Letters to the Editor
-
About the so-called elite
Paul Rosenberg,
Your proposition about self-loyalty being the only loyalty among the so-called "elite" strikes me as true, although I'm also trying to be careful of lumping people into a vague and sometimes mutable American royalty. Which is also a challenge, because I'm the one who keeps applying the label "monarchist" to examples of just that very kind of thing that I see. Dang, life is complicated, even if the high-RWAs imagine it's not.
At any rate, the sort of attitude (is that technically noblesse oblige?) reminds me of Gibson's Tessier-Ashpools.
Admitted science-fiction fan signing off, as usual, with no kings,
Robert
-
rakhia
All really committed zionists are by no means Jews. Millenial Christians by the thousands, maybe millions, believe in zionism as a necessary precursor to the return of Jesus Christ. Many, many zionist neocons are neither Jewish nor millenialists.
You're sadly misinformed, at best.
-
Stymied by slow typing once more!
Well said just now, prunes, and better than I did.
No kings,
Robert
-
OT -- For Clownsense
Thank you.
Their father's hell did slowly go by.
No child of mine will fight, except for love.
-
Memories of Andrew Roberts at University
I was at Cambridge at the same time as Andrew: he was (as his website notes) President of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. This was in the early '80's, just after the and he was an ardent Thatcherite and so very excited about the Falklands war, which had just ended, that he and a number of friends re-enacted the sinking of the Belgrano in punts. Of course, he did not join up to fight, but was enamoured of the glory of victory. I think this may still motivate him today: he seems to care nothing for the costs of Imperialism, and everything for the pomp.
Socially, he was a "Hooray", or Sloane, or Young Fogey. He struck me to be as eager to please as a puppy. This too may motivate him today.
-
Hypocrisy and the charge of "anti-Semitism"
The subject of “anti-Semitism” will be raised and discussed here whenever Glenn so effectively lays bare the moral bankruptcy of the neo-cons and their ideology.
Neo-cons don’t want to discuss what they really believe in because it’s abhorrent to most people, so they attempt to divert the discussion to “anti-Semitism” in a feeble attempt to immunize their beliefs from strong criticism such as Glenn’s.
If they were truly interested in actual “anti-Semitism” they’d be going after people who openly and proclaim their desire to “kill all the Jews,” but those folks don’t really bother them because they also want to bomb Iran; so they’ll overlook actual anti-Semitism because “rapture” believers, Christian Zionism, and the views of someone like John Hagee help to keep their right-wing allies in what neo-cons refer to as “the stupor for which they are supremely fit.” (I wonder what John Hagee and Tim LaHaye would think about being described as "in a stupor?")
Neo-cons don’t want to talk about this fundamental elitism of their ideas, or admit that intellectual dishonesty is an essential part of promoting their ideas; nor do they want to acknowledge the false choices and fictitious claims by which they attempt to frame this entire foreign policy debate.
When people who don’t share their foreign policy goals start discussing those aspects of their beliefs, neo-cons will scream “anti-Semitism!” - but when someone is openly endorsing “the death of all the Jews” they’ll look the other way as long as they want to nuke Iran.
Obviously, hypocrisy is another attribute of the neo-con ideology.
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/nice_bedfellows_youve_got_ther/
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/5/105015/2167/Front_Page/_Pro_Israel_Christian_Leader_Blames_Jews_For_The_Holocaust
-
Absolute principles, not including democracy
Consider what it means that the elected President of a democratic republic doesn't consider public opinion or election results to be an important factor in his decisions or policies, but still claims that he is acting in pursuit of principles which are absolute goods.
First, it means that he does not consider consent of the governed--even the people of his own country--to be one of those principles of absolute good. It it were one of those principles, maintaining the support of his constituents would be a priority, and a prerequisite for continued action. Elections are only important in so far as they are useful or necessary to put power in the hands of those who understand the absolute principles of underlying good. People like the President. Perhaps only the President.
Second, it means that there are principles which are absolute goods. By implication, advancing those principles is more important than obeying the expressed will of the people.
These are not the sentiments of one who seeks to govern, but one who seeks to rule. It is difficult, moreover, to see how these principles would be consistent with ceding power willingly. If there is an absolute good, if a leader knows what it is, if pursuing it is more important than the consent of those he leads, how could he morally step down in favor of one who would pursue different goals, ones which he might even see as evil? How could he stand before God having done so?
-
Robert: I'll See Your Gibson's Tessier-Ashpools
and raise you Delany's Reds.
Old school! Yeah!
-
Bush will step down in 09
For the simple reason he is too lazy to deal with Congressional oversight. He's too dishonest too, but that part doesn't bother him, as Glenn's post shows.
(Sort of back on topic almost.)
-
Short translation:
1) Bush rules by the Fuhrerprinzip - he has direct access to truth, unmediated by democratic processes.
2) There are no objective forces underlying history - history is the history of the Will To Power.
3) The GWOT is a culture war, of Anglophonic supremacy over the lesser people of the world.
At least the neo-cons don't seem to demand lebensraum - otherwise we have the anglo equivalent of National Socialism. Who's our Heidegger?
-
Bush's Avatar
Bush compares himself favorably to Winston Churchill, while many who despise him refer to Adolf Hitler. Glenn's account of his indoctrination made me think of him as Luke Skywalker, obsessed with personally divining the Force (of God).
And we all know who's playing Darth Vader...