“…Nowhere on the planet, nowhere in history, was there a regime more vicious, more bloodthirsty, and at the same time more cunning and ingenious than the Bolshevik, the self-styled regime.
“No other regime on earth could compare with it either in the number of those it had done to death, in hardness, in the range of its ambitions, or in its thorough-going and unmitigated totalitarianism…” Alexander Solzhenitsyn[1]
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Russell Kirk
Among those “Protestant and Catholic auxiliaries,” Kirk could have named people like Jerry Falwell, Michael Novak, William F. Buckley, etc.
Kirk wrote,
“How earnestly they founded magazine upon magazine! How skillfully they insinuated themselves into the councils of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations! How very audaciously some of them, a decade ago, proclaimed their ability to alter the whole tone of the New York Times.”[3]
This assertion is not without merit. Jewish scholar and intellectual historian Stephen M. Feldman of the University of Wyoming declares on the first page of his recent book Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court:
“For more than twenty-five years, starting in 1980, neoconservatives stood at the intellectual forefront of a conservative coalition that reigned over the national government.This has been confirmed and documented by numerous other scholars.[5] Jewish historian Howard M. Sachar himself called this “the insurrections of the intellectuals.”[6]
“Neocons earned this prominent position by leading an assault on the hegemonic pluralist democratic regime that had taken hold of the nation in the 1930s.”[4]
In the 1930s and 40s, the New York intellectuals—namely former Trotskyists, Leninists and Stalinists—“owed their name and distinctness, as a group, to their Jewish origins.”[7] Irving Howe (born Irving Horenstein) would later declare that
“the main literary contribution of the New York milieu has been to legitimate a subject and tone we must uneasily call American Jewish writing.”[8]
Those intellectuals eventually took over some of the major universities in the country and began to use their academic advantage as a form revolutionary cell to destroy the “hegemonic pluralist democratic regime.”
This
revolutionary cell, Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal tells us, found its
political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of
the Talmud.”[9] Even the New Republic complained then that “Trotsky’s orphans were taking over the government.”[10]The late Jewish literary writer A. M. Klein argued that the New York intellectuals were trying to build society “in the shell of the old.”[11]
In short, deconstructing the old conservative world and building a new heaven on earth was the paradigm shift among the New York intellectuals. A classic example would be Jewish professor of philosophy Morris Cohen of the City College of New York.
Cohen would use his class precisely to attack the old conservative view and substitute his own subversive weltanschauung, which he indirectly picked up from the rejection of the moral and political order.
Irving Howe —a member of the Young People’s Socialist League who became a literary critic for magazines such as Partisan Review, Commentary, The Nation, The New Republic, and the New York Review of Books—would later declare,
“You went to a Cohen class in order to be ripped open and cut down.”[12]Philosopher Robert Maynard Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago, would agree:
Howe went on to say that Cohen was “like a fencing master facing multiple foes…challenged students to his left and to his right, slashing their premises, destroying their defenses…”[13]
“He [Cohen] could and did tear things apart in the most devastating and entertaining way.”[14]
Cohen was not the only one. Irving Kristol, when he was at the City College of New York, tried “desperately to manipulate [students] into the ‘right’ position.”[15]
Irving Howe
“did not forsake their Jewish heritage to replace it with another form of cultural identity or ethnic belonging.
“What they sought can be best described as an abstract and futuristic idealism of assimilation qua emancipation in a denationalized and secularized democratic society, ideally of universal scope.
“Leaving the world of their childhood did not necessarily imply its total abandonment in one act of irreversible forgetfulness.
