and ignore the cancer.

Since 1948, the Zionists have corrupted and intimidated Congress in a manner so deadly that we are now on the verge of WW III (or IV depending on perspective).  Anyone in the MSM who dares speak of the Zionist influence in getting us into Iraq deserves a lot of credit. 

So I don’t give a good, fat, flying, flatulent, fiddler’s fuck how Klein’s admirable candor plays into Mr. Gottfried’s wooden definitions of what’s hip and what ain’t in today’s conservatism.  This transcends traditional Left/Right argument. 

What’s at stake here?  I always like to quote the neocon loony Norman Podhoretz, commenting on the consequences of war with Iran (from a WSJ piece): “There would be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. The worldwide outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a love-fest.”

Bravo, Mr. Klein. Despite other sins, real or imagined, you have proved yourself a patriot.

Professor Gottfried, I do agree with you that if Israel bashing hasn’t gone too far yet, it could easily do so.  In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and say it WILL do so unless the politically correct speech codes forbidding any criticism of Jews or Israel are changed.  And that goes for Joe Klein.  The only thing Joe Klein proves is that none of us have real free speech on this matter, and Americans of many political persuasions seriously resent it, me included.

Certainly it is true, as you note, that when one’s enemies are destroying each other, it is prudent to let them.  But the politically correct speech codes make it difficult in this case for them to do even that.

A defense of Joe Klein’s free speech rights is a defense of everybody’s free speech rights.

Cudos to Mike Nolan’s and ST’s posts directly above.
Good stuff and let me only add it’s systemic on account
of the financial system being publically funded, insured,
leveraged though privately owned. That’s what *state-capitalism
is as opposed to its siblings socialism & communism. They’re
really triplets that are the same but of course not identical.

None of them work for very long, it’s just that it’s taking
state-capitalism longer to perish but it may be in its death
throes right now.

“Christ, of course is the model, in whose life on earth the love of God and one’s fellow man trumped all other considerations of personal identity.”

This may very well be true for Christ.  The problem is we ain’t Christ.  Christianity teaches, that unlike God, man has a fallen nature.  Since tribalism is an integral feature of human nature, I think it is safe to assume that God wanted us that way.  If you know of any passage in the Bible proscribing ethnic identity, I’m fascinated.  In fact, the entire Old Testament is a testament to the relationship between God and a particular ethnic group.

No, the universalism you describe is one of the extremely undesirable by-products of the worst excesses of the French revolution.  As with Marxism, deracinated man flies in the face of human nature.  And real conservatives believe we ignore human nature at our own peril.

Tribalism explains why whites will pay many times more for a house to live in their own neighborhoods.  It explains why almost all blacks will vote for Obama.  It even explains many of the worst atrocities of the Nazis and communists. 

The reality of ethnicity and tribalism is something even the Establishment elites are coming to grips with.  See here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87203/jerry-z-muller/us-and-them.html

Quote: “The SEC was purposefully in the dark about Enron - it was a furtures trader who studied Enron’s financials who caught the scam”

Yeah and he was fired by for whistle blowing and you libertarians want to get rid of WB protections.

If it wasn’t for the SEC nobody would caught one who have done something because the big money always buys the “private watchdog”

Quote: “High prices are not caused by futures market but are a market response to inflated frn’s coulpled with market uncertainty caused by - the State in both cases. “

Wrong.

Market uncertainty is cause speculation unrelated to the underlying assets, economic rent, externalities (bad weather, war, car crashes, ship wrecks) etc…

Inflation can run as high 40% and still have excellent growth (see Bruno and Easterly).

Quote: “Free market is either free or not.  Unfortunately, most economic activity in US labors under heavy burden imposed by the State for the sake of Big B and Big Gov, and to a lesser extent Big Labor.”

Nonsense. 1. There is no such a thing as a free market it is a mystification. 

2. Most the heavy burden is imposed on the physical economy aka the real wealth producers. The BS economy of paper shuffling have almost no regulation and oversight and very low taxes compared to every other country. 

3.There is no Big Labor thanks to the anti-free market Taft-Hartley which vulgar libertarians love because it stops free association by workers. Libertarians love capital cartels not labor cartels. “So call Big Labor” is actually big business run made threaten any workers who don’t follow the rules.

4.The tax burden is cause the British system of “free trade” which says domestic must carry all the tax burden while foreigners are allowed to dumb subsidized goods so as to destroy any domestic development.

Quote: “NAFTA and CAFTA are no moere free trade than North Korea is Club Med.”

