As Michael Corleone said at the conclusion of the Godfather,

“Today I am settling all my accounts”.

Would that this were true when the war is over. I do fear that, having begun the dialetical process by accepting the thesis of regime change in Iraq (not a bad leitmotif, that), the antithesis of an enforced two-state solution in Israel and Palestine will most assuredly ensue. And therefrom will emerge the synthesis of a newer world order, whose contractions once again expose the concupiscience of the human condition.

President Edwards will cut a fine figure on the international stage, as Patrick and Pat perform their jig on the grave of yet another Bush presidency, what - with another assist from
Ross ?

But, hey, gang - the war’s going fine. Our troops are so great, in such fine and fighting trim. Why not relax and enjoy the war while it lasts ?

Well, if Hegel knew his ass from a hole in the ground, you might have a point. But he didn’t, so your analysis unfortunately comes to nothing.

This is a good comment by Mr. Kalb.

I do not view neoconservatvism as conservatism, but as anti-Marxist liberalism. That is, during the post-World-War-II period, and especially during the period from the 60s until the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, which collapse took place suddenly from 1989 to 1991, many liberals were either closet Marxists, OR were unclear in their own minds but were strongly, knowingly enticed in the direction of Marxism, OR thought they were clear in their own minds in opposing it, but kept continually serving as almost willing useful idiots of the Marxists.

The neoconservatives are distinct from the liberals essentially only in that they are completely clear in their own minds, and one-hundred percent explicit and unequivocal in their writing and public utterances, that they completely, totally, absolutely reject Marxism.

This is highly commendable. But there is mischief and foolishness in the world apart from Marxism, and they unfortunately buy into lots of it. There is deceit and there is hypocrisy in the world too, and they unfortunately practice lots of it, the worst example in my opinion being (which I scarcely need to repeat on a blog site where both of the bloggers, and many of the reader-commenters, have so often pointed it out and condemned it) their inconsistent support of the idea of “nation-state” and the legitimacy of the “ethnic principle” in a country’s demographic planning and policies, fervently opposing these for some countries and approving them for others.

By “the legitimacy of the ethnic principle,” I mean the legitimacy of a country’s taking reasonable steps to preserve not just its traditional language, culture, religion if it likes, form of government and other institutions, etc., but also its traditional race or ethnicity if its majorities happen to prefer the preservation of that dimension as well along with all the rest. In fact, there are those who view the preservation of THAT as being primoridial — having even GREATER importance than the preservation of the others, because once lost the others can be retrieved in time, this not.

Prof. Chomsky calls the ethnic principle evil for all countries. He couldn’t be more wrong in that view but at least applies it consistently to all countries even to the detriment of Zionism wherewith he, as a Jewish-American, might harbor sympathies.

Both Pat Buchanan (“in effect” in Pat’s case, if not explicitly, in black-and-white, in actual words) and the neocons (who do it explicitly, in black-and-white, in actual words) call the ethnic principle evil for some countries but not for others. That they cannot do.

The other foolishness of the neocons (and maybe also of Shawn, whose posts are generally brilliant by the way) is that of not minding their own business. We can’t re-make the world in the image of Leave-it-to-Beaver, nor should anyone want to. If other peoples, cultures, and societies like Leave-it-to-Beaver then they’ll take steps to adopt that on their own. Whether they do or not is none of our business.

We all know that our side, the traditionalists, are the real multi-cultis, unlike the false liberal-leftist ones. We are the real ones because we, unlike they, respect other cultures and do not demand that any change to suit us. When we travel or read or study, we bask in other cultures and respect them, and wish never to disturb them, just as we bask in our own when we are home, and want to preserve it. Enough said on that?

About Israel:

1) It is part of the Euro West even though many Christians and many Jews don’t think so, and the Euro West (which includes the entire Anglosphere) should root for it and protect it and never abandon it to the wolves.

2) I believe the way to cement Israel’s security into the future is not by changing the Near East and the Middle East into the Culver-City Leave-it-to-Beaver sound stage (a project which is both impractical AND morally wrong-in-itself on the grounds that others have a right to their culture too), but rather to let Israel expand. Israel because of its tiny size is like a salient is on a battlefield — hard to defend and forever inviting attacks.

Israel is not part of the “Euro West” by any stretch of the imagination. The Jews are an armenoid people; Yiddish does not belong to the Indo-European language group; Judaism is an inclusive, tribal religion, as opposed to Christianity, which is universalistic; and the Jews have a totally different folk memory than European gentiles.

It’s interesting to note that Jews, more than any other group, have devoted their energies into transforming the Euro West into a multicultural society, while promoting ethnic supremacy in Israel. This is hypocrisy.

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/paper/ABERNET3.PDF

Correction — I meant to say that Hebrew does not belong to the Indo-European language group. I am not sure if Yiddish does or not.

“The other foolishness of the neocons (and maybe also of Shawn, whose posts are generally brilliant by the way) is that of not minding their own business. We can’t re-make the world in the image of Leave-it-to-Beaver, nor should anyone want to.” — Unadorned.

With respect I think this is a distortion of my stand and even of that of many neocons. I do not want to remake Arab culture into a mirror image of America. Constitutional democracy, God given rights and limited government are possible in Arabic cultures as they are anywhere. It does not require turning a culture into America Lite.

It does however require some cultural change. In the long run, unless we promote, through a mixture of diplomacy and force, such change, then we will be right where we are in fifty years, because the issue of Islamic militancy is at heart a cultural issue. If we pretend that we can defend ourselves in the long run from militant Islam, without changing government structures and the cultural underpinnings of the ideology, then we are fooling ourselves.

Having said that I agree with much of the rest of your post, especially on Israel.

“Israel is not part of the “Euro West” by any stretch of the imagination. The Jews are an armenoid people; Yiddish does not belong to the Indo-European language group; Judaism is an inclusive, tribal religion, as opposed to Christianity, which is universalistic;” — Telos.

If the Euro West is in any way a Christian culture, then in fact we are one and the same people as the Jews. Jews and Christian live in the same house, under the same God, and are co-heirs of His promises and blessings. The Jews are God’s first Chosen. The Christian Church is grafted onto the tree of Judaism as Paul makes clear. Therefore, the cause of Christendom and the cause of Judaism, are one and the same.

That some liberal Jews are part of the adversary culture is no different than the fact that so are some Euros.

The argument that Jews as a whole have been more responsible than any other group for the liberal multi-culti assualt on Euro-American Christendom whitewashes the far more important role of Protestant, Catholic and Atheist liberals, and is best left in the anti-Jewish conspiracy theory box along with Israeli complicity in 911 and ‘The Protocals of the Elders of Zion’.

I believe that Mr. Kalb makes some very good points. However, he misses some aspects where Neoconservatives break with liberals.

Neocons are universalists, but not multi-culturalists or unilateralists. Rather, they are Western triumphalists. They believe in the universalist Americanism of the “melting pot” along with a progressive, but unobtrusive government. It is no coincidence that so many neocons adore Teddy Roosevelt or that most neoconervative intellectuals were children of immigrants.
Neocons wish to use the ersatz Americanism as the goal for the rest of the world.

Telos’s claims that Jews are not part of the West are almost laughable.
Western Civilization is the product of Rome, Athens, and Jerusalem. Christendom would not exist without the Jews. Moreover, Jews have not been truly distinct from the west. Jews lived in England before the Angles, France before the Franks, and in Hispania when they were being Romanized. For 1800 years, Jews have lived in Europe and contributed to its cultural and historical development.

Telos is incorrect in saying that Yiddish is not an indo-European language. Yiddish is based on Old German with Slavic and Hebrew elements. Likewise, Ladino, the language of Sephardic Jews, is a mixture of Old Spanish, Provencal, Arabic, and Hebrew.

Jews are a very heterogeneous people, but the ethnic core and language is Semitic.

I find Telos’s complaint that Judaism is tibalistic to be ironic in this forum. One would think that Paleoconservatives would appreciate this aspect of the religion.
They should support this aspect of modern Israel. Unfortunately, certain bitter elements prefer top hate Israel and Jews than consider what it does to their own ideological consistency. (I would also note that liberal Jews are undermining Israel even faster than they are America.)

The Paleoconservative vision for America is to be a light unto the nations with a common culture and language. That is rather close to the traditional Jewish view of the role of Israel.

The Messianic universalism that is so beloved by Jewish neoconservatives is based on Christianity. Paul’s Christianity was a Judaism for the Hellenic communities and Rome. The neoconservative dream for the world is non-particularistic Americanism.

It seems to me Ron’s comments are consistent with mine. One way the neocons try to restrain philosophical liberalism and give it stability and order is to tie it to a particular nation and political order that they then universalize and make identical with their version of liberalism. America therefore becomes a propositional nation. Since the proposition in question is universal freedom and equality, it also becomes a universal nation. To make that good, of course, they must control public symbols and discourse.

Ron begins his post by repeating an oft-heard canard uttered nowadays by Christians: “Christendom would not exist without the Jews.” Ron credits the very same people who, according to the New Testament, did everything in their power to prevent Christianity from seeing the light of day, for the *existence* of Christendom. Perhaps Ron is unaware that the Pharisees persecuted Christ until he was handed over to the Romans for crucifixion, where a screaming Jewish mob threatened to riot if his death was not carried out? I wonder also if Ron is aware of the film Mel Gibson has recently directed, which depicts Christ’s final hours on earth? Gibson’s film has been censured by several Jews groups and rejected by every major Hollywood studio because it is supposedly a normative account of Christ’s final hours, that is, the account given in the New Testament. If it had not been up to God, but the Jews, Christianity would not exist.

“Moreover, Jews have not been truly distinct from the west. Jews lived in England before the Angles, France before the Franks, and in Hispania when they were being Romanized. For 1800 years, Jews have lived in Europe and contributed to its cultural and historical development.”

The Jews were confined to Europe’s urban areas from the middle ages onwards where they became involved in finance and moneylending. They were expelled from nearly every European country from the early middle ages until the late 19th century. So while the Jews inhabited Europe for over a millenia, they remained estranged from the native gentile population, which grafted a completely different folk memory onto the Jews than that of the native gentile population.

“Telos is incorrect in saying that Yiddish is not an indo-European language.”

You are setting up a straw man. I subsequently corrected myself.

In Ron’s concluding paragraphs, he acknowledges that Judaism is a tribalistic religion, but says I, being a paleo, should appreciate this! In other words, I should appreciate the gradual dissolution of my country into a multicultural, secular hellhole, which has largely been orchestrated by a Jewish sub-group that preaches ethnic supremacism in Israel while advocating and designing policies to undermine America’s white gentiles. The only “irony” I can detect is when Ron informs me that I’m the inconsistent one. I can only conclude from Ron’s remarks that he believes paleos should be masochists.

Ron, however, is no where near as bad a propagandist as Shawn, who evidently hates the Catholic church.

Telos writes:
“In other words, I should appreciate the gradual dissolution of my country into a multicultural, secular hellhole, which has largely been orchestrated by a Jewish sub-group that preaches ethnic supremacism in Israel while advocating and designing policies to undermine America’s white gentiles.”

Of course the notion that the self-destruction of the West is being brought about primarily by “a Jewish sub group” is ridiculous and unfair. But possibly even more important is the fact that attempts to focus blame on such a narrow and counterfactually demonized cause protects the actual causes from criticism and prevents the true inner repentance that is necessary in order for the West to be saved. Those who engage in such integrist demonization of “a Jewish sub group” as “largely orchestrating” the self-destruction of the West are every bit as complicit in that self-destruction as Catholic-hating protestant American triumphalists. The commonality resides in the creation of a wall of lies that stand between the West and salvific repentance; and the substantive difference is only in what particular wall of lies is asserted to exempt the particular speaker from the requirement to repent.

“Of course the notion that the self-destruction of the West is being brought about primarily by ‘a Jewish sub-group’ is ridiculous … . But possibly even more important is … that [it] PROTECTS THE ACTUAL CAUSES FROM CRITICISM … [emphasis added]” — Matt

Amen, Matt.

Telos wrote:
“If it had not been up to God, but the Jews, Christianity would not exist.”

This of course is true, in the usual way of half-truths. If it hadn’t been up to God, Christianity would not exist. By inserting “but the Jews” Telos constructs a wall of lies between the West and repentance, as though Western gentiles are pristine innocents not in need of repentance rather than damned souls dependent upon Christ — the King of the Jews — for salvation.

What about blaming the Masons? I’ve never met a Mason, but years ago I was hanging out with some traditionalist Catholics who thought everything wrong with the modern world was the work of the Masons. I said to them, if it’s all the fault of the Masons, this invisible group that nobody has even seen, what are we supposed to do about that? How does this help us understand our modern dilemma or offer guidance on how to solve it? My argument didn’t sway them. They repeated that it was the Masons. That was it.

