Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, May 18, 2008 12:01 PM

  @william, @l.w.m.

  william, you are doing what I told you I wouldn't let you get away with. You are weaseling around with synonyms and equivocations, trying to avoid the point, which is that even the nastiest neocon will nail you to the wall if you call him a "nazi," because the basic definition of "Nazism" involves anti-Semitism. "Nazism" is not a typological term like "totalitarianism." This is important because there is real, serious depth to these concepts, otherwise the neocons would not have been able to get away with what they have done.

  Formally speaking, in terms of political typologies, there is a case for arguing that Jabotinsky was influenced not only by fascist practice but also by fascist theory. Lenni Brenner has written a lot about this, or rather has collected a lot of historical data about it. But the modern Likud has moved much closer to religious zionism, which as I keep saying is the x factor that ties everything together (even the lunatics in the christian zionist movement).

  l.w.m., yes, I have read that letter, though it is torn out of context and not one of the things I think Scott Horton (whose radio work I like) should be particularly proud of. Strauss was a bit of a phony, in the way he used pseudo-classicism throughout his career, and not much of a Jew (if I may be permitted to say this).

  —Rowan Berkeley Read Rowan Berkeley's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel