A true and honest study of evil and deceitful machinations of how Israel became a state should convince any person of good Christian moral conviction that they do not deserve our support.

Because not giving them support now will somehow “make right” any of those “wrongs”?

Are you simply an isolationist are are there countries in the ME that are more deserving of our support?

bush was right.

reliapundit on June 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Yes.

He can do what he likes. All I was saying is that UKIP do qualify as a rightist party by American standards. So why pretend that the corporatist BNP (who are electorally insignificant) are the epitomie of British or European rightism when they clearly are not? UKIP won 15 seats. The BNP won two.

aengus on June 21, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Uh… I don’t think he was. He was merely pointing out that they are being LABELED far right for the benefit of the more mainstream left… You know, kind of like when Anti-Semites that shoot up a Holocaust museum, hate Fox News, and love them some kiddyprn are automatically labeled as far right without [conveniently] taking into account what it means to be on the American Right.

Why must he applaud those on the “right” for winning elections when he is pointing out that the so called “far right” is not on the right? At least in the American sense.

He can do what he likes. All I was saying is that UKIP do qualify as a rightist party by American standards. So why pretend that the corporatist BNP (who are electorally insignificant) are the epitomie of British or European rightism when they clearly are not? UKIP won 15 seats. The BNP won two.

The bone-stupid Steyn and Morrissey promote this view not because they are smart or know anything about European politics but because it exactly fits with their political prejudices.

Steyn and Goldberg know next to nothing about European politics. They are an embarrasment.

Relying on these people would be like attempting to gain an understanding of American politics by reading Timothy Garton Ash. They’re lazy and not-very-bright writers.

I’m not going to defend Steyn. I don’t read him much. I will say that I find Goldberg clever and witty. Lazy? I don’t know much exactly how much research he puts into his pieces, but I’d say he does a tad bit more than “unnamed others.” So, no, I don’t find Goldberg to be an Embarrassment to the American Right.

Yes the BNP are economic corporatists, which conforms to Goldbergs’s theory that fascism is really a form of liberlism. But has he written about UKIP who won 15 seats in the European Parliament compared to the BNP’s two seats and who are genuinely conservative (in an American sense) on economic matters?

Why must he applaud those on the “right” for winning elections when he is pointing out that the so called “far right” is not on the right? At least in the American sense.

No, of course not. To get an understanding of the political situation in a country you must (at the very least) read a correspondent based in that country. The idea that you can understand a foreign polity by occasionaly casting an askew glance at it (”Europe” in the dumb shorthand that Ed Morrissey uses when he talks about the European Union) is a bad joke.

aengus on June 21, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Again, you don’t really know what askew glances are being cast by whom… I guess you’d have to live with Goldberg/Ed to know this.

Relying on these people would be like attempting to gain an understanding of American politics by reading Timothy Garton Ash. They’re lazy and not-very-bright writers.

Yes the BNP are economic corporatists, which conforms to Goldbergs’s theory that fascism is really a form of liberlism. But has he written about UKIP who won 15 seats in the European Parliament compared to the BNP’s two seats and who are genuinely conservative (in an American sense) on economic matters?

No, of course not. To get an understanding of the political situation in a country you must (at the very least) read a correspondent based in that country. The idea that you can understand a foreign polity by occasionaly casting an askew glance at it (“Europe” in the dumb shorthand that Ed Morrissey uses when he talks about the European Union) is a bad joke.

Mark Steyn, on his web site, linked to this article which was pubslished in the same magazine as his original article and challenges his assertions:

The feeble ‘march’ of Euro-fascism

A true and honest study of evil and deceitful machinations of how Israel became a state should convince any person of good Christian moral conviction that they do not deserve our support. I refer you to two Ashkenazim Jews who were not hardcore ideologues like Muravchik – Israel Shahak and Benjamin Freedman. Both are honest about how the creation of the state of Israel came about, in particular Benjamin Freedman as he was part of the inner circle during the negotiations during the Treaty of Versailles. God bless those men.

I know my position is unpopular here, but eventually our support of Israel will have to be reconsidered. Somehow our nation has been steered towards a radical policy of all Israel all the time. God bless the people there, but I question our alliance with the STATE of Israel. Israel has more domestic spies in our nation than any other “ally”. Yet nobody ever brings that up because they fear being called a name – Antisemite. Need I remind you that Palestinians are semites?

For goodness sakes we must be blunt about this. Our involvement in the ME serves the best interests of Israel not ours.

Again, that makes European rightists Hitlerite which they are not. It’s nothing to do with pureness. If the population of America, which is 300 million, was replaced with 300 million Chinese people it would cease to be America as we now know it. That’s just a fact, even if it makes people uncomfortable.

I do not call these people like say Berlusconi rightist! Let me reiterate that again. If they are rightist, they are in the European definition of the right.

Just the other day I read this (usually don’t read Steyn)

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/18/why-the-fascists-are-winning-in-europe/

Also, I like reading Goldberg…

But more importantly, it matters because one statist faction uses another statist faction to tar anti-statists as fascist. The leftwing and mainstream press in Britain (and America) routinely uses “far right” parties like the BNP to tar mainstream conservative policies. But in most ways the left has far, far more in common with the BNP than the right. Why? Because they’re both leftwing. Or, if you prefer, they’re both statist. Surely, if we should be vigilant about preventing the sort of dystopia the reader clearly fears — and we should — than at least clarifying which parties are statist and which are not is a useful project.

Incidentally, any BBC presenters reading this, why do you keep calling the party “far Right”? Weren’t you listening to Nick Griffin’s acceptance speech? He wasn’t going to talk about immigration policy he said, since everyone knew where he stood on the subject. No, his priority was to expose the way in which public assets had been privatised. Look at the BNP’s manifesto: it wants nationalisation, subsidy, higher taxes, protectionism and (sotto voce) the abolition of the monarchy. And look at where its votes came from. The BNP is a symptom of Labour’s collapse.

…Mousavi is calling for a return to the “pure” days of Khomeini.

Yeah – real democratic alright.

HondaV65 on June 21, 2009 at 7:11 PM

This is my issue with this whole elecions protest business. I just hope the protesters are using the rigged elections as the jump-off point for a deeper reform: Overthrow of the Mullahcracy.

He’s certainly not alone, as this week’s events have shown

Ed … pleae read Mousavi’s Manifesto – it’s linked in the Gary Sick article.

Mousavi hasn’t made the journey to liberal democrat – Mousavi is calling for a return to the “pure” days of Khomeini.

Yeah – real democratic alright.

Again, it is a European problem. They can worry about their “pureness.” I don’t care. Look how well things have been going for them…

Again, that makes European rightists Hitlerite which they are not. It’s nothing to do with pureness. If the population of America, which is 300 million, was replaced with 300 million Chinese people it would cease to be America as we now know it. That’s just a fact, even if it makes people uncomfortable.

Well, in all fairness to the Israelis, they’ve absorbed a large amount of Jews from very, very diverse backgrounds…

Actually that’s true, Israel is a multi-racial country. You’ve just solved for me a problem which have been turning around in my brain for a long time. Israeli ethno-nationalism is not condemned by liberals in the same terms as European ethno-nationalism because Israeli ethno-nationalism is not exclusively concerned with ethnicity.

I think you are selling them short. I haven’t heard of the “Keep Israel Sephardi” mantra… That said, they do have their problems.

I’m only talking about liberal attitudes towards Israel, not the Israelis themselves. In fact what I favour the non-liberal stances taken by Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beitnu over what Caroline Glick calls “post-Zionism”.

I understand the objection but do your Italian friends advocate that Italy should secede from the European Union? If the answer is no then they are not serious small-government conservatives. Any European who is favour of EU membership is by definition an advocate of big (gigantic actually) government.

Oh… they are far from small government cons. This is why I can tease them and I relish it.

The snag is that there is an “American people” and an Italian race. The attempt to make an “Italian people”, a “Swedish people”, a “French people” has already been a huge failure and now another huge European war will commence as a result of this failed social engineering.

Again, it is a European problem. They can worry about their “pureness.” I don’t care. Look how well things have been going for them…

One of the reasons I oppose the utopian “democratic” social engineering experiment in Iraq is because I realise that the initial model, in post-war Europe, has been such a failure. Hitler was a racialist psychotic and in reactionary fashion we have all become anti-racialist psychotics. But if Jews deserve their own homeland (and they do) then so do Britons, Italians, Dutchmen etc.

aengus on June 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Well, in all fairness to the Israelis, they’ve absorbed a large amount of Jews from very, very diverse backgrounds… Yes, there are some that feel threatened, but they aren’t doing bad considering they have Jews and non-Jews from every corner of the earth… I think you are selling them short. I haven’t heard of the “Keep Israel Sephardi” mantra… That said, they do have their problems.