“ For many this departure under the sacred halo of socialism was the next best solution to their own existential problems—a solution that was enormously attractive since it also held out the utopian promise of the ‘genuine emancipation’ of all Jews in a socialist republic of universal brotherhood devoid of national, religious, and social discrimination or even distinctions.”[17]
What actually happened was that Trotskyism, which was promoted in defunct magazines such as Partisan Review,[18] attracted a number of intellectual luminaries such as Richard Rorty of Stanford. Rorty himself viewed Trotsky as a hero[19] and, with Jewish revolutionaries such as Sidney Hook, founded the American Workers Party. Rorty himself admitted,
“I
was just brought up a Trotskyist the way people are brought up
Methodists or Jews or something like that. It was just the faith of the
household.”[20]Rorty admits that books like The Case of Leon Trotsky and Guilty were
“books that radiated redemptive truth and moral splendor… Having broken with the American Communist Party in 1932, my parents had been classified by the Daily Worker as Trotskyites’, and they more or less accepted the description…
“I grew up knowing that all decent people were, if not Trotskyites, at least socialists.”[21]
Biographer and sociologist Neil Grass of the University of British Columbia writes,
“The party [the American Workers Party], with revolutionary aims, was intended as an alternative to both the Communist and Socialist parties and eventually merged with the Trotskyist Communist League.”[22]
How did Rorty view his philosophy of teaching? Pay close attention:
“The Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions.’
“This is the concept the victorious Allied armies used when they set about re-educating the citizens of occupied Germany and Japan.
“It is also the one which was used by American schoolteachers who had read Dewey and were concerned to get students to think ‘scientifically’ and ‘rationally’ about such matters as the origin of species and sexual behavior (that is, to get them to read Darwin and Freud without disgust and incredulity).
“It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.
“The
fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the
entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy. The
parents have a point.“Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students…
“When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization.
“We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank.
“You have to be educated in order to be…a participant in our conversation… So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours.
“I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents…
“I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause. Trotskyism also got dissolved swiftly into neoconservatism, and that movement itself picked up where Trotskyism actually left off.”[23]
Rorty moved on to say that he would literally brainwash his students in order to “re-educate” them. Rorty had some specific students in mind: his “bigoted students of Virginia in 1993.” How did Rorty go about re-educating his students and substitute his worldview? He said:
“I think you have to smuggle some provinciality into your universals before they do you any good.”[24]This “provinciality,” generally speaking, is the idea that truth is relative and that and objective morality is a myth. Listen to Rorty as he hopelessly tries to make the case for uncertainty:
Yet in his classroom, Rorty was literally indoctrinating his student. If “certainty is not a goal of intellectual lives,” why didn’t Rorty act on that basis in his published works? Rorty was certain that injustice is wrong!
Rorty argues ferociously that “ecclesiastical institutions, despite all the good they do—despite all the comfort they provide to those in need or in despair—are dangerous to the health of democratic societies.”[25] For him, this is a non-issue, but “certainty is not a goal of intellectual lives”!
Irving Kristol
This view is compatible with relativism. Moreover, it is consistent with the view that truth is not to be discovered but to be made for the good of the community. Rorty writes,
“Truth cannot be out there — cannot exist independently of the human mind — because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.
“The world on its own, — unaided by the describing activities of human beings — cannot. The suggestion that truth, as well as the world, is out there is a legacy of an age in which the world was seen as the creation of a being who had a language of his own.”[27]
Rorty also said,
“There is no basis for deciding what counts as knowledge and truth other than what one’s peers will let one get away with in the open exchange of claims, counterclaims and reasons. Truth is not out there…”[28]Rorty moved on to say that pragmatists like him should “reduce objectivity to solidarity,” and that does not “require either a metaphysics or epistemology.”[29]
What Rorty ended up proving indirectly is that you cannot deny the moral and intellectual order and still remain a genuine intellectual, no matter how sophisticated you may appear to be.
This was indirectly pointed out by analytic philosopher Simon Blackburn of Cambridge, who wrote that Rorty has an “extraordinary gift for ducking and weaving and laying smoke.”[30]
Rorty
was clearly influenced by logical positivism, a highly superficial
philosophical system that was largely developed by a number of Jewish
intellectuals in the 1920s in Vienna. The goal of that system was to
indirectly and subtly debunk ultimate reality—metaphysical truths that
go beyond the five senses.The system was also an implicit attack on moral and intellectual logos. If something cannot be empirically verified by the five senses, the logical positivist tells us, then it must be rejected out of hand.
For example, if you say to your husband or wife or someone you are dating, “I love you,” the statement is meaningless because it cannot be verified by the scientific method or by empirical evidence.