” … Western gentiles are … damned souls dependent upon Christ — the King of the Jews — for salvation.” — Matt

Telos, doesn’t that sentence alone tell you Jews are an integral part of the West?

Of course, before it married Jerusalem the West existed in the form of the great pagan classical civilizations of Europe which are our beloved secular foundation. Since it and the Christian branch of Judaism married each other the West has been irrevocably intertwined with Jerusalem and Jerusalem with it.

The West, to be sure, has two halves: pre- and post-Jerusalem. Since Roman emperor Constantine’s time it cannot be separated from Jerusalem, though the two were indeed entirely separate theretofore. Until the day before Constantine converted the Roman Empire one could have said Jews were not part of the West.

Ever since, they’ve been knit inseparably together, a union clearly wished and wrought by God.

As a Catholic who married the granddaughter of Masons, I can attest that there is — shall I call it a sub group? — of Masons who hate Catholics and actively work against the Church. Masonic practice of cremation was specifically asserted to undermine the Catholic doctrine of the resurrection of the body, for example.

Acknowledging those sorts of things as fact isn’t the fundamental problem: in fact failing to acknowledge them is also a problem. The more fundamental problem is that when evil on a large scale — for example the self-destruction of the West — is narrowly attributed in plenary fashion to one cause as primary (in actual fact a minor contributing cause if a cause at all), that intellectual act hides all other actual causes. A lie formed of a half truth becomes a justification for self righteousness, for avoiding repentance. Thus the groups in question — the Masonic sub-group and the Jewish sub-group and the anti-Semitic Catholic sub-group and the Catholic-hating protestant triumphalist sub-group, etc. — are all unwittingly working toward the same goal: the prevention of repentance and the destruction of the West.

Unadorned writes:
“Ever since, they’ve been knit inseparably together, a union clearly wished and wrought by God.”

One can’t help but wonder if Telos wishes that the Jewish Christ had remained messiah for the Jews alone, that this holy union had never occurred, that the Jew Saul had been sick the day he was supposed to travel to Damascus, and that gentiles had been left in outer darkness and damnation. In the end the desire not to repent is a positive desire for damnation.

Jim’s comment that America is both a propositional and a universal nation rings true. But the problem he asserts about the elites having to maintain control of political symbols “and discourse” to maintain this equation doesn’t pass the test of philosophy. At the conclusion of Voegelin’s “New Science of Politics”, the author points out that England and the United States have been the most resistant to “gnostic totalitarianism”, and have also better preserved the traditions of Western culture better than the continental democracies.

http://www.salamander.com/~wmcclain/ev-nsp.html#VI

Neoconservativism may or may not deny the gnostic elements that reside in modern Western culture. But it would be ridiculously suppressive not to understand that the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein (to say nothing of the Islamist radicalism of Osama Bin Laden) is none other than the Arab form of the very same gnostic world-smashers that England and America have fought so successfully in Europe, old and new.

After Matt’s profound point this will just be a side light.

Matt writes: “Masonic practice of cremation was specifically asserted to undermine the Catholic doctrine of the resurrection of the body, for example.”

The one Masonic-related funeral I know of was that of George Washington at Mount Vernon. I participated in a re-enactment of the funeral procession a couple of years ago, and, as I remember, he had his local Masonic brotherhood or whatever organize the service though there was also an Episcopal priest presiding. But Washington was not cremated of course. His body and Mrs. Washington’s were later moved to another site at Mount Vernon, where they can be seen today. On the wall of the small structure holding the coffins are the words from John: “I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live”—the very idea that Matt says the Masons reject. So Washington, though a Mason, was I guess not a very orthodox one. And perhaps that’s true of other important Americans who were Masons.

So what this all means, in effect, is that the United States and its government represents a universal, albeit a temporal world order - the “Novus Ordo Seculorum”. It is a gnostic position and a heresy to divinize this identity, making the US into the representative of a “new cosmic order” that is both universal and divine. This problem is the central issue in international politics today. Neither Rome nor the United Nations holds a universally recognized and legitimate claim to represent that order which is both universal and divine, by which they may assert supremacy and authority over the actions of the American government.

Here is an interesting take on the matter, written from a Catholic perspective:

http://www.claremont.org/writings/021223masugi_b.html

I know rather little of Masonry beyond personal experience of some particular Masons, so I wouldn’t be able to say what is an is not orthodoxy for a Mason (just to clarify).