Finally, just because Israel does it, doesn’t mean the Europeans have to. Thank goodness that we Americans don’t follow in the footsteps of the Europeans.

He wants too much power. He doesn’t want a small enough gov’t.

I understand the objection but do your Italian friends advocate that Italy should secede from the European Union? If the answer is no then they are not serious small-government conservatives. Any European who is favour of EU membership is by definition an advocate of big (gigantic actually) government.

This is something that is a European problem, but I’ve never understood the “Keep Italy Italian” call. I’m thinking “Keep America American” has a much different conotation than “Keep Italy Italian.”

The snag is that there is an “American people” and an Italian race. The attempt to make an “Italian people”, a “Swedish people”, a “French people” has already been a huge failure and now another huge European war will commence as a result of this failed social engineering.

One of the reasons I oppose the utopian “democratic” social engineering experiment in Iraq is because I realise that the initial model, in post-war Europe, has been such a failure. Hitler was a racialist psychotic and in reactionary fashion we have all become anti-racialist psychotics. But if Jews deserve their own homeland (and they do) then so do Britons, Italians, Dutchmen etc.

progressoverpeace on June 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Interesting.

Hm, well I don’t want to sound contentious but Berlusconi is one of the very few politicians that I actually admire. I’m a pretty serious immigration restrictionist so I am glad that he wants to keep Italy Italian (or so he says). I just wish he would hurry up and deport more immigrants while there’s still time.

aengus on June 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM

He wants too much power. He doesn’t want a small enough gov’t. This is something that is a European problem, but I’ve never understood the “Keep Italy Italian” call. I’m thinking “Keep America American” has a much different conotation than “Keep Italy Italian.” I could be wrong, but the first suggest to preserve a set of ideals that can be equally applied to anyone willing to participate in the American Dream. The later has a much more racial connotation. Further, who really cares if Berlusconi can or can’t speak Latin? He sure seems to care. This would be like asking our Presidents if they could speak Onödowága. In the end, it’s more identity politics – and boy are Europeans good at this…

That’s for sure. I always enjoy teasing my Italians friends… They have to admit that an American conservative would be better than Berlusconi any day…

Hm, well I don’t want to sound contentious but Berlusconi is one of the very few politicians that I actually admire. I’m a pretty serious immigration restrictionist so I am glad that he wants to keep Italy Italian (or so he says). I just wish he would hurry up and deport more immigrants while there’s still time.

We are not supposed to be a democracy. Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

The Monster on June 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Had to finish the Quote.

Democracy was left to the States-a republic to the nation.

Question: Why does the Constitution say (Article IV, Section 4)

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Answer: because Democracy was never left to the States.

We are not supposed to be a democracy. Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

Vagueness is no good. The “right” in Europe covers the entire political spectrum from right to left.

aengus on June 21, 2009 at 6:04 PM

That’s for sure. I always enjoy teasing my Italians friends… They have to admit that an American conservative would be better than Berlusconi any day…

I think you overstate. The Founders did not hate democracy, just thought it to have enough flaws as to not sustain a new Nation. Democracy was left to the States-a republic to the nation.

I suggest you brush up on your founding fathers. To Quote Thomas Jefferson (the most democratic of the founding fathers)…

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

Even if this was a ‘pure’ democracy… Ben Franklin adds:

We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy… It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

Your point about personal property is dully noted. However, followed to it’s conclusion, it is CAPTIALISM that insures liberty. A point lost on the socialists, no matter how many times the try and fail.

Browndog on June 21, 2009 at 5:32 PM

A free society requires a free market. Capitalism is just as much as an integral part of Liberty and freedom just as much as state control of everything is an integral part of Communism.

To put it in plain English for the rubes… It’s a package deal. You can have a free government and a free market… or you can have communism and state control of everything.

I also think that it’s interesting to see what’s happening with the so called “far right” in Europe that is anything but on the right…

Fascism is on the rise…

Upstater85 on June 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Well that depends on who you’re talking about. There are parties that are nationalistic but to the left on economic matters. The Jobbik party in Hungary are unreconstructed ex-Communists.

There are also parties that are to the right of the Republicans on economic and social issues. UKIP and VB are genuinely libertarian on economic issues. Abortion is illegal in Ireland.

Vagueness is no good. The “right” in Europe covers the entire political specturm from right to left.

http://www.iranian.com/main/node