Yet logical positivism could not gain much ground because its founding principle was self-defeating and therefore worthless as a serious philosophical system. After all, can the proposition “any statement that cannot be empirically verified is meaningless” itself be empirically verified? No. It is an axiomatic proposition—nothing less, nothing more.
Furthermore, the fact is that science itself is based on fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven by the scientific method—assumptions like the universe is rational, that it obeys mathematical and scientific laws, and that the rationality of the universe can be understood and can correspond to the rational human mind.
These assumptions are essential to science and yet they have not been proven by the scientific method. Even mathematics, a highly rigorous form of logic which demands serious concentration and focus, works within the framework of unproved and sometimes unprovable assumptions.
Euclid made it clear in his Elements that postulates in mathematics are “unproved but accepted premises.”[31] Mathematics cannot function without these unproved but accepted premises, and Elements itself has to begin with accepted premises in order to go forward.
Every
student of geometry knows that a line by definition must contain at
least two distinct points. But this is an assumption that has to be
accepted as true in order to make any progress in geometry.Science cannot even prove that there are other minds out there other than your own.[32] Peter Medawar, who won a Nobel Prize in Physiology in 1972, made it clear that science cannot even address some of the basic questions in life. As he put it decades ago in Advice to a Young Scientist,
“There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon himself and upon his profession than roundly to declare – particularly when no declaration of any kind is called for – that science knows, or soon will know, the answers to all questions worth asking, and that questions which do not admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or ‘pseudo-questions’ that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able to answer …
“The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things – questions such as ‘How did everything begin?’; ‘What are we all here for?’; ‘What is the point of living?”[33]
Science cannot prove that you even love your spouse. Listen to Richard Dawkins as he wiggles out of this question when it was posed to him by mathematician and philosopher John Lennox of Oxford:
In the end, logical positivism ceased to carry any intellectual weight and quietly slipped out of academia, although continued to impact some people (including Peter Adkins of Oxford and subtly and perhaps unknowingly Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University) even to this very day.
Jewish philosopher A. J. Ayer[34] tried to resurrect logical positivism in a slightly different tone with the publication of his book Language, Truth, and Logic, but the thesis again lacked intellectual fiber and serious philosophers now simply do not take logical positivism seriously because it is firmly planted in mid-air.[35]
Clinton and Kagan
“Howe always maintained that, whatever their shortcomings, the New York intellectuals achieved something of substantial value in the history of American culture by helping to destroy Stalinism as a force in our intellectual life—though he often neglected to add that many of them were responsible for creating this force in the first place (just as, it might plausibly be argued, their adored hero Trotsky had helped to create the Stalinist monster that destroyed him).”[36]
Bolshevism, as we all know, was a Jewish revolutionary movement. Some intellectuals in the neoconservative movement were indeed against Bolshevism, but those people ended up pursuing Bolshevik ideologies in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
This indicates that the issue is much deeper than Bolshevism: Jewish revolutionaries are pursuing the disputatious heritage of the Talmud, which is based on the rejection of the moral, political and ethical order.
If you doubt this point, read Jacob Heilbrunn’s recent article in the New York Times, in which he specifically argues that the neoconservatives are now supporting both democrats and republicans.
Robert Kagan (husband of Victoria Nuland) and Max Boot are all cheering up for Hillary Clinton for the next presidential bid. Why?
“Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
“It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.”[37]
In other words, if both Democrats and Republicans agree with the neoconservative ideology, the neocons would be more than happy to accept those Democrats and Republicans in the Neo-Bolshevik family.
Once again the war in Iraq is a classic example. The neocons used Bush as a literal puppet, and he just did what he was programmed to do.
Long before he deceived the American people into believing that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, William Kristol informed the Clinton administration that “Saddam Must Go.”
When that didn’t happen during the Clinton administration, the neocon had to find a nice puppet, and it turned out to be George W. Bush. Bush would say things like,
“I’m going to kick this sorry mother fucking ass [Saddam Hussein] all over the Mideast.”[38]Iraq covert operation officer John MaGuire concurred,
“We wanted that fucker dead. We were willing to do anything to get Saddam.”[39]Long before you know, other puppets like Donald Rumsfeld followed suit. Rumsfeld said:
“Sanctions [against Iraq] are fine, but what we really want to think about is going after Saddam.
“Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond it. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about.”[40]
Who is responsible for this?
Once again, Iraq and Afghanistan are case studies. It has been calculated that 1,455,590 Iraqis and 4,801 U.S. military personnel have lost their lives since the Iraq invasion. More deaths are on the way.
Can you imagine how the Zionist world would react if even half of those dead Iraqis were Jews? And the sad part is that many Americans who have been on a steady diet of the Zionist food do not know that Iraqis are literally dying by the thousands. Many of them do not even know that the Palestinians have relentlessly been colonized by the dreadful few in Israel.[41]
Just a few days ago, Science magazine published a study showing that many college students would rather self-administer electric shocks than sit in a room and think for just fifteen minutes.[42]
It is almost no different in the U.K. In fact, “one if five Britons thinks the country fought Hitler in World War I”![43]
Who is responsible for this?
Wae Al-Sallami, now a Ph.D. student who carefully observed the events culminating in the Gulf War and then the Iraq invasion, writes,
“Iraq was safer and much wealthier before any American intervention. It was Americans, their support for Saddam, and later their war and sanctions on him that made Iraq such a terrible place to live. It then shouldn’t come as a surprise that Iraqis had grown sick of their way of life.”[44]
One Pentagon official has recently declared that the situation in Iraq is “so fucked” that it “reads like another chapter in [Robert] Gate’s book.”
In 2011, a former Senate investigator in Washington said the same thing about Wall Street: “Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail.”[45]
If Iraq is screwed up, then should we not at least hold the neoconservatives responsible? Shouldn’t they be put on trial and, if found guilty, be placed in padded cells for the rest of their natural lives?
Is this heaven on earth?
“to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson. A feeling for the land, for its conservation, and for the strong modesty of a traditional patriotism (as distinct from nationalism) none of them has.”[46]
Another unnamed literary scholar provided this damning assertion about the neoconservative movement:
“I believe that the chief enemy of American conservatism has not been the Marxists, nor even the socialist liberals in the Democratic Party, but the Neo-Conservatives, who have sabotaged the movement from within and exploited it for their own selfish purposes.”[47]
As Richard M. Weaver himself put it, ideas are not just mental exercises: they have consequences.[48] And the consequences of the neoconservative/neo-Bolshevik dream have not been good for the United States and much of the Western world. As military historian Andrew J. Bacevich has recently pointed out, this dream always ends up getting America into trouble.[49]
The neoconservatives told us that we needed to oust Saddam, but that got us into a mess. Recently they have told us that we need to support the Syrian terrorists. Now those terrorists are literally crucifying their victims. Nine people were said to be crucified.
Meet Jose Martinez, wounded in Iraq
And how does the Obama administration respond? Well, they tell us that Syrian terrorists—and most of them are partnering with the terrorists in Iraq[52]—need more funding! Obama even asked Congress $500 million for their support, while the U.S. economy is in a sorry state of affair.
And keep in mind that at least 22 veterans commit suicide every single day. Listen to this depressing report by Bill Quigley, Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans:
“A study by the Los Angeles Times found veterans are more than twice as likely as other civilians to commit suicide. Suicides among full-time soldiers, especially among male soldiers, are also well above the national civilian rate.
“USA Today reported a suicide rate of 19.9 per 100,000 for civilian men compared to rates of 31.8 per 100,000 for male soldiers and 34.2 per 100,000 for men in the National Guard.
“Over 57,000 veterans are homeless on any given night according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Unemployment is much higher among post 911 veterans than the general population according to the Department of Labor.
“More than 1.4 million veterans are living below the poverty line according to US Senate report, and another 1.4 million are just above the line. Of veterans between the ages of 18 and 34, 12.5 percent are living in poverty.
“Over 900,000 veterans live in households which receive food stamps reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The use of food stamps by active duty service members appears to be at an all-time high, according to CNN.
“In addition, many active duty service families receive a special military supplemental food allowance designed to replace food stamps for low income service families.”
And get this: Obama asked Congress a total of $65 billion to fund more wars,[53] to kill innocent people in the Middle East, and to send U.S. veterans to their death sentence. There is more: the BBC has recently reported that the UK “planned to trained and equip 100,000 rebels.”