The No Real Free Trader argument raises it ugly head again. The Free Market is a frictionless surface and utterly useless in the real world just like frictionless surfaces in engineering. 

Quote: “ Real free trade agreement state: There shall be free trade between signatories as long as both parties agree that said trade is in items legal in said signatories countries, or words to that effect.”

No one would ever sign that treaty or would want to. So if Japan subsidizes cars and we don’t we should still allow Japan sell cars here because comparative advantage and BS. consumer surplus (what that is nobody really knows) and we still have free market because socialized car factories are institutional interference? Oh wait, we already did that and look Japan is now #1. Free Trade promotes socialism because all the distortions of socialism for one country must become needed in the other country’s domestic industry or will it be replaced.

Quote: “All fiats going the way of the dodo.”

No they aren’t and commodity based currency has no advantages to fiat.  Money is a fictitious commodities and exists only according to law and custom. The gold standard was part of the economic orthodoxy of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It destabilizing economies all over the globe such as the depression of 1870’s in Europe.

As for all the libertarians are cite I suggest stop reading the British school of Imperial economics aka NeoClassical nutjobs and learn your own history starting with Ben Franklin. After you are done studying the classic American system then I suggest you take a look at “real economics” i.e.  the American Institutionalist School because free markets don’t exist but institutions do.

When I think of israel influence I remember the movie ‘ THunderdome’

Mad Max and Hot Tina Turner, Blaster { America} was a huge powerful giant, stupid though. Upon his shoulders sat a clever little creep who push Blaster into fights { israel] Of course Blaster died.

Tom K. writes. “ is it literally true that ALL of the surviving crew members agree and, if so, what exactly do they agree about (apart from, presumably, regret about the incident: need for hearings? Israeli intent?)

I suppose Prof. Gottfried is right, by definition, in his statement that she wandered “too close” to Israeli-held territory.  Given the outcome, this seems plainly right even though she was in international waters. “

Tom K. and others need only GOOGLE USS Liberty and Israeli attack to determine the reaction of the US Navy to the murder by Israel when the American ship was plainly identified as such.  Pat Buchanan has commented on the vile behaviour of the US Congress after this treachery.

Later they can GOOGLE Paul Gottfried and Liberty to see his reaction.  Many on this board refuse to confront unpleasant facts that deny their wishful thinking.  A great force in covering up the attack was Abe Rosenthal, once editor of the New York Times.  All education will not come from TAKIMAG.

dunnyveg’s post above I concur with. the way to hell is paved with fine intentions
often imagined to be pearls of great price. sometimes the person with such
intentions has a fine character themself.

but christ was the exception to the rule which proves it. as dunnyveg points out we
ain’t god, we ain’t christ… As mere mortals we only can hope to live our lives as
truly as he lived his. we’re ALL tribal by nature and so it is also our human nature
(if you believe in god), then also Under God. even the elites, some of whom have fine
characters some of whom don’t are waking up to the Fact that under God or NOT he has
it rigged that you Can’t fool mother Nature. as dunnyveg also points out.

there is NO beyond the sea here - it’s rigged that way - we’re IN it. HERE we must
see mother Nature and God as if the sea and we are all rivers and rivulets returning
to the far-distant sea of Her and our heavenly father. the notion of ‘transcendence’
out of here while we ARE here is certainly not conservative and i do Not think it to
be christian either. it’s more of a blasphemy in my opinion putting us on a par with
god or Christ. you can’t fool mother Nature; nor God about who is His ONLY son.

i think the holy ghost told me this, so i’m going with it.

“we ain’t Christ”....

man, is this some sorry-assed rationalizing for impending racism, or what?

“we ain’t Christ”....

“man, is this some sorry-assed rationalizing for impending racism, or what?”

Yes.  It does help to believe one is Christ to be an anti-racist.

Septeus7, I thank you for your reply.  I hope to be brief here because I do not wish to hijack this thread about Prof PG’s original topic.  Your response did not miss many of the shibboleths of the Statist school of economics but I would like answer a few of them and then carry on the discussion with you elsewhere.  You said the wealthy buy the watchdog under FM.  They can try, but FM opens up system to consortiums of many smaller investor and rival groups. Let’s put it to the touch and see if opening the system up works.  Now the system under statism is in the hands of the wealthy few with DC protection.  You said no such thing as FM’s.  Correct, thanks to statist interference.  FM is you and I trading for mutual satisfaction without the state standing by to take its cut of the action for no value added.  As a statist, your problem is you want Big Brother to do your thinking for you or to allow you to go back on our exchange if you later feel it was somehow unfair, or to stop me from trading with someone else who pormises better terms than you do. You sound like someone whose says because we have prisons there is no freedom anywhere.  If Japan or any other country wants to subsidize American consumers with ceap autos, who made you and your fellow statists trade gods to stop it?  We did have the conditions you described before in the 70’s, with Detroit dominating the car market in collusion with DC and Big Labor.  The troika gave the lousiest cars in american history - big ugly slow gas guzzling underpowered junk that Detroit said “what are you going to do , buy Japanese?” Toyota and others slapped the smug off the Big Three’s faces despite the lack of a FMYou don’t think the american auto worker lost his comparative advantage with an average package of over 50frn/hour and wage increases based not on productivity and profit but on union intimidation.  We’ve tried it the state’s way and wwhere is the US auto industry now?  Your statement about speculation not being fueled by changing market conditions contradicts reality.  You believe in the tooth fairy state that impartially dispenses goodies for all and stays discreetly in the background, and that if we didn’t have said angel that you and I would be rolling around on the floor fighting over every transaction.  This fairy also somehow possesses magical knowledge of our affairs, needs, wants, and desires, and somehow is granted both the right and the power to stick its nose into every economic nook and cranny.  Sorry, I lost my faith in the State Fairy some time ago.  I believe that adult do not need said fairy to make rational decisions on matters judging our exhanges and the the FM has the most unfettered indicators for how I should decide my affairs.  Do not blame me if you need hand-holding because of the Big Bad boogie man of the FM scares you.  Hire a private nanny from your own dime and leave alone..  Lastly, gold stops unrestrained money printing and inflation - tell a bunch of pensioners how wonderful 40% inflation is, but wear you running shoes. The rest of your dog’s breakfast of economic statism I leave to others to critic.  ST

It’s fun to needle leftists with the fact that rightists despise the war party, though.

I love pointing this out to them and watch the squirming.

Svigor, you are right - it is fun to bug them, esp. if it helps them to think.  Here is one for the anti-gun woman out there: when told by same that I am a criminal or potential criminal because I manage to have a firearm, I as the woman if she has a vagina.  If she responds that she does, then I tell her that she is a real or potential whore.  It usually shocks but may have at least some small effect.  A more polite way to make the same point is to use teeth as the instrument, but I always look around to see if Mike Tyson is listening.  Cars would probably make a safer example then.  ST

Dunnveg writes: “This may very well be true for Christ.  The problem is we ain’t Christ.  Christianity teaches, that unlike God, man has a fallen nature.  Since tribalism is an integral feature of human nature, I think it is safe to assume that God wanted us that way.  If you know of any passage in the Bible proscribing ethnic identity, I’m fascinated.  In fact, the entire Old Testament is a testament to the relationship between God and a particular ethnic group. “

“No, the universalism you describe is one of the extremely undesirable by-products of the worst excesses of the French revolution.  As with Marxism, deracinated man flies in the face of human nature.  And real conservatives believe we ignore human nature at our own peril.”

Of course we have a tendency to be tribal by nature. All you have to do is got to an African country like Kenya and see the 40 some tribes clinging to their tribal languges and customs even as they struggle to function coherently as a nation around a set of constitutional principles that transcends tribal interests.

The tensions that often exist among tribes can be excaberated to genocidal killing as in the case of Rwanda in 1994. When I visited there not long after nearly 1 million Tutsis had been butchered by the Hutus, I asked a Tutsi priest how this was possible since some 65% of the population was catholic. He replied that most of the churchgoers’ faith was too shallow to overcome their tribal suspicicions and resentments. He said only a deeper surrender to Christ could have enabled them to see and appreciate their common humanity as demanding first allegiance.

Recognizing one’s tribal charcteristics in no way means ignorign them or demeaning them, This is the package in which we come, and the world is far more intresting because of them, just as it is far more interesting with blondes, brunettes, and redheads.

The point is not to let these characterstics inform our moral character. The universality implicit in the bible is a universality of the heart, in which we put God and others first. Nothing more.

No political universality ala communism has anything to do with this form of universality as it completely ignores the inner man. But it is precisely in the domain of the inner man, regardless of one’s tribal or ethnic proclivities, that the crucial purifying process has to take place to see the other and his suffering clearly without the tint of one’s group prejudices or aspirations.

When we do that we enter a realm in which true dialogue is possible, with both parties able to see each other for what they are, whether as the favored or the disposessed. This t