Perhaps it is time for decent Americans to say no more to the Neo-Bolshevik madness. Ben Lorber, in a speech given by Jews for Justice in Palestine, made this powerful point:
Meet Robert Jackson, crippled in Iraq
“We say ‘No More!’ to the Israeli army’s home demolitions, raids, mass imprisonment, detention of youth, and murder of Palestinians in the West Bank.
“We say ‘No More!’ to the brutal shelling of Gaza. We say ‘No More!’ to the crackdown in East Jerusalem. We say ‘No More!’ to the racism, apartheid, and occupation being committed by the Israeli state in our name.”
Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, whose ancestors fled Nazi Germany, would agree. Levy goes further to say that “the youths of the Jewish state” who “are attacking Palestinians in the streets of Jerusalem” are “the children of the nationalistic and racist generation—Netanyahu’s offspring.” Levy continues,
“For five years now, they have been hearing nothing but incitement, scaremongering and supremacy over Arabs from this generation’s true instructor, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Not one humane word, no commiseration or equal treatment…
“The mob was the first to internalize its true significance: a Jewish state is one in which there is room only for Jews.
“The fate of Africans is to be sent to the Holot detention center in the Negev, while that of Palestinians is to suffer from pogroms. That’s how it works in a Jewish state: only this way can it be Jewish…
“In a Jewish state, the High Court of Justice approves the demolition of a murder suspect’s family home even before his conviction. A Jewish state legislates racist and nationalist laws.
“The media in the Jewish state wallows in the murder of three yeshiva students, while almost entirely ignoring the fates of several Palestinian youths of the same age who have been killed by army fire over the last few months, usually for no reason.
“No one was punished for these acts – in the Jewish state there is one law for Jews and another for Arabs, whose lives are cheap. There is no hint of abiding by international laws and conventions.
“In the Jewish state, there is pity and humane feelings only for Jews, rights only for the Chosen People. The Jewish state is only for Jews…
Meet Albert Ross, crippled in Iraq
If decent people like Lorber and Levy can have the moral courage to say what is right, why should decent Americans and the rest of the world be afraid to say the same thing? Why should they not say in public that war criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Obama, and nearly all the neoconservatives be put on trial?
Finally, if decent Americans just continue to stand by and think that the Neo-Bolshevik world will never affect their personal lives, perhaps they should hear the latest NSA leak.
“The agency collected and stored intimate chats, photos, and emails belonging to innocent Americans—and secured them so poorly that reporters can now browse them at will.
“The Washington Post’s latest article drawing on Snowden’s leaked cache of documents includes files ‘described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained’ that ‘tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes.
“The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless.’
“The article goes on to describe how exactly the privacy of these innocents was violated. The NSA collected ‘medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren.
“In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers.
“In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam …’
“Have
you ever emailed a photograph of your child in the bathtub, or yourself
flexing for the camera or modeling lingerie? If so, it could be your
photo in the Washington Post newsroom right now, where it may or may not be secure going forward.“In one case, a woman whose private communications were collected by the NSA found herself contacted by a reporter who’d read her correspondence.”[55]
In response to the article by the Washington Post, Gary Schmitt of the Weekly Standard writes,
“No one likes the government eavesdropping. But, then again, when individuals are not ‘thinking straight,’ and are aiming to wage war against either the public or our military, we ought to want, indeed expect, our government to know that as well.”[56]
Translation: Schmitt would love the government to know what you are thinking because you might be a potential terrorist. If you are not “thinking straight”—and in that case if you do not abide by the Neo-Bolshevik premise, if you are a person like Rachel Corrie—then you are obviously a terrorist and anti-Semite.
If that is their premise, then Jonas E. Alexis is a terrorist and will remain one until the end of time. He will relentlessly attack the Neo-Bolshevik ideology because it seeks to destroy the moral and political order and substitute instead Talmudic metaphysics.
It is high time that decent people say no more to deliberate lies and fabrications; no more to deliberate historical falsifications; and no more to allying with the enemy at the expense of truth. At this juncture in our study, perhaps it is pertinent to listen to the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
“And thus, overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: will he remain a witting servant of the lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?”[57]
YouTube - Veterans Today -
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment